Why is it so hard for you to accept that evolution is fact?

From the article

"Evidence from fossils. Based on myriad similarities and differences between living species, evolutionary biology makes predictions about the features of ancestral forms. For example, numerous features indicate that birds are derived from reptilian ancestors. By contrast, these data reject the possibility that birds were derived from other groups, such as flying insects. Scientists have discovered fossil birds with feathers and legs like modern birds, but which also have teeth, clawed digits on their forelimbs, and a tailbone like their reptilian ancestors. Fossils are especially important evidence for evolution because, with little effort, each of us can use our eyes and minds to observe and interpret the dinosaur and other ancient fossils in public museums."

I quote from a resource:

"Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it.

Of course

The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.

The information does change, either from natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, genetic flow, or separation. Let's discuss the easiest one in my opinion, natural selection. Say you have a group of early primates, and one primate has longer limbs and a sharper mind. That primate is going to experience greater reproductive success than it's companions, and therefore have on average a higher chance to survive to the point of reproduction. When that primate reproduces it passes down its traits and genes through his sperm/her egg. The baby primate will now have a chance to inherit the genes of the smarter and faster primate. These more advanced primates will on average survive longer and reproduce more, so over many generations they will start to make up more and more of the primate proplation, until the primate population is completely made up of what was a singular mutation. Do this over again and again and boom! It's a human now!

then why are there still bugs and fish and so many other things? That kinda seems dumb because you just stated that they would all die out.

Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still no.

This is plain dumb. We have seen evolution appear before our very own eyes with bacterial strains. You take a population of bacteria with only a few that are immune to a certain antibiotic. All will die expect those that are immune, and they will make up the new population. Fish don't sprout hair and thumbs, we seperated from a common ancestor millions of years ago. Evolution does happen over millions of years, fossils are blatant proof.

We have seen genetic mutations. That is true. Have we seen any organism mutate near close enough to be considered a different species in a repeatable, provable way? No

That first point is devastating enough. But here’s how evolution gets buried even more.

It was more stupid than devastating 

You’ve probably heard news accounts about how life could have started on earth “gazillions” of years ago in volcanoes, slush pools, crystals, rocks, you name it. Maybe you’ve heard something about “artificial” life or test-tube life or rotten-food-in-the-refrigerator life (okay, maybe not the last one).

It was more of a chemical soup but ok.

Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact.

Nope, life came from the primordial soup, and can and has been recreated.
Examples please?

All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really show us just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That is, way smarter than us.)

Nope, you probably have no idea what you are talking about. The Miller-Urey proved that an electrical current could spark basic life is the right condition, not that here was a higher intelligence. It also wasn't a failed experiment. 

I don’t know too much about that but how would they know what the primordial soup was made of, its proportions, or what other elements would have present?

And Yet We’re Here
So, if evolution can’t explain how humans came to be (or any other living thing, for that matter), what can? The Bible. Yep, God’s Word.

The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe and all life came to be. There’s no speculation or strange interpretation needed. You can just read how God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. Simple. Factual."

This is all easily disproved by science. The Earth is not 6 thousand years old nor did god create all of these species. Get out of your indoctrinated Christian homeschooling and learn some real science.