Reasons you should not believe in evolution:

1) Lifeforms always produce the same basic kind - Chickens come from chicken eggs, chicken eggs come from chickens; grapes come from grapevines, grapevines comes from grape seeds, grapes seeds come from grapes, flies come from maggots, maggots come from flies, dogs always have dogs, cats always have cats, apes always have apes, and humans always have humans. This is all that has ever been observed, and it has been one hundred percent consistent with no exceptions world-wide for thousands of years, so why should we believe that one kind of lifeform can change into a different kind in the unobservable past when it does not happen in the present? Isn't the present the key to the past?

2) The Geologic Column is supposed to be made of layers which represent different ages, and laid down over millions of years. In some areas fossils have been found (mostly trees) which go vertically through different layers. Since a tree will completely rot in a few hundred years it could not have stood upright for millions of years waiting for the soil to gradually build-up around it. Why should we believe that each layer represents millions of years of time when the entire layer has not been checked to see if it is connected to the ones above or below it by a buried tree? Isn't the proclamation that the layers of the earth (of which only a tiny fraction of one percent have been excavated) represent millions of years a hasty, liberal, and unscientific conclusion to come to? If you read less than one percent of any book would you boldly proclaim to understand it, and then have the arrogance to teach others about it as if you had read all of it? Would you also ridicule anyone who challenged your knowledge of the book? How do we know that a fossil in the Triassic and one found below it in the Permian isn't only a few hundred yards away from a buried tree which connects both layers, but just hasn't been discovered yet?

3) Fossils are "dated" several different ways, yet all of the techniques are flawed because they all require the results to be interpreted and "bad" dates filtered from "good" dates. Every "date" is tentative and revisable, and no consistent and unbiased way to date fossils exists - if somebody tells you differently then they are either ignorant or lying. Fossils are dated according to which layer they were found in. The layers are dated two main ways: By the pre-existing "Geologic Column" (a drawing in textbooks which already has dates assigned to the layers by somebody at some point in the past making a guess as to how old it should be according to evolution) and by Radiometric dating. Radiometric dating results give a range of "dates" and the evolutionist selects which one is closest to what it should be according to the pre-existing and prevailing beliefs about the fossil and evolutionary theory. If the date they're looking for doesn't show up in the results they make excuses as to why they need to retest it until they get what they're expecting. If the results are irreconcilable (which they often are) the results are easily dismissed by picking from a long list of excuses such as contamination, yet they only recognize contamination after the results are examined. Hmmm... They find a fossil, "date" it to see where it fits into evolutionary history, choose the date which most closely matches what they were expecting - or pick one that they need in order to make some other fossil fit better - and then claim to have once again confirmed evolution! So, if the way the layers are dated is not trustworthy then how can we trust the dates put on the fossils which were found within them? If the dates can't be trusted then how can we trust the sequence of the evolution of life taught in textbooks if that sequence is based upon the dates?

4) Some creatures found fossilized deep in the ground, such as coelacanths, and described by evolution as being hundreds of millions of years old, still have descendants living in the ocean today which look just like their fossilized ancestors. Why didn't they "evolve" into something else which was better suited to the environment and thus eventually get replaced? If these living descendants were not found then wouldn't evolutionists still be claiming that the coelancanths are a missing link, and walked onto land with their lobed fins (something completely disproven by actual observation of living ones) -  things imagined by evolutionists and firmly taught before living examples were found? How do we know that what evolution teaches today about fossils of which no living descendants have been found and studied is accurate when it is based on just as much imagination and speculation?

5) There is no single definition of "evolution" which all evolutionists agree on, so how can we know which version is being talked about when somebody proclaims it as being a fact? If one version is a fact then aren't all of the others at least partially wrong? I've noticed that defining "evolution" is alot like a shell game, except there is no pea under any shell. Maybe the definition is left vague intentionally so that it can never be disproven - kind of like playing football against a team who keeps moving the goalposts. You're not allowed to score, so you're not allowed to win.

6) Ninety-five percent of all fossils ever found are marine invertebrates, yet looking at the "Geologic Column" in textbooks leads us to believe that dinosaurs and other land creatures are represented in equal numbers in the fossil record. Why is so much emphasis placed on dinosaurs when so few were fossilized? Shouldn't evolutionist be focusing on clams, the most abundant fossil, to make the best case for their theory?

7) Fossils are buried mostly in layers of sediments which have hardened into stone when a mixture similar to sidewalk cement trapped the creatures the fossils came from. This process has never been observed in the present, so why believe that the same processes which we observe today have occurred throughout history? Also, why are the layers cemented together and throughout in the first place? If soil built-up gradually over millions of years wouldn't it only get compacted, rather than bonded together? It is very easy to preserve a creature if you mix a bag of concrete and pour it onto it, but try to preserve it by slowly putting a little dirt on it at a time and see what happens. A creature won't get preserved even if you put alot of dirt on it quickly - it has to be put into a cement-like mixture. If the fossils were buried suddenly, in flood-conditions, and the sedimentary layers are consistently cement-like and connected to each other with polystrata fossils, then isn't it reasonable to assume one large flood event did all of it at once rather than millions of little flood events scattered throughout millions of years? Isn't the least required to explain something the best explanation? If you see a car-wreck involving two cars don't you assume that only one car put all of the dents on the other, rather than many other unseen cars hitting it individually?

8) Some layers of the earth are hundreds of feet thick and distinct from the layers above and below it. If the layer represents millions of years of deposition then why did it switch from one kind of sediment into a different kind instantly - in most cases not even a razorblade can be inserted inbetween the layers? If these layers built-up slowly over millions of years then why is there no topsoil mixed throughout them? Didn't plants grow on that land during all of that time? And why is the soil we walk on today so different from the sedimentary layers the fossils are buried in? If the present is the key to the past then shouldn't the fossils be buried in the same stuff which is building-up on the surface today?

9) About 70 to 75% of the earth's crust is sedimentary. About 70 to 75% of the surface of the earth is covered by water. Why is it unreasonable to believe that at some point in the past the remaing 30% of the surface of the earth was under water also, like the Bible says? Large pockets of water trapped underground have been documented. If that water emptied onto the surface then that cavern would collapse and create a depression which would fill with water on the surface. What is wrong with believing that alot of the ocean's floor used to be higher than today, with pockets of water trapped beneath it which broke open during the great flood of Noah's day, collapsed, and created a depressed area which filled with water?

10) There are genetic limits to the amount creatures can change. This has been confirmed over and over again, beginning with Gregor Mendel and his experiments with pea plants. If it is a fact that lifeforms have limits to the amount they can change over many generations then how can evolution be a fact when it claims that there are no limits to the amount of change? Evolution clearly teaches that fish turned into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, and reptiles into mammals. Let's not forget that the fish came from a macromolecule eventually, and the macromolecule came from rocks which were rained on. Scientific experiments have proven that fish only produce fish, amphibians only produce amphibians, reptiles only produce reptiles, and mammals only produce mammals. Also, rocks only produce rocks;-) Why do the unlimited changes always take place in the distant, hazy past, over the course of millions of years, where imagination is required to understand it; and not in the present where clear experiments could confirm it? Which belief requires more faith - the idea that lifeforms appeared suddenly, fully formed, and producing the same kind of offspring - something confirmed everytime one of the quaddrillions of lifeforms on earth reproduces; or the idea that once upon a time, long ago there was a frog, and over the course of millions of years of unlimited change its descendants became a prince? Why is it considered a fairy-tale when a frog turns into a prince quickly, but it is considered an unassailable fact when the frog turns into a prince slowly, over millions of years?