The Theory of Evolution is a lie. We did not come from monkeys.

More evidence, and conclusion. The Fossil Record – For a nice list of transitional fossils, I highly recommend reading http://www.talkorigins.org... If evolution if true, then many predictions can be made in the fossil record, The fossils should appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with evolution over millions of years. Guess what? They do. Want to prove evolution wrong? Find me a poodle from the permian period. Find me a fossil bunny in the cambrian. The fossil record is dated with more complex organisms on top, with more primitive ones on the bottom, or better yet, more evolved on top, and less evolved on bottom. Consistency of atavisms- For what atavisms are see my round 1. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories just like evolution predicts. For example Birds evolved from reptiles, therefore if evolution is true, we should expect to see atavisms in birds representing the evolutionary throwback from reptiles, and we do. Also we should not see birds with atavisms representing evolutionary throwbacks from mammals. And that's exactly what we find. Want to prove evolution wrong? Find me a bird with nipples. Conclusion: To adequately understand evolution, you not only have to understand how to be scientific, but you also have to know something about cellular biology, genetics, and anatomy, geology, particularly palaeontology, as well as environmental systems, tectonics, atomic chemistry, and especially taxonomy, which most people don't know squat about at all. Most people who accept evolution also tend to know a whole lot about cosmology, geography, history, sociology, politics, and of course, religion. But to believe in creationism, you don't have to know anything about anything, and its better if you don't! Because creationism relies on ignorance. It is not honest research! It is a scam, a con job exploiting the common folk, and preying on their deepest beliefs and fears. Creationist apologetics depend on misrepresented data and misquoted authorities, out-of-date and out-of-context, and uses distorted definitions if it uses definitions at all. Creationists like to portray a picture of a divide in the scientific community, with some accepting evolution and some rejecting it. According to Newsweek in 1987, by percentage there are 0.15% of U.S. earth or life scientists that accept creationism. I think this is a good statistic to give some kind of an indication of just how far out of the mainstream creationists are. It's a good rebuttal to the lists of Creation Scientists that are trotted out from time to time by creationists to give the impression that there is something other than a minuscule fraction of scientists that share their beliefs. Project Steve from the National Center for Science Education is also a good answer to this because there are more scientists with names that are a variation of Steve that accept evolution than there are creation scientists on any of the lists that I have see, but I would rather be able to say that there are about 9985 biologists or geologists who accept evolution for every 15 biologists or geologists that believe in creationism. Note that even if the count of creation scientists was off by a factor of 10, an overwhelming 99.85% of biologists and geologists would still be in the rejecting creationism category. I realise that this is not a case of majority rules, but any reasonable person should be able to see that evolution and presumably a multi-billion year age of the earth is accepted by an overwhelming majority of the people who know the most about the topic. If creationists expect any kind of increased acceptance of their beliefs in the scientific community, they had better start publishing data to support it in the peer reviewed scientific journals where it can be evaluated and discussed by the scientific community. Or, they could just present their ideas to the (mostly) science illiterate public and give up on trying to convince the scientific community. A little thought on this topic makes it easy to see why creationists have chosen this route (along with the fact that the scientific community DID evaluate the beliefs of creationism about 100 years ago (and farther back) and a great majority (apparently 99.85% of biologists and geologists at the current time) found that creationism was NOT supported by the evidence). From the creationist's perspective, the method or mechanism of creation which God uses is nothing more than a golem spell where clay statues are animated with an enchantment. Or its an incantation in which complex modern plants and animals are "spoken" into being. That's right, magic words which cause fully developed adult animals to be conjured out of thin air. Or a God simply wishes them to exist; so they do. THAT'S IT! There really is nothing more to it than that; PURE FREAKIN MAGIC! –by definition. Remember that the next time you hear anything from a creation "scientist". So for those who believe in God, like myself, the question really is how God created, and whether it was by one of many inextricably integrated natural systems he seemingly designed, or whether he simply blinked, wiggled his nose, wished upon a star and said "abra-cadabera!"