Evolution vs Creationism

I will only address several of your points so I can get to more evidence, rather than playing tennis with existing evidence. "As far as we know..." There, you admit yourself that we only have limited knowledge, we do not know for sure, and could be wrong. "This is a great example of the continuum fallacy. This is remarkably similar to Example #1 in the link below." When I looked at example one, I realized that if scientists were wrong several times, it would be equal to them being wrong in general, so being wrong 100 times is equal to the one, as they were still wrong. "Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions." That is from your Wikipedia link on scientific theories. You acknowledge that the theories you support can be false by this. "The true story of Noah's Ark? Well, take a look at this picture: http://www.skepticblog.org...; This graphic only gives dimensions and statistics of both ships, however, the picture is wrong. AiG says, "The key is to understand the word used in Scripture, kind (Hebrew min). The Bible does not say God brought every individual or every species to Noah," (1). Your source uses each animal species, while the real ark brought only two of each order or family. "For the Big Bang, there is evidence." This evidence is predominantly theoretical evidence, with some observations, too; this is not good, solid evidence. And, please explain this paragraph, I could not understand it. "Final one says that if points A and B in the big bang were of differing temperatures, then they couldn't have swapped heat to equalize. Want to know why? Because points A and B didn't equalize EACH OTHER. They equalized with much closer points." New Evidence: "None of the major steps of evolution have ever been recapitulated in a lab," a caption for a video says. This video stars Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, who received his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard Medical School (2). "When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel's Accountant shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection," (3). This sentence is in reference to an article describing the "Fatal Flaw" of evolution through a state-of-the-art test. And the fruit fly. Who knew that this could refute a very learned man's ideas? Starting in 1910, scientists have been studying fruit flies on evolution. 100 years later, we find this: "Fruit flies, with their short generation times and only four pairs of chromosomes, presented prime testing ground for evolution. In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now. But they haven't," (4). Happy Birthday, Darwin, your theory's biggest gaps (5)! On his 200th birthday, several biologists were interviewed and asked to name the largest gaps in evolution. Six of those interviewed actually responded, and gave many interesting comments on the issue. "Despite the countless experiments conducted under highly-controlled laboratory environments using complex instrumentation, it appears that the essential biomolecules and biological structures needed for life just won't develop 'spontaneously,'" is a comment off of the difficulty of life beginning originally. The article gives several more. Mount St. Helens also gives insight to a young earth. The supposed trickle of the Colorado River forming the Grand Canyon over millions of years happened similarly during a mudflow following the eruption. "The little "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon. The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere," ICR says. Coal, supposedly millions of years to form, could be forming as we speak in Spirit Lake, where tons of logs were deposited after Mount St. Helens eruption, became waterlogged, sunk, and formed peat. "The Spirit Lake peat, in contrast, is texturally very similar to coal. All that is needed is burial and slight heating to transform the Spirit Lake peat into coal. Thus, at Spirit Lake, we may have seen the first stage in the formation of coal," ICR says in the same article, which is devoted entirely to the Mount St. Helens eruption, its effects, and its relation to creation (6). This is my final argument, as in the next round, I will be responding only to Pro's final arguments and giving closing statements, just to make that clear. (1) https://answersingenesis.org... (2) http://www.icr.org... (3) http://www.icr.org... (4) http://www.icr.org... (5) http://www.icr.org... (6) http://www.icr.org...