Evolution is true

IntroductionEvolutionists think that we started out as piles of bones, and then they evolved into fossilised bones (so it has armour and different layers, like we humans do today), and then they evolved into us.j - justificationC1: Evolution is self-refuting P1) If Evolution is true, evolution is false. j. As confirmed by many scholars including Eugenie C. Scott, PhD, Everything evolves [1]. This means that as well as the currently living creature evolving, its descendents evolve too. But this is proof that evolution is self-refuting, as if all animals evolve, then no animals actually evolve because they are exactly the same animal as their ancestors. So, if evolution is true, evolution is necessarily false. P2) If Evolution is false, evolution is false. j. This is a tautology, and necessarily true. Otherwise, it violates the law of non-contradiction [2], a well-established law of logic that all existing things must abide by [3]. C) ∴ evolution is false. j. This is the logical conclusion following the first two premises. It’s a simple Modus ponens syllogism [4]. C2: Gaps in the Fossil Record P1) If there are gaps in the fossil record, then evolution is unjustified. j. This is self-explanatory. If there is a lack of evidence for something, then to believe in it is unjustified. P2) There are gaps in the fossil record. j. Consider the following diagram: We can clearly see several gaps in the fossil record.C) ∴ evolution is unjustified.j. This is the logical conclusion following both premises. It's a simple modus ponens too [5]. C3: Genetic material in bonesP1) If we evolved from bones, then they must be able to pass down genetic code to their offspring.j. This is simple. When you reproduce, you must carry down genetic material. Otherwise, your babies will be nothing. This is mathematically sound: P2) Bones carry no genetic material.j. This is self-explanatory and simple too. Bones themselves have no chromosones. If they did, then our bones today would carry inheritable chromosones. However, they don't.C) Therefore, we couldn't have evolved from bones.(This is a crucial point against evolution)j. This is the logical conclusion following both premises.C4: Pure coincidenceFossils have commonly been found in the shape of an animal [6]. However, this is pure coincidence. If organisms composed of bones existed as we've found them with no tissue or anything to connect them and gaps between the bones [7], the bones would fall and be scattered about in a pile, not in the shape of an animal. The formation of the bones we find in fossils, therefore, prove that evolution is not the best explanation for fossils, something that evolutionists claim they're evidence for it.C5: The evolution of other propertiesWe cannot be descended from fossils and bones because not only do we have body parts consisting of different elements, but collections of bones have no way of passing down genetic information that could then go on to mutate inside the egg into something such as an eye. Bones have no way of mutating to create different elements or finding something of the same species that could manage such a thing.In summaryFor different reasons:- Evolution is self-refuting (C1)- Evolution is unjustified (C2)- What evolution claims are our ancesters could not be our ancestors (2 reasons - C3 & C5)- Evolution is highly improbable and not the best explanation for fossils (C4)Sources [1] http://ncse.com... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] ibid [4] http://plato.stanford.edu... (3.3)[5] ibid [6] https://www.google.co.uk...[7] ibid