I can disprove evolution like i could disprove a book having no front cover.

Lets start by introducing what evolution and creation have to say on this topic. Evolution tells us that life on earth has arose from slight less complex orgianiums into more structured and complex orgains. All based on mutaions, eviroment and the survival of the fit. Creation teaches that a supreme being normally named God, made all types of aminals, and none arose by chance or random selection. God made all the birds and fish, mamales, repties etc, then allowing variations with in a kind or family of animals (micro evolution) to occour. Now i said the basics lets start by the meaning of science. Science means testable repeatable, and exspimental testing which would have a time limit, based on that, evolution will remain a theory. In 1930 the theory of evolution was worldly spead and was named scienctific. Using logical methods you can see fatal flaws big enough to fit every book ever writen in side. Let me enphsise this point more, to disprove Newton's second law of motion f=ma you would have you come up with a more reasonable formula instead of f=ma, here is the big news, the theory of evolution has no formula unlike many of the premoted theories which has the right to become a fact to the law science, just like gavilty f=ma or Einstein's theory of relativity e=mc2, the list goes on and on: Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Boyle's law, Bernoulli's Principle, Charle's Law, etc., etc., etc. Yet Dawin's theory evolution seems to be left behind on the "language of science" which of course is formulas. You can not just use words in science since word vary between different languages, and numbers do not. There for a universeal theory like gavity (f=ma) has a formula which can relate to all languages, again i say the theory of evolution has yet to find it's own one, dispite 7.7 million man years of evolutionaly research, not one darwin scienctist can find the formula. No wonder a Noble Prize will be given to the one who can descoved this formula. Intill scienctists can find a testable workable repeatable formula i believe no one should, in there right scienctisfic mind believe one bit of the evolutional thory. I mean who questions Newton on gravity? Next point is about: is there a genetic mechanism which can create new genes? The answer is: no there is not. Dawin claims we evoled from simple bacteria into more and more complex life forms. The most simplest of bacteria has only 500 genes, men have 22,000. In order for bacteria to procced in complexity, organisms would have to add genes but there is no mechanism in a gene which does this, i supose you are now thinking of RNA, well all that does is copies DNA which is already there. Mutations never add genes to organisms, if anything it would take away genes from organisms. This is a massive flaw in the theory of evolution and again dawin scienctists don't want you to know this. The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection." As you read this, many of you are asking "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human. What about biogensis, well the best theory scienctists have is a lighting bolt struck a pool of soup, hooking back to the privous point you can already tell what i would say about this topic, how did life arose from non living matter. At one point scienctists believe that this pool of soup had all the ingredence for life and lighting brough this puddle to life. Where did all the right ingretence come from? Also what are the chances of them being in the same puddle, saying there was more pools of soup just decreaces the chances to evolution to occour, so by saying that your shooting your own bunker. Lets take off are logic hats now and wave the magic wond and we can almost buy into the lightning stuff as a really remote possibility. But then what? How did the first living organism then add genes thousands of times in order to advance up the evolutionary ladder? For example, how did the ape that we all supposedly descended from add the genes needed to make the transition to Homo sapiens? Are the dawin lovers telling us that apes were swings around on trees in a lighting storm when a lightning bolt struck the testicals, frying them, then in some incredible miracal converting this apes prevous sperm into more pretencal offspring so the spesices can turn into humans (homo sapians). Can you see how impossaible Dawin's theory of evolution is yet your support it. Heres a challenge, go into a lab and strike your self with lightning, you may turn into a super human as quick as none life changed into life. Next point is: Why are there helpless babies when the next genoration should be fitter than the last? Yeah this point destroyes evolution utterly. As birds and mamales are the most complex of creatures and according to evolution the most advanced in the race of being the fittest, yets birds and mamales offspring including humas are totaly helpless and need of nursing from day one. According to evolution should the offspring in birds and mamales to totaly inderpendent, as we have had millions and millions on years to correct this problem through mutations and survial of the fittest. Infantile helplessness supports logical creationism, which believes that the world is the purposeful creation of a loving God. One purpose is to teach humanity how to love selflessly and help us to be protective and gentle. Having helpless babies assists us to learn selfless love, compassion and self-sacrifice. Every parent has made sacrifices for his or her child and this is as God intended it. This whole point just proves evolution false as evolution is saying the baby should have learnt by now after millions and millions of year, this baby should know how to walk and feed it self. Here is a test for you, set up a obitical course a baby against a fully grown man and see who wins, try it as many times as you like, if the baby wins evolution is true. God knew that evolution would show up so God made babies the way they are in mamales and birds. Yet you still believe in evolution, urrrr you believe in evolution because you hate the fact of God and evolution is the only mythical way of dislogding God from the equation. Theres still more as evolution teaches we came from bacteria 3 billion year ago or something, then as we can't add genes to our organisms as complex life forms how would bacteria ever ocompleish this? We are not the only ones who thought about this. Evolution scientists know this, but they have suppressed the truth in a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy. So yeah enjoy believeing in a false theory with no formula, no correct science only fake, and a theory which kills off a babies helpless atitude to life, Your saying babies shouldn't be babies but mean and harmful preditors which should live with no parent from birth. Questions in the next round including the ones ive already mentioned 1. where did the motivation come from to make none life into life, we all know music doesn't motivate none life. 2. why is the biggest change (none life into life) the most effortless and fastest process of all? Like there had to be a split second where none life become life if evolution is correct. 3. yeah don't say alians came and planted life here, that only moves the problem else where, like Richard Dawkins says. I will end here, yeah reply in 24 hours. looking forward to this, like always.