Evolution is false, for more than three reasons, these are some of them.

Thanks for giving your best shot at this argument. Evolution has given us no reason to think what we sense is legit to reality because of our senses have been through a untrustworthy process: My first reason, if understood will break down evolution into a million pieces, not saying evolution is false but untrustworthy. You thought I meant we cannot trust our vision or the sound we hear as being perfect, and yes I would agree, if evolution happened we couldn't. However I was getting at a more deeper reason. The reason is not as bland as, "Oh if evolution was more trustworthy, I could know what I see is the way it should look, but everything I still know is legit to reality" No, that was not what I meant at all. What I meant is that if you believe in evolution instead of creation, you cannot be worthy of knowledge, because you have evolved, despite what society thinks about evolution. Since society only believe that evolution is true because of the knowledge which they have to begin with. God, who you would suspect to know everything is therefore the giver of reality. And we can only know this by creation, given that we were made first hand, as humans, by God. The main point is that knowledge did not come from evolution, in that we evolved since our senses give us knowledge from the universe around us. It is impossible to assume evolution is the bases of knowledge, since as you well know a brainless explosion cannot think, where did the standard of knowledge come from, if evolution cannot produce it? If we cannot trust evolution, how can we know our senses indercate truth through millions of years of random process and production of the brain and therefore our senses. It is illogical to think our senses can pick up knowledge when one believes we have evolved from a single cell organism. Because evolution is a biological process which consists of time to applaud the vast verity of life there is today. And according to evolution we are apart of the verity of life which exists, evolution does not support knowledgeable intelligence. Intelligence which can split knowledge from belief, evolution gives no leeway for reality, knowledge and absolutely no objective truth. To conclude that evolution has evolved humans to be different from any other creature is quite absurd, evolution does nothing to do anything, but just fights for survival, evolution is selfish. In that sense a person who believes in evolution cannot trust evolution, therefore cannot trust is own senses 100% and in that the real percentage is unknown. Reality therefore is unknown, unless evolution cannot produce anything better than the human, our knowledge of objective truth will increase. So says the evolutionists. Just to put the issue about not being able to trust our own senses in a simpler perspective, look at it like this. I walk into a room and the T.V is on, there is a black and while 1940's movie on T.V, so I think, I think that because I was not in the room to begin with, but I find out that the black and white 1940's movie is not the actual program, but the actual program is, "The top 100 movies." Reality was that I was watching the top hundred movies, not the black and white movie. And reality is that we cannot trust our senses if you fix evolution as the standard of all knowledgeable things. Moving on. Ignoring the first reason, for the sake of a argument I will proceed. Fossils prove nothing towards evolution, since the flood is also reasonable: Fossils do not tell us anything but that the animal once lived in the past, no more information can be given. We cannot know that a fossil, when alive had any offspring, but evolutionists assume they do due to the clear assumption of the similar looking animals alive today. In that no evolutionists can decide whether one creature is better than another, based on how deep the fossils are found in the sedimentary rock. According to evolution, creatures, including plant life evolve at their best due to the environment. Therefore there is no saying what creature evolved into what, despite where in the palaeontologist finds the fossil, since the fossil, when it was alive, evolved based around it's environment, and not to mention the environment changes, indition it is circular. Instead of looking for prove in fossils, look for prove in where fossils have been when they were living animals. Many times around the world, have scientists found dinosaur foot prints crossing human foot prints, contradicting evolution. Here is some information: Taylor Trail: "A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. McFall Trail: "A recently discovered series of 15 human footprints on the Upper Taylor Platform (UTP) in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas." New Mexico Track: "One of several very shallow but almost perfect human tracks found in the mountains of New Mexico in the Permian (supposedly before the dinosaurs)." With there being a godless theory, evolution, evolutionist/atheists dismiss the the idea that God created all creatures to begin with, on day four, five and six of creation. And because of that, people have the intentions to look for the truth about life in a completely different understanding of the universe, in a completely different way. That complete difference being there is no God, which in all understanding, leads people to find truth another way. Firstly one needs to work out why biological, we exist, through that we can follow through to evolution's objective truth. That being the Big Bang. If there was no God, I would also believe in evolution, and the Big Bang, since I would have no other reason not to. I assume the same goes for someone who does no believe in evolution and the Big Bang, with a firm belief that they did not happen, I would image they would believe in God. As a whole, fossils cannot give any proof for evolution, as much as they could to the flood, if they give evidence to evolution, no evidence can be shown to say the flood really happened. Same goes for evolution, if there is evidence for the flood. Considering that palaeontologists find fossils and do not know 100% that the fossils have always been in that spot where it died. Finding fossils deeper that other fossils does not suggest evolution occurred, since it is not evidence for evolution, but more an assumption towards evolution, a person could also suggest a globe flood caused so many fossils to be at different places in the ground. Since it was globe, the moon would not be in control of the tides but rather there being no tide but just chaos. Tides controlled by the moon, keep the land try, however it took six months to flood the entire earth. You could understand why, as in that same way you could about evolution, why a flood of that scale could cause so much chaos. No transitional fossils fossils exist: This is more logic than science to say whether transitional fossils exist, but for evolution to take place over millions of years, there needs to be a change between one kind (cat, bear, whale for examples) to another kind. The change needs to happen, unless there is no change at all. And the change of the kind into another kind, should have a stage were the creature either changes into another kind within it's life time or the mother gives birth to a new kind, different to the mother, they are the only two logical reasons. No one sees one kind giving birth to another new kind. Scientists always know, from their knowledge of previously knowing that they have never witnessed one kind giving birth to a new kind that one kind does not give birth to another kind. Therefore as far as knowledge goes, there are no transitional forms or fossils. But they assume that over vast lengths of time, at some point one kind will change into another. There is no prove, it is all assumed. I rest my case, for now.