Evolution (Pro) VS. Literal Creationism (Con) (Part III)

Introduction Alright. To start I would like to ask you some questions. You believe God is the Creator. Why would you believe that, but you don't believe Creationism? Give me a logical answer, and yes, this has everything to do with Christianity. Second thing, do you believe God created us in His image? If you do, than why did he have us evolve as if we aren't the most special creature on the planet, and if you don't believe that then why do you think God created anything at all? It is written that God created all things but humans were to keep Him company. So if that wasn't the intention--and this is just something I want you to ponder--whaat was the purpose for God creating anything?! Arguments On to the concrete facts. I'd first like to share that one of the most recent of thousands of discoveries of proof of the authenticity of the history of the Bible is a Babylonian clay tablet dated 595 BC concerning Nebuchadnezzar's Chief Eunuch, Nebo-Sarsekim who was sent to King Zedekiah. This same Nebo-Sarsekim is mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3 in the date given in the Bible (See Archaeology, Vol.61, No. 1, January/February 2008, p. 24 http://www.archaeology.org...). In creation vs. evolution the greatest unbelievable and yet most believed concept that evolutionists base their entire "science technology" on is that natural selection is proof of change in species. In credibility of creation vs. evolution, natural selection is the adaptation of a species to changes in the environment. These can be changes in size, shape or colour of any parts of the plant or animal, but it never has and never will change one species into another species. Evolutionists claim the change in species comes from mutations. Somewhere around millions of laboratory mutations by evolutionists have failed to produce a single change of species. These mutations have only produced freaks like extra legs or missing legs or organs. The offspring of these freaks either vanish or return back to the original species. All plants and animals reproduce after their own kind, as the Bible says in Genesis 1:11-25; 6:20; 7:14; Leviticus 11:14-29; 19:19; and Deuteronomy 14:13-18. In creation vs. evolution the credibility of creation is vastly more scientific than the incredibility of evolution. Here are some logical reasons evolution is false: Spontaneous punctuated equilibrium is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured. The theory of relativity is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured. Antimatter as a result of black holes is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured. Photons are not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured. Time dilation is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured. The distance between galaxies at the limits of the universe is the same as they are everywhere. Therefore, the universe may not be expanding. How many billions of years it would take a plant to develop seeds by accident in order to reproduce and how many billions of years it would take those plants to surround those seeds with delicious and nutritious fruit or vegetable matter by accident to incite animals to eat the seeds and spread them on the earth. At the same time, why were these fruits and vegetables absolutely essential for the lives of the animals? Was that also an accident? Here are logical reasons that creationism is true: The Creation of the earth environment was the same or better than today's environment. Gravity is not an accident. Earth and moon dust prove the earth is young. That water preserved itself for thousands of years is the result of natural water pollution and is not an accident. Euphrates River began about 6000 years ago. Niagra Falls dates back to the time of the Flood of Noah. The history of the Bible has been proven by thousands of archaeological discoveries. The coming to earth of Jesus actually occurred. Biblical Predictions of the coming of Jesus Christ prove that it was pre-planned. Skin color is not an accident. The organs and anatomy of humans and animals are not accidents. Symbiotic relationships prove that all species had to be created at the same time, or no species would survive. Cell division into different components of plants and animals is not an accident. Acid rain was pre-planned and has purpose. Climate of the earth is not an accident. Rapid decay of radioactive isotopes at the time of the flood and the time of creation proves that the earth is young. The pyramids prove that man's intelligence has not evolved, but has decreased. The Ten Commandments are valid guidelines for conduct. Rebuttals "The fossil record is one of many things proving evolution." The fossil record is definitely also one of the many things disproving evolution. See the arguments. "The fossils prove a slow, gradual change." Maybe you're right, but how is this a good thing? It just reminds me of all the missing links that are covered up with faith-filled assumptions that evolutionists create. See arguments. "In 2004, scientist found fossils of what's the missing link between amphibians and fish. Four different transitional species were found. This is a huge find, as now we confirm that fish turned into amphibian." OK, so you found a link. Finally! Because there should probably be more than that if you want to prove evolution!! But there are many problems with your claim, too. Evolutionists claim that the paddles of the crossopterygians evolved into legs. They claim that the rhipidistians evolved into the first amphibians, animals capable of living on land and in water. Toads and frogs are both amphibians. the rhipidistians and the coelacanth lived at the same time. They both are said to have become extinct millions of years ago. The rhipidistians are said to have evolved into amphibians, and the coelacanth just simply died out. Except that the coelacanth was found alive and unchanged less than a hundred years ago. Here's what J. R. Norman of the Department of Zoology, British Museum of Natural History, said: "The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of fishes." [1] If there was an evolutionary progression, then fish would have to be millions of years older than amphibians, and consequently in much lower rock strata (this argument is meaningless though, if as Creationists believe many of these layers of rock were laid down during the flood. There would be no real progression from one strata to the next). Why whale evolution is wrong: Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes. The evolution of the whale has previously raised substantial problems because of the extremely abrupt timescale over which it occurred. Explain that to me. [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] http://www.uncommondescent.com... [3] http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info... Thank you for your time! I look forward to the next round.