When we talk about Evolution we must distinguish between two kinds of evolution. The first is microevolution (micro meaning small) or natural selection, these are small changes within a species. The second is macroevolution (macro meaning big or large), these are species changing to a completely different species. (ie. frog to a dog, or bat to a cat) 


There is a boat load of evidence for microevolution. We creationist have no problem with microevolution, since it's real science. Yes, we have alley cats, tigers, lions, and panthers, but they are all cats. Yes, we have poodles, labs, golden retrievers, and chihuahuas, but they are all dogs. (With a slight possibility that the last one is a rat) So we do have evidence for microevolution and we don't have a problem with this part of evolution. The problem we have is that "scientists" then take a leap of faith to macroevolution.

There is no evidence for macroevolution. Yes I said it! Nobody has ever witnessed a piece of slime turn into a person. Sounds crazy but that's the fairy tale of macroevolution. Check it out.

Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "Primordial Soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows:

  1. The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.
  2. This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
  3. These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (Shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).
  4. By further transformation, more complex organic polymers— and ultimately life— developed in the soup.            ^ Shapiro, Robert (1987). Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. Bantam Books. p. 110.  

And they call creation a myth...They teach also, according to this and other "scientists," that information is added to the genome in evolution. This is another fairy tale that has not ever been witnessed. In microevolution we see changes within the species through mutation, this mutation has never added information. At best it just stayed the same, but more often than not it loses information. In other words it is devolving not evolving.

The whole problem creationist have with "macroevolution" is it's not science, it's a belief system held by faith and not observable. I certainly believe that it's held by faith for one reason and that's because their other alternative is a Creator. If there is a Creator, then they will have to answer to Him for the life they wasted in rebellion against Him. The bible has a lot to say about people like this I will give a few examples.

Psalm 14:1, "...The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Rom 1:22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Rom 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.