MUTATIONS, or LACK THEREOF:
If all biology originated with a single celled creature, then to get to the state of a complex being, obviously much change is required.  To obtain this change, one of two theories must occur.  The first is that a purposeful alteration presented itself in order to either better adapt to a changing environment, or to become more efficient at existing in the current environment.  The second, which we will discuss in this paragraph, is that of a random mutation occurring with the effect of increased efficiency in the creature's environment.  For example, a human is randomly born with an eye in the back of his head, which turns out to be a better cranial configuration than the original for the purpose of preventing successful attackers from behind, or perhaps for a teacher to watch his/her students while writing on the blackboard.  Because this change is beneficial to the human's existence, it continues to occur in the succeeding generations.

There are several problems with this theory.  First of all, any creature which has a random mutation, beneficial though it may be, would be more likely to be outcast, rather than embraced by the rest of the species and would be more unlikely to find a mate willing to reproduce.  Second, even if they could find a mate willing to reproduce, the mutated gene(s) would be recessive and unlikely to replicate in the generations to follow.  Third, any mutations which would occur would probably be only a portion of an organ, or not even identifiable as any particular anatomy at all.  In other words, there are so many complex mechanisms which must be present to be functional and useful that it would be almost impossible for an accidental mutation of such a magnitude to possibly occur.  For a third eye to be useful at all, the many individual aspects of the eye itself (cornea, retina, etc), the optical nerves to transmit the signals to the brain, the ability for the brain to analyze and interpret this additional data separate from what your forward facing eyes are seeing, etc.. Even something as simple as an extra limb requires skeletal, muscular, and nerve structures, along with additional functional control by the brain.  And fourth, if any evolution were to occur due to mutations, then we would witness oddities existing and thriving in nature on a regular basis.  For the actions to beat the odds, seeing mutated individuals and creatures would have to be normal.

SURVIVAL of THE FITTEST FARCE:
Intraspecies:
Admittedly, this theory actually makes some sense to me, but not really in the concept of evolution.  By this I mean that I can understand how perhaps the strongest, fastest, and/or smartest example of a species will be the most likely to reproduce and pass on their superior genes to the next generation.  However, this can only affect the quality of a species, not alter the species itself or create a new species altogether (see next paragraph below).
Interspecies:
This makes no sense at all or whatsoever.  If, from the start, there was a continuous process of filtering the weaker species, then there would only be one species in existence today, presumably humans.  All others would have been conquered and killed.  Also, this makes no allowance for plant life, all of which have supposedly evolved from the same single celled organism.

FOSSIL EVIDENCE to SUPPORT CREATION:
The fossil record seems to be the source of data that scientists typically use the most to support the theory of evolution, using various stages of ape-man skeletal remains to attempt to prove their case.  In all actuality though, "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist).  How is this?  For one, a good portion of the ape-man skeletons have been proven to be hoaxes.  In truth, the fossilized remains actually support creation instead.  Click here for more details:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

FALLACY of CARBON DATING:
The current methods of determining the date when a life-form was last alive are generally flawed, not taking into account global weather anomalies and other factors which can drastically alter the accuracy of the tests.  For more information, click below:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

INTRICACY of DESIGN (also stated in "Ok, but why God?"):
It goes without saying that the biological world is a complex mechanism, in both a macro and a micro sense.  But I have to wonder if those who do not believe in creation understand just how intricately complicated and interdependent that it really is.  Almost every aspect of the earth depends upon one another for survival.  The foliage needs carbon dioxide and provides oxygen for the animals.  The air that is exchanged through the creatures and greenery is the means of carrying another necessity of life to them, water.  Cloud creation is enabled by dust particles floating in the air.  Then there's the human body.  What a piece of work!  An electrical, chemical, and physical feat of engineering.  It's more complicated and intricate than any automobile or computer could ever be.  Yet to believe that it would have evolved on its own from mere matter is a travesty to it's design (and designer).  It would be easier to believe that a pile of scrap metal, sand, and plastic could form itself into a working computer, if only given enough time with the elements.  In truth, however harsh these elements may be, without specific intent from an intelligent being, no working machine of any useful form will result.

Continue to "Ok, but why God?"