The basic reality of evolutionism is that it's been disproven so many ways that a newcomer has a bewildering assortment of disproofs to choose from.
The one I'd recommend is the one involving fruit flies; one description resides here:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
This one amounted to a laboratory disproof of the entire thesis.
The "theory of evolution" amounts to a claim that microevolutionary changes (the existence of which nobody disputes) will, given enough time, add up to MACROEVOLUTION, i.e. produce new KINDS of animals; that is, will produce animals with new organs and new basic plans for existence.
And so, for several decades in the late 1800s and early 1900s, scientists experimented with fruit flies by exposing them to everything known to cause mutations, and recombining the mutants in every imaginable way, precisely as the theory of evolution calls for.
Now fruit flies breed new generations every few DAYS, so that running thexe experiments for a few decades amounted to more generatinos of fruit flies than there have ever been generations of humans on this earth. They exposed them to gases, electrical shock, heat, cold, blast, radiation, and everything which has ever been observed to cause mutations, and they recombined the mutants in every conceivable way. Again, this is how evolution is supposed to operate, by a combination of mutations and "natural selection", whenever mutation causes some "beneficial change".
In theory they should have seen new kinds of insects, but they didn't. In reality, all they ever saw was fruit flies, sterile freaks, and creatures which returned, boomarang-like, to the norm for fruit flies when re-bred to a next generation.
Which is precisely what the breeders told Charles Darwin was all he'd ever see when telling he was full of **** back in the 1860s.
In real life, "natural selection" is a destructive force and not a constructive one. It is an agency of stasis and not of change. It weeds out everything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a given animal species, allowing the occasional microevolutionary change, a difference in color or beak size for instance, but that's every bit of it.
In real life, mutations all have names, such as Down's syndromne, Tay-Sachs, "cri-du-chat syndrome" etc. etc. etc. Ever watch the women going door to door collecting for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they are ALWAYS collecting money for research to PREVENT mutations, and not to CAUSE them? Think there might be a reason for that?
Scientists in the early 1900s fully expected the fruit fly experiments to produce new kinds of insects. When they didn't, a number of the scientists were so disillusioned as to drop out of Darwinism, including the famous case of Goldschmidt who thereafter devised his "Hopeful Monster" theory and described other biologists treating him like the ugly duckling or the target of the "two minute hate" events described by Orwell in "1984"
GUNGA-- ABOUT 200 NOBEL LAUREATES PRESENTED AN "AMICUS" DOCUMENT IN 1987 TO THE US SUPREME COURT IN ITS DELIBERATION ABOUT TEACHING CREATIONISM IN LOUISIANA SCHOOLS. THE OVERWHELMONG EVIDENCE IS QUICKLY TURNING YOUR CREATIONIST VIEW INTO AN AMUSING FOOTNOTE OF HISTORY. YOUD BETTER FIND SOME EVIDENCE TO TRY TO REFUTE IT BEFORE YOUR SIDE BECOMES EXTINCT.
