Evolution is NOT a fact, but rather falls short in evidence

Hello. Firstly, it's great debating this topic with you! I think it's wonderful when people sit down and talk about philosophy, religion, and science! I'd first like to refute your arguments: DNA similarity is an interesting argument, but an ineffective argument. That is because of one word: speculation. Now 96% seems like a large number, but remember that we are dealing with deoxyribonucleic acid here. The 4% left is an astounding number of cells (much more than billions of code and information). It's also good to remember that DNA is not about quantity but rather quality. You could have 99.9% similarity to something else, but the .1% left may be the genes that contribute the most. In other words, it's not so as how much, but rather what's in the genes that are left and how does it affect the connection between chimpanzees and humans. That being said, DNA similarity can also be a sign of a Creator. Are we to expect that we, humans, should be completely different than other animals. We are dealing with mammals and primates here! Of course we will be similar. Just because we are similar, however, doesn't mean we have the same common ancestor. That is speculation. Even modern science can't be exactly sure. So the argument is based on whether you want to believe that we came from a common ancestor, or if we have the same designer. That's up to you! :) Vestigial Organs: The plantaris muscle is not vestigial. Although it may seem useless in a physical way, which in a way it is, it's quite important as a sensory muscle. Read more here: http://creation.com... (Remember that if you ever question the sources of my articles, the references in the article are always displayed at the end (in the article)). Homology: The homology argument is speculation again (just like the DNA similarity). We are both looking at the same information (the bone structures), but we both point to a different source. Now, of course, there's no way you can exactly know that we had a common ancestor as that happened in the past (and the past isn't repeatable). So you speculate that we had one and go with your belief. I respect that, however I take the information differently. Homology to me points to an intelligent design. Remember that you can't expect humans to be very different from others since we were made from the same Creator. Plus, if we were very different, it'd be hard for us to live. Humans must have a sense of connection to the things around it to survive (physically and mentally). If you study biochemistry, you learn all about that; what we eat and other animals also contribute to our lives on planet earth. My argument: Now I am stating the following: Evolution is based off faith rather than science. Here's my reasoning: Question: Can you provide one example of observable and testable Darwinian Evolution (a change of kinds)? Now, if you can't (and don't worry if you can't; it's never been observed) most evolutionists will say, "But it requires millions of years." Okay, I understand that, but do not call that science. The scientific method is based off what we can observe and test today. When you say, "it happened over millions of years," you step out of science and into faith. You are trusting that it happened those many years ago (even though you weren't there). So my main problem is that evolutionists cannot admit that there theory is based off lots of faith. I can admit that mine is. Now for another argument: Fossils. Many evolutionists claim that fossils back up their belief. The irony is that it does the exact opposite! Firstly, fossils are bad for scientific reasoning as you don't know if that fossil had any kids/ancestors. All you know about that animal/dinosaur is that it died. Secondly, we find billions of fossils all around the planet earth. Now if you know your science, you should know that it's not quite easy to create a fossil. If, let's say, an animal dies and we put it on my front lawn, it won't become a fossil. It will simply decay and bugs and other animals will eat it up. Even if the other animals don't eat it, it will slowly decay and simply vanish! Poof! So why do we have so many fossils. Well to make a fossil it takes a lot of sediment, water, and fast-paced time. So a creature's body is found, then lots of water and dirt mix to quickly wash over the body (it's important to note that this happens very, very fast.) There's even a fossil of a fish eating another fish midway! It's fossilized and you can search it up. It's quite cool. Either way, the billions of fossils that we find all over the world actually point to a worldwide flood! Finally, I'd love if you would read this article. I'm assuming you might of watched (or maybe just heard) about the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate. If you enjoyed that, I'm sure you'll enjoy this article: http://www.infowars.com... Mr. Nye states that we find that the layers of the earth and the animals that we find in them fit perfectly with the evolutionist's timeline. That is just not true. The article talks about how mammals have been found in the same layers of dinosaurs. If that's not enough then archeologists find flesh in dinosaur bones all the time! Now if a creature is millions of years old, that flesh should be long gone. But it isn't. So overall, evolution is not supported by the scientific method (what we can test and observe) OR the historic evidence (the fossil evidence).