I'll just state some of the things said in "In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" by Walt Brown, Ph.D.
1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.
2. Mendel's laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel's laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed these boundaries.
3. While Mendel's laws give a theoretical explanation why variations are limited, there is broad experimental verification as well. For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring, should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have traits that allowed them to progress the furthest; namely, short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see that opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.
4. Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduces, not increased. For example, many have mistakenly believed that resistances "evolved" in response to pesticides and antiobiotics. Sometimes, a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something evolved. Sometimes, a mutation or variation damaging to the bacteria reduced the antibiotics's effectiveness even more. Sometimes, a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated. While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost. The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (NOT macro) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes. EDIT: adding this
5. If life is ultimately the result of random processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts - including what you are thinking now - would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of accidents. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance, or natural, processes. By destroying the validity of idea, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution.
Why are you dying to live if you're just living to die?
(Author Unknown)