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

Note: Kleptin please try to make your lay out a little clearer. I know you understand the lay out, but I do not. Thanks. (No excuse to vote for me, please do not vote for that reason alone). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok this is the last round and I will try to answer every question Kleptin has posed. Kleptin has said my first reason is a bad fallacy, I disagree. My argument ends in a good conclusion, while the understanding is easily understood, I pardon Kleptin for his misunderstanding. I will now provide logic to suggest why Con is incorrect logically. Firstly his reasoning to suggest why reason one is incorrect logically is not correct to what I was meaning. I will explain. In round one this is Kleptin's response, " Evolution does not imply that out senses are inaccurate." -- I am not arguing degrees of accuracy in vision or degrees of accuracy in hearing or any other sense which people suggest evolution has created. I am discussing the whole spectrum of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch being a possible delusion. It is very simple to grasp, since evolution and this concludes a type circular reasoning. Since you are your self and no one else, you cannot bring forth technology to prove this wrong, you cannot jump in another body and say, "Look I am not delusional, this person sees, hears, smells, tastes and touches like I do." You are your self and nothing more. Your brain takes in all the information which creates your own universe, since there is no God according to atheists and evolutionists (I will get to people who believe in God and evolution in a moment) they are the universe and with out them there is nothing, as I just said, "Your brain takes in all the information which creates your own universe..." Making that person in some respect the God of the universe. As without anyone there is nothing. No after life to a atheist, no God to suggest the supernatural, but just the past which is known, considering evolution and the Big Bang which created the universe, only because you are alive to know about evolution and the Big Bang do they exist. I am talking about an individual, not a universal point of view, since one person is not everyone. So to now pose my main reason one. If you (remember you are not everyone) have evolved, how can you trust your own senses over millions of years of evolution? Now you may say, "Well I do not know about evolution when I was born, I learnt about it at school." That is right, and a newspaper I read a while back spoke of children naturally believing in God. The journalists interviewed a number of young children, they asked, "What are birds for?" Almost all of them replied, "To make nice sounds." As a 5/6 year old you tend to see the world in a much simpler form, without the 'corrupt' knowledge of evolution leading children astray from the simpler view of the world, the understanding that evolution creates is brought in through a child being mistaken later on when they reach secondary school, if earlier. And because of their younger years, were they thought birds were there to make nice sounds remains while having the extra knowledge of that they evolved. However you trusted your senses as a child, because you were brought up and raised to use the world around you with them, and your senses are all you had. The trust of your senses comes from your life's experiences, not from evolution. Unless you can trust everyone on earth with your life, then you can say evolution is trustworthy, as evolution created everyone as they are today ultimately, so they say. In that you cannot trust your senses if your believe in evolution, but you also trust your life with your senses. But you are a product of evolution, and therefore, there is no way of saying if your senses are ultimately trusting to reality. You grew up knowing this is reality, life as it is. But because evolution has invited your life, you see evolution as the scientists show it to you. And its the same with the scientists, they grew up like you did. It all could be incorrect to the very last bone? Fossils prove nothing towards evolution: I provided proof that man and dinosaur lived together, if dinosaur and man lived side by side, it would destroy the fossils record pointing towards evolution and more towards the flood. An amazing find which was blood of a T-rex which was thought to have died out 65 million years ago. The blood (which should have completely decayed) report showed that this T-rex has its hemogoblin still intact, hemogoblin decay and break down within short time and could not last near millions years. Not only the blood was found but soft fibrous tissue and complete blood vessels. Even with this proof, evolutionists ignore it and continue to rely on the fossil record to show evidence of evolution. This evidence of the T-rex screams at them! Trilobite tracks have been preserved in stone. Evolutionists suggest that mud over millions of years turns to stone, it seems much more logical to suggest that a globe flood drowned the critta. Since how did the tracks escape being 'removed' or 'erased' if rock takes million of years to form? It truly indicates a flood. There are fossils that are found giving birth, 'fighting', eating? If it takes millions of years to fossilize, why do creature cease to resume actions? Younger fossils are found underneath older fossils. So the Geological Strata chart is either a lie, or the people who drawn it are arrogant. When scientists are confronted they say they do not know why this is, but say it could not have been a globe flood, as quoted, " We don't know yet, but we KNOW it WASN'T the result of a catastrophic global flood!" Missing link/transitional fossils: I want to say that the word kind simply means a type of creature, I have even given examples so there is no no excuse. Them being, cat, bear, whales, seal kinds for example. Ok, the missing link is still missing. It seems like Con has thought the last round was his last. Con goes on to state that if he walks 10 meters he can walk 20 and if 20 meters, 30 meters. This is a old argument, the thing is that if macro evolution was to take place, he would have to do something other than walk, fly perhaps? No matter how far he walks he still is walking. A missing link would be where there is one kind of animal which is no evolved fully and another animal which has evolved but evolving into the new current animal. A cat is a cat, a cheetah for example is no less of a cat that a house cat is. I am aware of that the animal evolves according to its surroundings, but I assure you, place a house cat in the African land scape for 10 million years and its ancestors will still be cats, despite the change of the environment. There are snow lepods, cats which live among California's red wood trees, the world smallest breed of cat. Lions, panthers, tigers, cheetahs, ligers, jaguar, leopard and even a sabar-tooth cat. They are no catish that the other, there is no living evidence or fossil evidence that any of these cats are changing into anything else than the cat family. It is a belief when one thinks that micro evolution is macro evolution over time, it is not science but a faith. The dots are connected in the mind, and not in the fossil record. There is no indication that provides one creature being related to another kind/family. The Archaeopteryx is no missing link between bird and dinosaur, in a recent discovery, a chicken called Talpid was found with a set of crocodile-like chompers. No way set-a-siding that the Archaeopteryx is at all a missing link, since it too had teeth. Because this chicken had a set of crocodile like teeth, this means that if these birds evolved from dinosaurs 300 million years ago, there would be no such thing as a chick with teeth today. Goes to show.