Creationism is a better model than evolution

"Abiogenesis has never been replicated" Well not really, there was an experiment called the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 where they produced organic molecules using gases in the early earth atmosphere, and electricity. (1) Sure the chance of getting it right is low, but imagine every lightning strike that strikes earth every year. There are about 25 million. (2) So if there are 25 million per year, and life started about 1.5 billion years after earth was formed, there were a LOT of chances for it to happen. And it only needed to work once. The omnipotent remark was more of a joke, but you in your response state "God is outside of creation" asserting he is outside of nature. And I would tend to agree, as "he" only exists in people's minds. They have only been diagnosing schizophrenia for 100 years or so. Yes adaptation does happen, but evolution is a much better explanation than God here. When you are dealing in a preponderance of evidence it does not suffice to say "this could have happened", you need to show that it is more likely than the other choice. I hope the voters realise this. I believe that if God was real he wouldn't be so mysterious, as there is no reason to be. If he wanted everyone to follow him and go to heaven then he should give more proof. And why has there not been another prophet in the last 2000 years? Evolution does not dictate that we would live better in salt water. Humans actually have gill like structures in the embryo and lose them during the process of developing in the womb (3), because we have more food on land and the way our eyes work we are better suited for land. Radiation dating, some methods are flawed and no method is perfect, but there is a new method called cosmogenic dating that measures the level of isotopes that form due to exposure to cosmic rays to show how long it has been on earth surface. This method does not require knowing how much of the radiation was there before, as it is 0, the isotopes don't form without the rays and then we can measure how much is there and get an estimate on how long the rock has been on the surface. (4) "Science is not infallible" Of course not, one of my professors said it best, "science is like a drunk driver driving down the road, there are going to be some mistakes along the way but eventually it reaches the target." And the difference between science and religion is that science not only accepts that, but it encourages it. If you told a lifetime evolutionary biologist that you could disprove evolution and you had sufficient evidence, they would be overjoyed, and the person would get the highest accolades in the science community. When that happens in religion, it is not quite the same. The people are often intimidated, hurt, or their finding are destroyed, plus most members of the religion refuse to admit the truth. (5) If you look further you can find oodles of stories of Christians burning down libraries. A diamond is a carbon molecule with a certain structure, although I could not find the story of them being found in the railroads so if you could find a source that would be great. Yes natural disasters happen and that is not a new thing, early earth was volatile, it is quite tame now compared to what it used to be. Noah's ark Even if they were babies, we are talking about 14000 animals on this boat, all surviving for a year, all being maintained by 8 inexperienced ship builders who built the largest wooden boat ever created. Common sense says this is preposterous, but that can be our greatest enemy at times so let's do some number crunching. According to Ken Ham, creationist who debated Bill Nye on this topic there were 7000 kinds that were on Noah's ark which ended 4000 years ago. Today there are millions if not billions of species on Earth. One article here estimates close to a trillion (6) But lets take a number 50 million. This would mean that 12,500 new species would be forming every day for the last 4000 years. Is this possible? Maybe. But is this probable? Absolutely not. Pangaea was around millions of years ago, but even if there was a super continent we would have to find fossils of kangaroos on them somewhere and we have not seen any anywhere except Australia. Yes it requires mass amounts of faith, and being someone who is never satisfied with a weak answer that uses explanations that defy logic like God made things look old or that he just snapped his fingers and created the universe does not hold up. The problem with your second law of thermodynamics argument is that it only applies to closed systems and living things are not closed systems. The first step is still under debate by scientists and all we can do is theorize until we can prove what happened. And the key word there is prove, rather than rely on an ancient religion text. Evolution is the only way that humans could have been here. 1. (http://www.windows2universe.org...) 2. (https://weather.com...) 3. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) 4. (http://www.landforms.eu...) 5. (http://www.landoverbaptist.org...) 6. (http://www.livescience.com...)