evolution is not true!!

Let's begin! I will thoroughly address many of the causal concerns you have with evolution, but first let me correct your terminology. In the media and in public discourse, we often see evolution referred to as a "theory," a term which some people disparage. Scientists, a bit confused and perplexed, then proceed to explain to relative neophytes in the field that evolution as a scientific theory is imbued with strong explanatory and predictive power, all rooted in seemingly endless data and observations. That's all well and good, but it's not necessary. Why? Well, evolution is not really a scientific theory. It's more of a natural process, kind of like tides or soil erosion. A notable characteristic of a scientific theory is that it provides a mechanism for how a series of natural events transpire. Evolution is the event itself; the mechanism, according to Charles Darwin, is natural selection. That's the scientific theory: natural selection, although one can think of it as a natural process as well. This issue over word usage is critical because evolution as a natural process was conceptualized even in ancient times, well before Darwin in the nineteenth century! Evolution as a process, when loosely described, can be regarded as the general biological and physiological changes that occur among many generations of organisms over time. A more detailed explanation will follow in the next few paragraphs. In modern times, scientists have combined natural selection with Mendelian genetics to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the predication for the entire field of biology, a sentiment echoed by one of the doyens of American biology in the twentieth century, Theodosius Dobzhansky, who argued that evolution made sense of the field: "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole" (excerpt from "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"). Now I will address your causal and ontological objections to evolution, as well as any related statements. In perusing your introduction, I have noticed that you are somewhat unfamiliar with the central propositions of evolution. A good question here might be: what is evolution? That is, what are the mechanistic processes involved in evolution? I feel that it is necessary to ask these questions because otherwise you would be replying to a version of evolution that you have concocted yourself; in other words, you are replying to strawmen arguments. Evolution can be simply described as follows: Genes mutate, individuals are selected, and populations evolve. This simple statement encapsulates much of the dynamism found in the modern evolutionary synthesis. Another way of saying this is that macroevolutionary effects - the physiological changes in populations - merely result from the accumulation of a myriad of microevolutionary interactions - gene mutations and selections. That's the "heart," if you will, of evolution: a variety of mutations and long-term adaptations, among other things, result in the physiological changes of populations. This last part about populations is essential: the populations evolve, not the individuals! The biological and physiological components of individual organisms do not change in their lifetime; that change often, though not always, requires time, but it happens among populations. Please understand that evolutionary theory is far more complex than what I've just outlined, but now you have some basic idea of how evolution happens. Your post mentions several things that are not related to evolution or evolutionary theory, hence my attempts at elucidating the subject. For example, the comet crashing on Earth and wiping out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, though obviously that event had an enormous impact on our planet's evolutionary history. Additionally, your series of events are confused and downright contradictory. You state that there were dinosaurs, which were living organisms, before the comet hit Earth, then claim that the comet somehow created the very first living organisms (cells) that eventually led to humans. Those conceptions are antithetical. Since you did raise the issue of cells, however, let me offer an important clarification. A common and now increasingly banal assertion against evolution is that living entities could not have come from non-living entities. However, scientific experiments that closely modeled the Earth's early atmosphere reveal that our planet's primordial soup of gases and other materials could form substances like amino acids and RNA, both which have been indispensable ingredients for life. The most famous of these experiments was the Urey-Miller experiment in 1953 – it did not create life, but it did create the basic building blocks of life, the same building blocks that led to the first unicellular organisms. I now finally arrive at what I think is the most blatantly incorrect statement you made about evolution in your introduction: the supposition that there is no evidence to support it. In fact, there is much evidence to support evolution. As an anecdotal aside, I often tell people that it is easier to believe in evolution than to believe in your own existence simply because there is so much more evidence for the former! The primary source for evidence of evolution can be found in fossils, which provide little tidbits and snapshots of the past that can offer tremendously useful clues when analyzed in patterns. Another critical evidentiary tool is homology, which simply refers to the similar physical characteristics among various animals and plants. Evolutionary theory posits that all current organisms evolved from a single unicellular creature billions of years ago (common descent), a proposition that makes a good deal of sense when we consider the incredible number of ways in which our planet's creatures are related. Humans, for example, still have vestigial remains of tails, even though we don't practically use them. Other animals, like birds and frogs, have physiologically differing forelimbs, but those forelimbs contain the same set of bones: the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. The existence of homologies is a powerful argument for common descent. But what is the best evidence of evolution? It is the kind of evidence that is hard to refute: we have seen it ourselves, even in lengthy controlled experiments. We already know about the microevolutionary effects - those that occur at the molecular level - in bacteria and viruses, but we have also observed macroevolutionary changes, very notably in fish like guppies, which evolved less bright and ostentatious colors when predators were introduced in their environment. They evolved those colors so that they could eschew the attention of the predators. Beyond all this, just think about the human domestication of animals. All this time, although we did not know it, we were conducting a giant experiment in evolution! When humans changed the behavioral patterns of some wolves a few thousand years ago, for example, we created a whole array of new canine species. As you can see, evolution is a rich and complex subject, but one that has revolutionized our understanding of life on planet Earth. On the other hand, you champion intelligent design yet offer no concrete evidence for its putative credibility. Well, that's ok; you still have two more rounds! I will enjoy hearing from you again.