Evolution is true

In no way does your point prove that humans came from apes or any other animal.You are improperly equivocating evolution with humans coming from apes(which is inaccurate anyways.) Concerning your point of E. coli being able to conusme citric acid, that doesn't prove bullpucky. Humans used to not eat pigs; now we do. Furthermore, people weren't able to fly to the moon until recently. But genetically we haven't changed much. Change in behavior is NOT necessarily due to a shitf in genes.You don't seem to understand the significance of that ability. Before the 20000th generation they were PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF EATING CITRIC ACID IN AN AEROBIC ENVIRONMENT. That is not a simple change in behaviour. Your rocket analogy isn't valid because these bacteria had no help from an outside force. Here's a proper analogy; the E. Coli becoming able to "eat" citric acid in an aerobic environment is analogous to a person becoming able to drink posion on thrive on it. This was NOT just a change in behaviour.Evolution can't explain the complexity of each cell--not even humans, the allegedly most evolved and intelligent, could create such complex life.That's: 1. because humans haven't learned to create life yetAND2. because mother nature had 3.8 billion years to get it right; humans have only started to get anywhere close to what nature has done in the past century. Creation is glaringly evident; each species is so wonderfully adapted beyond what natural selection could explain. Seriously? Natural selection can be summed up as survival of the fittest; of course life is going to be well adapted; you need to give a reason for why natural selection can't explain it.It doesn't account for the beauty in every sunrise or the wonder of the mountains.Beauty and wonder are subjective, and no evolution can't explain the mountains, but plate tectonics can.It doesn't account for how the universe could have possibly formed natrally--after all where'd the original energy come from?It's absolutely impossible to remove all energy from a system; zero point energy ALWAYS exists wherever there is space. Before the big bang time didn't exist so a first cause to cause the universe is unnecessary because causality didn't exist before the big bang. Also this is irrelevant to the dabate.Either energy and matter ore eternal, or there is an eternal God.Matter doesn't need to be eternal because matter and energy are equivalent; they're the same thing so wherever there is energy there is also matter. Anywhere where the laws of physics apply there are random electromagnetic oscillations called zero point energy; this zero point energy will ALWAYS be left over even if you remove all matter and energy from a system.As for the genetic similarities between us and monkys, again, that'sd not proving bullpucky. It's entirely possible and even likely that the similarites are due to a common Designer, not a common ancestor.We are not descended from monkeys for one thing, but humans and monkeys do share a common ancestor and this can be proven without referring to similarities. You see there are these things called genetic markers that are sequences of DNA with a known location on a chromosome that allows a species to be identified. Humans and monkeys share several of these markers proving it was a common ancestor. If we didn't have a common ancestor than we wouldn't share so many genetic markers.And the Christological argument makes it painstakingly obvious. Jesus' existence, resurrection, and divinity have been proven by historians, even the Godless ones.Sorry but all historians have proven is that Jesus existed; they haven't proven his resurrection or divinity. In fact the only two facts agreed upon are that a person named Jesus was baptised and crucified. If so many historians did prove that Jesus was divine then most of them should believe that Jesus was divine and ressurected so I respectfully ask you to provide statistics on that. Also this argument is non-sequitur.