Creationism is real

WE can drop my sun is shrinking you have negated that contention The Big Bang is a theory that has alot of reliable scientific backing. And the science of the Big Bang provides considerable evidence of a Creator, since it implies a specific point of creation- and specifically that time has a beginning. Some scientists find this point rather unsettling, and are scrambling for other theories to the beginning of the universe (despite the solid evidence for the big bang). But most that accept the big bang also accept that there is a cause (creator) behind the event, even if they don't try to articulate who or what that creator is. All it describes is a process by which all the matter that exists got from where it started to where it is now. It doesn't even attempt to explain how that matter came into being in the first place. Thus leaving to the interpretationt hat there is a creator 2)Evolution to battle The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Evolution not a scientific law and no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true, humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos with skin that is half way between white and black. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning. Therfore evolution is a flase accusation of how the EArth was started and from my Bing Bang theory explanation There should be no need to vote neg and the ballot should read aff