They have not evolved and they will not evolve.
Define "evolve"
In spite of the billions of fossils found there is still not one example of transition between species.
Not true. Though species-to-species transitions in the fossil record are rare, they are not non-existent. Furthermore, there are plenty of transitions between families and orders and a fair number between genera.
Scientific facts that deny evolution;
Science is constantly being updated. Most of these "facts" are obsolete.
1. By the laws of physics one can show that the moon is receding from the earth. By multiplying the current recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started right from the earth.
Objection based on an outmoded measurement. Direct measurements taken from satellites show the recession of the moon is not a problem for the age of the earth. Data on the moon coincides with independent data (such as corals) on earth to support current estimates of the age of the earth.
2. The pre-lunar landing predictions of evolutionary scientists were that, due to a presumed 4.5 billion year age of the moon and the rate of influx of dust, the astronauts would be lost in a great depth of dust on the moon. Fortunately the creationist predictions of a thin layer of dust were correct.
Objection based on outmoded and exaggerated measurement of accumulation of moon dust developed through earth-based measurements. Long before the moon landing, more accurate measurements of dust accumulation were made from satellites and manned space orbits.
Can you cite a source in which a creationist predicted a thin layer of dust on the moon?
3. Considering the current strength of the earths dipole magnet and the rate of decay, it is impossible for the earth to be more than a few thousand years old. (More than that and the moon would be sucked into the earth)
Objection does not take into account the fluctuating strength of the magnetic field nor field reversals.
4. Given the slowest probable rate at which soil is washed/blown into the sea, it is not possible for the world to be anywhere near as old as evolutionists suggest. The entire land mass would have washed into the sea many millions of years ago.
Objection does not take into account uplift, formation of mountains or plate tectonics.
5. There is worldwide evidence of the recent existence of a variety of dinosaurs, and dragon like creatures as well as evidence of their co-existence of man. They did not exist millions of years ago. These range from the discover of thousands of statues and samples of pottery depicting interaction with dinosaurs in Mexico, to the carvings of statues in 1000 year old temples in Asia
Objection based on hoaxes (e.g. Ica stones) and subjective interpretations of art work. Does not take into account the creativity of human imagination.
6. Over 50 ancient cultures throughout the world have a flood as part of their historical belief - one that says the entire world, except for a few souls, was destroyed in a flood caused by God. Not so strangely there is geological evidence of this flood throughout the world.
Objection does not take into account that:
1. stories could be of many different floods occuring independently of each other,
2. stories travel and are repeated in many forms, and
3. there are also many cultures without a flood tradition.
The geological evidence is more consistent with multiple local floods/regional floods, successive invasions of continents by shallow seas, and moutain formation via collision of tectonic plates which raise the sea bottom into mountains.
7. Evolution denies 2 of the most respected laws of science (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics), whereas creationism actually predicts them.
Evolution violates no law of thermodynamics. I assume you are cutting and pasting these objections and don't actually understand thermodynamics.
Can you describe how the laws of thermodynamics are predicted by creationism?
According to scientific calculation, the chance of a 200-component organism being formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! A single human cell contains hundreds of millions of coponents.
Objection based on misapplication of mathematics to evolution. Makes several false assumptions about the process of evolution.
Consider then, two multi cellular organisms evolving simultaneously and identically, at the same rate and in the same place, with complimentary reproductive capacity and instinct, and you begin to understand the absurdity of evolution.
No need to consider any such thing as this is not how evolution works.
Statistically, it is far more probable for a fully functional Boeing 747, (given enough time, heat and random mutation), to evolve out of the natural earth than it is for a pilot to evolve and fly the same plane.
See above re misapplication of mathematics. Evolutionary change requires statistical measures and these have been verified many times in many species.
In ending it is interesting to note that evolution was introduced into American schools, and thereafter worldwide, based on the scientific proof of missing link fossils found in that country. Several years later the remainder of that same animal was found it was a pig. And that sums up the theory of evolution.
Evolution was introduced into most American schools after the launch of the first artificial satellite by the Russians led to concern about the backward state of American science education. (I attended high school before 1957 and I know evolution was not taught then--wasn't even a footnote in the text.)
The rest of this paragraph is a garbled version of the discovery of so-called "Nebraska man" who was actually a figment of an journalist's and artist's imagination. No carcass was ever found. The single tooth on which the hype was based was identified at a university to which it had been sent by a scientist.
As one evolutionary mathematician dared to state; an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery of new natural lawsphysical, physicochemical and biological"
I expect you have no idea who it is that this quote mine comes from.
