Let's make this very clear: Calling all evolution-cross-examiners ignorant is tantamount to calling all Jews arrogant, calling all Hispanics drug lords, calling all Christians gullible, calling all Muslims terrorists, calling all Chinese people communists, or calling all black people watermelon and fried-chicken eaters. You're making a hasty generalization that gives the false impression of an unfair advantage. This one issue is being screamed out in such ubiquity as a one-sided undebatable fact, when the reality is that all the evidence people say is hard enough to support it is really less valid than it seems. It's a mere hypothesis being backed by not only circumstantial but also artificially exaggerated evidence that is being passed off as harder than it really is. Let's examine all the evidence closer, shall we?
Even Darwin himself admitted that the fossil record is probably the worst form of evidence to ever be used to prove his theory. Why? Because the fossils don't match up to it. Rather than there being a bunch of transitional fossils between microbes and animals, say, 550 million years ago, there's a sudden appearance of all the major animal phyla in a timescale that when compared to the age of the Earth is equivalent to a mere 8 inches of a football field! I admit, that still amounts to 70 million years, but still: where are the interphylum transitional fossils? If Darwin's evolution theory were true, we would see transition fossils from one phylum to the next. Not at all what we see: There's the fossils that set the phyla apart, but in a manner completely at odds with evolution, no fossils in the entire period that link the phyla together! And right before that, all you see is microbes. There's absolutely no transitional fossils between the precambrian microbes and Cambrian animals either, which if Darwinism was true, that's what you'd expect to see.
That's not all, however. What about the Miller-Urey experiment? If amino acids could come about in the early atmosphere, that would explain the origin of life, right? Wrong! Sure, amino acids may be the building blocks of chemicals like DNA and proteins, but a cell? For a cell to form, the amino acids need to be arranged in a certain order. That simply does not happen on its own (the odds of mere chemical reactions between amino acids somehow miraculously forming a cell on their own are odds that even supercomputers have been unable to calculate), and, perhaps most importantly, the gases used in the experiment -- ammonia, methane, and hydrogen -- weren't even close to the early Earth's REAL atmosphere! If you use the correct carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride, and water that REALLY made it up, what you get is an acidic sludge that contains absolutely zero amino acids whatsoever. Yet it still shows up in textbooks as evidence supporting evolution! Give me a break.
Homologous structures, you ask? You think THAT is evidence of common ancestry? In homology diagrams, the structures are severely doctored. The color AND size have been altered to draw attention to structures that otherwise would go unnoticed. Moreover, don't artificially designed objects have homologous structures? An iPad and an iPhone. A Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7. An Acer AC700 and an Acer C720. Tim Berra, a PhD professor of biology at Harvard University in the 1950's, even tried to prove evolution using man-made cars, of all things! If a design is a design that works, it's going to be used over and over by that same designer; hence, this "evidence" mutually proves both evolution AND creationism, without giving favor to one or the other.
What about embryology? Doesn't it have something to say here? Let's be clear: The embryos used as evidence in textbooks are in fact artificially exaggerated fakes compared to the way the embryos really are. Ernst Haeckel, whose embryo drawings have been used over and over in textbooks and elsewhere, did two things to deliberately deface the truth: 1, he cherry-picked embryos that looked the most similar instead of choosing them at random, and 2, he exaggerated the results instead of accurately representing them. Moreover, the stage of development represented in the drawings is a midpoint stage, NOT a beginning stage! Compare them closer to their blastula stage, and what you find is embryos that are all radically different, then become slightly similar only to diverge a second time. Even Darwin himself admitted that the embryos were the single most valuable proof that his theory was true, and yet the fraud lingers on.
You say we share 99% of DNA with chimps, don't you? What you're believing is outdated information: In 2011, scientists were able to determine that it's really more like 70%. The radical difference also has been found in the most unlikely of places: the "junk" DNA that Darwinists have been trying to pass off as evidence for evolution. Moreover, in 2012, scientists found multiple purposes for the DNA that they once thought to be evolution's useless byproduct: everything from 4 million or so gene switches that actually turn genes on and off, to disease genes, all in those non-coding genetic black holes that we once thought didn't do anything. These findings showed us that a good 80% of all the DNA in our bodies is indeed biochemically active, meaning it's not evidence for evolution after all.
So let's review; that is, A, the fossil record is NOT laden with as much evidence as we need to support it, B, Miller-type experiments use gases that aren't even close to the early Earth's REAL atmosphere, C, homology is mutually exclusive to both evolution AND creationism, D, Haeckel's embryos were faked, E, we really only have 70% of DNA in common with chimps, F, the biggest difference between humans and apes is in the noncoding DNA that was once thought to be Darwinian genetic waste, and G, that non-coding DNA actually is a genetic boss to the very genes that do make proteins, completely at odds with what Darwinists thought was true. Yeah, way to pass off this circumstantial evidence as fact, because it sure doesn't sound like it.
My fellow worshippers, pastors, Christian apologists, and I often get asked what would happen to our faith if scientists were able to make life in a lab. Our response? It would only reinforce our beliefs even more, due to the fact that in that moment, the scientists would be playing God. You need information input to arrange the amino acids a certain way, just like you need information input to go from bricks to a city, which only proves that God exists. He is either impotent or evil because he allows evil to happen, you say? Look to the cross. And to the empty tomb three days later... What do you see? A God who actually knows your pain! Crucifixion is far more miserable of a death than anyone today can possibly fathom. Add on top of that the scourging, flogging, thorn-piercing, rejections, mockery, and denialism going on during those times, and what you get is someone who is certainly capable of walking with you through any trial or tribulation. The earliest Christians were often tortured or killed with the same degree of evil as Jesus was, yet they too had hope and joy through it all. Oh, yeah, and not only Jesus, but also Lazarus and the 12-year-old daughter of a centurion's servant are all proof that this God who knows our pain can also raise anyone from the dead. That's exactly why we Christians are so joyful no matter what trials or tribulation really happen. It's really up to the reader whether he's willing to share in that joy or not, because in all honesty, people whose main reason to doubt is the problem of evil in the world are "sitting on God's lap to slap Him in the face".