Evolution has been proven wrong in many different areas your tax money should not be paying for it

Of course. You mess up big when you ignore the two examples of illness medical resistance and insect pesticide resistance. Staph is constantly changing and adapting to its environment and the chemicals that are being used to fight it. Indeed only a few complex drugs still work against Staph, and that won't last long. The same goes for insects, insects such as mosquitoes are constantly adapting to the pesticides used on them, they worked initially, but in places outside of the filled-to-the-brim with DDT USA, insects constantly adapt to pesticides. They have naturally selected favorable traits which grant resistance to pesticides, and thus, their generations will carry on that gene and along with it, protection against poisons. This is inevitable. But let's get into your arguments: [One of the best example of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment...] You have a tremendous lack of knowledge on the theories that biologists have concluded as the development of the feather. You try and make the whole process sound asinine, appealing to feeling rather than logic, in this, you make your first mistake. Wings did not develop in the fashion that you portray them to have. It was not a stub that eventually got a finger that along the way got feathers. Look to the times of dinosaurs. There are Avian Dinosaurs-Those with wings- And non-Avian Dinosaurs, obviously those without. Dinosaurs found with feathers have frequently been discovered, obviously in fossil form, and they are not all winged. The initial speculation for feathers came as a form of either quills, like porcupines, hedgehogs, etc. And as a means for homeothermy, maintaining a stable body temperature, which would offer many benefits to the creature. It has also been suggested that newly-hatched dinosaurs may have had feathers surrounding their bodies as a method of heat retention, given their being cold-blooded. The natural selection of wings occurred in a simple enough manner. There were many feathered dinosaurs, and in the effort to catch winged prey, they eventually developed basic wings, and through time, mutations created stronger wings. Given that the aves-dinosaurs (dinosaurs in general) have powerful legs, while in flight it would be logical for them to use their legs. With a lesser emphasis on hand usage, and an increased emphasis on leg usage, eventually the arms will become weaker and more if not completely devoted to flight, and the legs will become much stronger. You also forget the pterodactyl, or the bat, both of which are animals that did not/does not use feathers to fly. Even more so, you'll notice variation among closely related birds, in considering their beaks, and how they have also changed to fit their environments. [We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe in air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beaches where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite an multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing?...] Once again you demonstrate a major lack of knowledge on even the basics of evolution/natural selection. If you had actually bothered to study upon your statements, rather than just spouting erroneous information, you wouldn't be making such egregiously wrong claims right now. I will not take your arguments at face value. You once again ridicule the idea of the development of breathing air, appealing to feeling over reason. Lungs came about as external sacks off of the esophagus, anyway, as to allow organisms to take in more air were they to be in a situation where there was a lack of oxygen, or a lesser quality of it. Amphibians came about in this manner, when animals with an -albeit low- ability to breath on land mutated the propensity/capability for going on land. [Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs...] Where is the evidence that backs your claims? You don't provide any reason behind your arguments, merely unwarranted ranting. Again and again you resort to a rhetoric of irrational behavior, not of logic. Scientists will concede this, there are foggy places in evolution, this is true in all forms of science. In our enormous universe, scientists may have at most 1% of understanding of it, that information has not come to light on a subject does not deny it in any way, shape or form. [Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie...] Thanks a whole lot for citing your...Wait. You didn't cite a SINGLE source. So I took up your burden, and have done a lot of research on the matter, and not one site I visited mentioned anything even somewhat relative to what you're saying. This is crucial to your case. --- Ultimately, you've done nothing except deviate from any actual thinking devoted to debate, and gone to a childish manner of ridicule. You are by no means qualified to speak on manners of evolution and natural selection, nor have you ever bothered to cite authors supporting your assertions. Both have I backed my claims, as in my first writing, with credible sources, as have I refuted your arguments. You have proven nothing, save for your far above-average ability to make outrageous claims. Furthermore, consider within your very faith a curious bit. You no-doubt believe that a flood occurred and Noah took two of every animal onto the ark. If natural selection did not occur, why are there millions of species in existence? Oh! NATURAL SELECTION. Animals have selected favorable traits in the past, are selecting favorable traits in the present, and will select favorable traits in the future. To deny natural selection is to deny that illnesses, such as influenza, have developed resistance to the main medications used against it. To deny natural selection is to deny that insects, mainly mosquitoes, are not resistant to pesticides, namely DDT. To deny natural selection is to deny that birds have different beaks, suited for their environment. And to deny natural selection is to deny the most famous example of natural selection, and the cause for Darwin's Origin of Species-the Galapagos Tortoises don't have any differences. Evolution, or at the very least Natural Selection, should most certainly be taught in school.