(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs creationism (con)

I will now present my own argument for my position. My argument will be based on four key points, to show that evolution is false, could not have possibly happened, and that these said barriers to evolution theory can exist in harmony with a created earth. 1. Origin of Evolution While there are many theories as to how the evolution process began, they usually involve some sort of major event. A large bang perhaps, or several small ones. The problem is, where did these supposed "bangs" come from? Did they just happen to appear or were they the result of something, like another universe? And if they were the result of something, where did that thing come from (again, like another universe)? One could assume that the bangs came from something that had been there for all eternity. After all, what else would make sense? We can assume something has always been, but not that something comes from nothing. For when have we ever found in science, or anywhere else, that something came from nothing? That is what Creationists believe. That a divine creator created the all of existence, and that this creator was, is, and always has existed. Though we do believe he created everything out of nothing, that is much easier to believe from a Creationist view. After all, to create something out of nothing would defy natural law, and the evolution theory claims to be part of natural law. But if the said divine creator is the one who also created natural law, and is not held by it, then he could certainly do things that defied such a law, wouldn't he? In fact, one could even go so far as to say that he could step in and change such a law at his own pleasure, if he was thus inclined. 2. Second Law of Thermodynamics The second law of thermodynamics is another barrier to evolution theory. According to the law, any system in place becomes disorderly when left by itself. Only with intelligent influence can any system be maintained. [1] The law is constantly observed in nature, historic and current. For example, take our physical bodies. Left to their own devices, they will die, by lack of needed resources. It takes an intelligent brain to tell our bodies how to go about getting food, water, and other necessities to keep our bodies alive. This can also be observed in single cell organisms, and plants and other things that might be considered "unintelligent life forms". They are directed by their own source of intelligence (commonly referred to as "instinct") to keep their systems going and to direct their own organisms to action. While evolution teaches that things can become more organized and efficient when left to their own devices, the second law of dynamics says the exact opposite. And again, while instinct has regularly been observed in present day nature (such as with honeybees, being a beekeeper I am quite familiar with the instincts of bees), evolution offers no explanation to it's origin, unless you assumed that it "evolved" as well. 3. Interdependence in Nature In nature, everything is dependent on everything else. The tides on the distance of the moon to the earth, the animals on the plants, the plants on the bacteria and natural processes such as rain and so on and so on and so on. Evolution dictates that everything around us came into being over a long period of time, slowly, over billions of years. It also teaches the principle of survival of the fittest, that is, that which is best capable to survive in its surroundings will be what survives. Both former teachings are contrary to one another, simply because of the interdependence in nature. Interdependence is so rooted in nature that economic laws reflect it, such as the laws of absolute and comparative advantage. [2] But what it means for nature as a whole is simple: if one area of the cycle of nature fails, then the entire system will fail, and every living thing will perish. Take the tides for example. If the moon was but a bit farther from the earth, then the tides would stop, or at least slow down, which would cause the ocean waters to become stagnant. Life in the oceans would cease, plankton would die, and we would lose the majority of our oxygen supply. [3] But the opposite is also true. If the moon were too close, then the tides would become too quick, causing tidal waves of mass destruction, and also causing the oceans waters to be much too turbulent, again cutting off the possibility of life. This is massive evidence against evolution. Assuming that it was once possible for things to survive without interdependency, as evolution seems to imply, then why is there now in place a system of so much reliability? Would that not be an example of things becoming less fit for survival? Because where they once could survive in an inhospitable climate, they now cannot survive without everything else working properly? 4. Life From the Non-living Evolution would have us believe that living things evolved from non-living things. The problem with this is that there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that such an action is possible. It has never been observed that things have come to life on their own, without being given life. Once something is dead, life cannot be put into it, and once a living thing has died, life cannot be put back into it (naturally that is, though it is certainly possible supernaturally, by some force that is not governed by natural law). Thus, the question arises: how is life brought about into non-living things, if it is not naturally possible to bring life into something that is dead, without the power of supernatural force? The answer is that it is not possible, nor logical, nor scientific, assumed at best, and fabricated at worst. 5. More Evidence of Intelligent Design An automobile is an amazing invention to say the least. Many millenniums of creative and intuitive research in accurate and efficient transportation means have resulted in the invention of the automobile. It is indeed a fine example of intelligent design. But could it be possible that an automobile could have, if not for human design, been brought about by natural construction? Could all of the parts have become fashioned in such a way that they would fit perfectly with the other parts, together creating a fine piece of machinery that ran with such efficiency, almost as if it had been designed by many people collectively, building off of past generations' successes and the introduction of new technology? Of course not! The concept is completely ridiculous and absurd, not to mention an insult to the various contributors of such a masterpiece. There is no natural process which can create from scratch a complicated machine. And even if there was a process in place which might possibly bring about such a feat, the odds against it would be so large as to make the prospect of winning a one million digit lottery seem but a certainty. And if all that is true, how much more so would the probability be of creating an interdependent, ecologic system, so that it would not only work, but work well? I can tell you: impossible with a capital "I". 6. Conclusion I could continue, but do to character restrictions, it would not be feasible. Which is a pity because I did not even have space to make an argument on the fallacies of the carbon dating system. No matter though. I believe that even putting all that aside, I have made an effective case for creationism by showing that, due to the many inconsistencies that evolution has with natural law, and with the complexity and interdependence of the earth, one must draw a single conclusion: The Universe and all that is within it was created by an intelligent creator, more powerful then all his creation combined. Sources: [1] . http://www.changinglives.org.au... [2] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://earthsky.org...