Creationism(pro) vs. Evolution(con)

As a Creationist, debating the side of Evolution, by argument shall be rich. recently, the largest dinosaur known to man was discovered, a new species. As if, the fossil was mad of something which could not be directly compared to the substances of prior fossils. I regard this new dinosaur as being sculpted from the stone, and will soon be discovered to be a fake. Used by scientists to either acquire fame, or be used to prove the fallacy of the field of those who interpret the ages of dinosaurs. however. Because I cannot use evidence that evolution is real, because I do not believe in it. I can support the theory based on skepticism. As I disregard pepper moths, and rabbits. Which are naturally capable of adapting but not evolving to suit their environment. One can argue, the case, if disregarding the expanse of the planet that; evolution can be forced to occur. When DNA varieties do not match, they will not match and add up to procreation. but by selective breeding, a new Kind of other animals will occur. (breed of dog, with still poor dog DNA, can create a new variety. dog non the less, never capable of evolving, can be altered into another dog.) ... I should just forfeit. I specialize in defeating competitors, not standing up for something I don't believe in... one sec. Evolution: single cell to modern variety : plausible for the sake that, without evidence, the theory is logical enough to be considered possible. despite no hard evidence is available, because of hunting and catastrophes which cannot be dated via use of a flawed carbon dating method. The 'theory' on it's own, presents no flaw in physics, which we have disproven. But although it can be stipulated to never be observed, as proportions in physical structure don't change and DNA doesn't either, The very existence of multiple species have not been studied thoroughly enough to be sure, that some evolution is not factually occurred/occurred, while other situations are related to no such thing. ex. perhaps a fish is 100% new to the world since creation, where as the lion is primordial. in other conditions where animals may have evolved from cells that came up from the dirt in the moment that the energy passed from foundations back into the pre-energized water, one can only stipulate that the amount of knowledge acquired by humans is phenomenal. and the theory stands apart from necessity, when regarding the founding premise of religion: that life is not only worth living now for our own benefit, but at times it is best not to be lived for our own sufferings sake, and for the sake of others benefits or security. whilst being the provisional provider of our moral code to not rape, steal, murder, or lie. and so necessity presents no reasons to negate it in the events you regard the creation of earth to be factually provided by a power described in the first pages of the bible, which are sound and provable sciences. sky/water both same molecular composure. earth foundation expanding from within geologically proven. Following star formations rational. light being first is both energy and thus, movement of mater being time. All this does not disprove evolution. But what one must admit is, there is only one species of human, no matter how superior our structure is. Any lesser form of human was destroyed if humans evolved. our proportions are all equal, and organs equivalent between races. This is the problem with believing lions evolved. Such a dominant species should thrive in many varieties without any issues. But Lions, kill the young of the former males when taking the pride. lest the mothers have so many young that they themselves kill the new dominant male instead. Evolution is supported in that, regardless of faith, a structural formula has been put in place that there is no need to negate it do to it's secure plausability. The necessity becomes to regard that throughout the world, it is the regions without religion where people most abuse eachother. and it is the atheist populous that rapes people, and murders people, that steals from people, and make up political unjust politicians. All from within either religious or not societies, and heretical blasphemers do not represent any religion when disregarding scriptures which institute these laws - and that this law was put in place by a higher understanding which has always credited God since the beginning of time, from the tiniest islands on either coasts of the world. And so my argument now is. You have no debate worthy of debating evolution. Evolution can co-exist with moralities. Evolution is not atheism. and atheists need to know when to admit they are agnostic to avoid debates and conflict. It is not true to claim ignorance to information one is not given, when they are ignorant to say it is not there, if it could be.