Evolution has no explanation for the existence of time, space, or matter.
	If Evolution is true, where are all the transitional forms? "While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even a century and a half later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples." (Answers in Genesis, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use) Charles Darwin on Transitional Fossils:  "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."  [Jonathan Sarfati, Ph. D., F. M, The links are missing, quoting C.R. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413.]
Evolution believes that mutations are beneficial, when common sense and observation tell us they are not.  Mutations are essentially mistakes in the genetic information system.  We know that when mistakes occur in computer programming, the results are not beneficial.  "Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on?  No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory.  Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty.  Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ."  Michale Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London:  Rider, 1984), pp. 67-68, quoted by Walt Brown, In the Beginning:  Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Phoenix, AZ:   Center for Scientific Creation, 1966, p. 34.
	"Particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a “micro” increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true."  According to Answers in Genesis, "Scientists have never found a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage. For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Beetle bloopers, New eyes for blind cave fish? and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?"
Radiometric dating of rocks and fossils is an inexact tool used by scientists.  For example, potassium-argon analysis of New Zealand lava flows yielded ages of millions of years when the rocks were observed to have been formed only 50 years ago.  Furthermore, radiometric dating is usually based on assumptions that cannot be proven, such as how much "daughter" element was in the rock when it was formed, and how much potassium-40 or argon-40 have leaked into or out of the rock since it was formed.  The usual assumption is that there was no argon initially and it is routinely assumed that no leakage has taken place.  Rocks dated in this manner usually yield a great age, often in the millions of years.  A 1992 sample of Mt. St. Helens rock from a lava flow ten years earlier yielded ages from 340,000 years to 2.8 million years.  Furthermore, different minerals in the same rocks gave wildly varying results.  These examples show that radioactive dating, in which scientists place such great faith, is simply not reliable!  Click here for more examples of the inaccuracies of radiometric dating.
The fossil record is said to be the proof of evolution.  Index fossils; circular reasoning.
No transitional forms.  The Cambrian explosion.
Fraudulent pseudo-science.  Peking Man, etc.
	Stone-Age Hoax: Fraudulent Paleolithic Dates: The Limitations of Carbon 14 Dating.  Also discusses dating in general.
Michael Behe and Darwin's Black Box.  Michael Behe has observed brilliantly that evolution is unable to give a satisfactory explanation for phenomena in nature that are irreducibly complex.  The whole organism has to appear at one time or the organism cannot function.  He speaks of the irreducibly complex cell, then illustrates his argument using a common mousetrap.  “Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are what I term "irreducibly complex." That means the system needs several components before it can work properly. An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner, gradually improving its function. You can't catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.” Evolution argues that a slow, gradual accretion of beneficial mistakes is the engine of evolution.  But features like the eye, the ear, the heart and the circulatory system, the lungs and its pulmonary components, not to mention the brain and its neurological system,  cannot evolve gradually.  They must appear all at once, a leap in improvement, or they cannot appear at all.  Evolution fails to provide a logical explanation as to how an irreducibly complex organism or system can gradually appear.
	The time frame that evolution demands for gradual changes does not fit the time frame for SuperNova Remnants (SNR) in our own Milky Way Galaxy.  According to astronomers' predictions, our galaxy should produce one supernova (violently exploding star) every 25 years.  There are three stages of each SNR.  At the end of  Stage 1 (300 years), the SNR would be 7 light years across.  At the end of Stage 2 (120,000 years), the SNR should be 300 light years across.  At the end of Stage 3 (6 million years), the SNR should be 1,500 light years across.   Here is what the evidence shows.  If our galaxy is billions of years old, there should be 2,260 Stage 2 SNR's and 5,000 Stage 3 SNR's.  If our galaxy is only 7000 years old, as the Genesis account implies, there should be about 125 Stage 2 SNR's and 0 Stage 3 SNR's. What are the facts?  There are 200 Stage 2 SNR's and 0 Stage 3 SNR's!  What does the actual evidence indicate?  Exploding stars point to a young universe!