The Theory of Evolution is correct.

We must agree to disagree on your predication that "evolution is science". That is simply not true. Evolution is not science. Evolution is nothing but a theory, and there are far more scientific evidences against evolution, than in it's favor. Your verdict on creationists is somewhat oversimplified. Creationists are able to look at the world in an a far more beautiful and elegant manner than evolutionists. Evolutionists must use their limited supply of knowledge and resources to guess about what they think they know to develop extremely scanty theories with many assumptions. Creationists take an idea, and expand on it to answer simple yet very powerful questions, like our original origin. For example, consider the fact that all matter has movement. Newton's first Law tells us that such movement can only be caused by the direct movement of another external force. Similarly, the movement of that external force can only be the result of the movement of a separate force... Thus, we end up in an infinite cycle which science cannot explain. As such, a creationist would conclude that at some point, there must be moving matter which didn't require the movement of another force. Creationists call this God, who is multidimensional, omnipotent, unbounded by time, and spiritual (non-physical). But I digress, this topic is about evolution, not the existence of god. You claim that "every fossil" is a transitional fossil? I find such a statement to be extremely uneducated, to the point that it is absurd and irrational. Even Darwin himself admitted that no transitional fossils had been found at that time, but he believed HUGE numbers existed, and that they would CERTAINLY be discovered. Well, here we are over 150 years later and we still haven't found ANYTHING at all that supports his theory. Many palaeontologists and even evolutionists has commented on this. Here are a few examples "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!" - Dr. Lyall Watson, Evolutionist "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ". I will lay it on the line " there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." - Dr. Colin Patterson, Evolutionist, Palaeontologist "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." - Stephen M. of John Hopkins University, Evolutionist There are many more examples, but I see no need to include more. In summary, if all of these evolutionists can accept this argument, then so should you. Referencing DNA as a series information is not ignorant. DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. I'm certainly glad that you're educated with regard to genetics. When you ask how organisms not being able to gain genetic information disproves the Theory of evolution, the answer is quite simple. How can you go from a fish to an amphibian without adding genetic information? How can you go from an amoeba to a man without adding genetic information? The simple answer is, you can't. This refutes evolution right away. When you argue that DNA can mutate to something different, I completely agree but the mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don"t effectively change the information, or the "meaning" in the code) or else they are informationally downhill"defects which lose/corrupt information. The rare "beneficial" mutations to which evolutionists cling all appear to be like wingless animals, blind cave animals, and many examples of antibiotic resistance. They are downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution. I would like to finish with the argument that it has never been observed that life can arise from non-life. Combine this with the fact that genetic information cannot be added to an organism's genetic code, and that no fossils at all support evolution, buries the theory deep into the dust. Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher put it best when he said: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it"s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." Sources: https://answersingenesis.org... http://thetruthwins.com...