1 piece of evidence to disprove evolution..

I suggest that if you want to talk about cosmology rather than evolution you do so in a different thread.The first thing to note is that evolution covers a lot of things (e.g. common descent and natural selection) so one piece of evidence is not necessarily going to disprove all of it.The second thing to note is that science does not place much reliance on single data points or anecdotes. If you want to overthrow any estblished theory you need really good evidence.Since you some to take the typical Biblical literalist view here's one suggestion. If the geological and fossil record really reflected a recent creation followed by a world wide flood a few thousand years ago then evolution would never have got started and a literal reading of the Bible would still be the accepted view.That would entail finding almost no fossils, or those that we do find are mainly in a global layer of rapidly deposited material. That those fossils - or the unfossilised or partially fossilised remains - were almost entirely of recognisable modern life. And that those remains are found in an order that can reasonably be explained by the dynamics of a flood. That is a long way from what we actually have found.

Just some points to think about1) Evolution does not put a firm date on the beginning of life. The oldest signs of life are about 3.5 billion years old, and appear to be fossilised cyanobacteria ("blue-green algae"). Some scientists still argue that these structures have been misinterpreted. But this is not in any way a key part of evolution.2) The first life was not an amoeba. More likely it was a predecessor to something like the cyanobacteria mentioned above. Exactly what it was will depend on the definition of "life" - and that in itself is something of a problem.3) The reason why 'evolutionists' beleive that evolution was responsible for the diversity of life is that the data points towards common descent and not separate creation. So in that sense it would certainly not make "creation" a valid view.

Well it's pretty clear that you don't have any sort of scientific background - or even the basic knowledge that could be picked up from the popular scientific literature. Managing to confuse chaos theory with Quantum Mechanics AND then asserting that one of them is "essentially that there wasn't a 'creator' to start off with" (which NEITHER says) - well it says that you know very little about science. So does your idea that evolution includes the Big Bang.So when you say that you beleived in evolution "to a certain degree" it doesn't even mean that you even had a clear idea of what evolution is.So how can you talk about a "lack of fossils" as being an important point when you probably don't even know about the fossils that do exist ? (How about microraptor gui to name a recent one ?) And what about the other evidence that evolution iss based on ? Why put it all on the fossil record which has a some serious limitiations on what it can show us. ?

My rule of thumb. Anyone who says that evolution contradicts the 2nd law of Thermodynamics understands neither.