evolution is not a theory, It is an unconfirmed hypothesis

Before I go into my main argument let me address the issue of biased sources. Creationist sources are not biased and here is why. Evolution does not necessarily refute the idea of a God. Why? Because God could have created life with an evolution effect. It isn't inconsistent with scripture and is very well possible. There is absolutely NO REASON for creationist sources to be biased one way or the other. However, There is a reason for atheistic sources to be biased. If evolution is not true, Than what other explanation is there to the origin of life? If evolution is false, Then they have nothing else to cling on to. They would have to admit that there is a God. BUT GUESS WHAT? They don't want to do it. No matter how much evidence there is against evolution, Atheists will still be self-deceived into believing something that has no real evidence to back it up. That is exactly why I think it is unfortunate that so many people believe it today. Fossil record: There are a few POSSIBLE transitional forms that could support evolution, But it's just not enough. If evolution is such a slow process that takes millions of years, Than we should be finding thousands, If not millions of transitional forms. After all, If one species evolved to another, Then it really shouldn't be that hard for us to find transitional forms. But that is not the case. Very few were ever found. Mostly gaps were found. And until we find a decent amount of them, Scientists simply should not put all of their faith in evolution. Structural homology: "Structural Homology seems like a fairly good argument in favour of macro evolution. Why else would a whale have vestigial bones that are analogous to land-based mammal bones" 150 years ago, This would be a very convincing argument. But This doesn't happen because of common ancestry. It happens because of genetics. And if it were common ancestry, Then the corresponding parts of DNA to the homologous features should be similar. But they are not. They aren't even close to be called similar which means there is absolutely no way that they could have been inherited from a common ancestor. Molecular biology: My entire argument in this section disproves a very common assumption in evolution. "Complex life forms evolved from simple ones. " It logically follows from this that yeast would have to have evolved from a bacterium. Otherwise, The bacterium would have to have made quite a jump to another species. But here's the thing, Molecular biology disproves this very common assumption. If evolution really happened, Then there would have to be several very large jumps from species to species. A bacterium would have to evolve to a much more complex organism in a very short amount of time. Remember, Molecular biology proved that a bacterium simply couldn't have evolved to a yeast because of there very many differences. You take away that transition you are left with some very large gaps. Those gaps are the many questions evolution hasn't answered, And probably never will. To me it doesn't make sense why scientists believe in something that has such little evidence to back it up. Mutualism: Ok, So traits don't pop out for no reason. They are still dependent on each other though. In other words, Even if the oriental sweetlips had wanted the wrasse to clean it's teeth, The wrasse would still have to be in the right place at the right time. And I mean EXACTLY THE RIGHT PLACE, And EXACTLY THE RIGHT TIME. If even one of the following didn't happen, This mutualistic relationship would not have happened. 1. If the sweetlips had mistaken the wrasse for a free meal. 2. If the wrasse had a genuine fear of being eaten. 3. If the sweetlips had not known it needed it's teeth clean. 4. If the sweetlips decided to eat the wrasse when it was done with it's work. 5. If the wrasse had not known that the teeth were an actual food source. (I mean come on, Why not go after a fish his own size! ) 6. If the wrasse and sweetlips had not made their own set of decisions at exactly the same time. 7. If the sweetlips didn't intuitively know what the wrasse was doing. 8. If the wrasse didn't instinctively know that the sweetlips was indeed a perfectly harmless creature, Despite the fact that it was just about 5 times it's size with big sharp teeth. I could go on, But the list would be way beyond 10, 000 characters. And get this. There are millions of relationships like these with millions of unanswered questions. In the end, You are right, You do find SOME evidence for evolution. The archaeopteryx could point to a possible transitional form. Some parts of the fossil record could support evolution. But it isn't enough. Molecular biology, Mutualism, The fossil record, And structural homology all say that evolution never happened. So in the end, To believe that evolution happened you are forced to rely on the LEAST reliable data, While IGNORING the MOST reliable data. That is not good scientific practice I look forward to reading your response.