''Sorry but evolution is not a fact, there are many things that cant happen with the theory of evolution.''
How exactly do you know what can or cannot happen?
''For example just one example is the flagellum motor. It consists of 40 parts that all need to be there for it to function, take away one part and it ceases to operate, hence it needed to be created with all of its parts simultaneously or it simply cannot function. anything that is not useful will be disregarded over time according to Evolution, so the flagellum motor should have ceased to exist, it could not have evolved from evolution. Just one example.''
Your example was put on trial...and failed. Irreducible complexity fails because there are benefits for all the components of the flagellum. Consequently you base your objection to evolution on flawed information;
Answering the Argument The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).
