There is evidence for Creation

Termite That is not what natural selection states, natural selection states that those best suited to their environments will survive and pass on their genes while those less suited will die out I did not make a contradiction. I first stated why it was a contradiction to evolution, then I explained why it was a contradiction to natural selection. The relationship between the termite and protozoa is beneficial to them both. This means that their relationship made the termite more suited for survival and also made the protozoa more suited for survival. This would only be true if the termite was already trying to digest cellulose There would be no need at all for the termite to have protozoa. The protozoa would not be a benefit to them if there was nothing for it to digest. This is still a contradiction to natural selection. If the termites were not able to get protozoa then they would die out since they are dependent on them. But the ones who aren't dependent would live. There is nothing supernatural about evolution or the Big Bang. Supernatural, from dictionary.com "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." When was the last time that you saw an animal evolve. When was the last time you saw an explosion created life. These things are supernatural. What do you consider about evolution that is not supernatural. Bacteria evolving to resist anti-bacterial injections.If you knew about this you would know that this is called adaptation. Evolution is things evolving from one species to another. Adaptation is one species changing a feature so they can become better adapted to their climate. This is not an example of evolution. Bees and flowers Same thing here. The flowers would not be beneficial to the bees if they already ate something else. And also they would become dependent on the flower which would make it weaker than other bees. If the flowers were wiped out then these bees that were dependent on them would all die out, while the ones who didn't become dependent would live. This is yet again a contradiction to natural selection. Everyone has their own views of what is right and wrong. When living in a society, those individual views can stack up and become the majority in the society. This statement actually is saying that the twin towers and other terrorist attacks are right. Muslims get their laws from their Qur"an which clearly states to kill all infidels (non-Muslims). According to your definition of morals, the Muslims do right, when they attack others since they are following their own set of right and wrong. But then why do we get with them since they are just following their laws. The only reason we get mad at them is because there are morals. The Bible is what tells us right from wrong. If it didn't then each separate group should be judged by their own set of laws. Both irrelevant and false. The constitution was founded on secular ideals, not religious ones. What are the public schools actually teaching about our history. What are thy leaving out that Americans don't even know about their own country. The founding fathers clearly believed in a God and founded this country off of the Bible. And if you have ever read the Declaration of independence then you would know that the second paragraph starts off by saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." And in our pledge of allegiance (apparently not according to Obama) we state "One nation, under God". Even Benjamin Franklin, who was not a Christian, still believed in God. Here are some quotes from him. "If it had not been for justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!" "The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without His aid!" Our founding fathers believed in Creation, that God created the world. Despite our knowledge of science, we still are nothing compared to them. They were way smarter then we will ever be. If these men believed in creation and saw evidence of it, why doesn't anyone see it today. Soft Tissue Your source for the soft tissue being rehydrated is evolutionary. It isn't a trusted site. You don't have enough evidence to say it was actually rehydrated. First, you do not have a source. So now you are not even looking at the sources I give. The second one I gave was the source for my argument Also about the person who was fired after finding soft tissue, he was fired after teaching some students about the horn. But he couldn't have gone against the curriculum he was teaching since he had recently found the fossil. He was fired within 2 weeks of finding the soft tissue, and he wanted to show his students that there actually is soft tissue. And he was then fired for his beliefs, even though he was told that they would be respected. Still this is more evidence for the earth being created. More soft tissue is being found, that should never be able to live as long as scientist say. The only way it could be soft is if it died more recently than scientists claim. Early Man Early man, according to evolution, was unintelligent and had very primitive tools. If this was true then obviously we would expect to find these tools that they acquired as they progressed. But that is not what we find. We do not find these tools that Neanderthals used. This is quite confusing, for they should be more numerous than dinosaur fossils, since they would not have to last as long. But what we find is the opposite. We find things that we cannot do today. An example is stone henge. How were people who were very unintelligent be able to erect giant stones the way they did without the help of machines. This just doesn't fit with how early people were dumb and they got smarter until they got to us. Another is the pyramids. How were the Egyptians able to erect these giant monuments. Even today we can't make one like theirs. Still another is the Nazca lines. These are trenches that were carved in the dirt and on the ground they look like little trenches that have no meaning. But from the air, they make a huge picture. This could only be accomplished accurately by the air, as there was no other way to actually see what they were drawing. Not only that but an artifact made of gold that resemble an airplane has been found. This artifact do not resemble any animal or insect. It seems to be a model that was created around 1000 years ago. If ancient man really was unintelligent then how would they be able to make a model off of something that we created nearly a century ago. Ancient man could not have been unintelligent, since they can do things we can't even do today. But this makes perfect sense with creation. When God created Adam he was perfect. He was all knowledgeable The further along man got the more knowledge he lost. Which explains why they might have been able to fly before we could. They were smarter then we were, and we lost that knowledge. I am still confused about con's points, but I will try my best to refute them. Unless by a cause for the earth being created you mean a reason why the earth was created, I don't understand you first argument. If this is what you meant then my argument about a purpose fits into there. What do you mean that there is no time. How can time not exist. The definition of time is "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole." If time doesn't exist then the earth isn't old at all. The earth then has no age. If there is no time then why do we sleep, have clocks and grow food during certain parts of the year. Don't you realize your contradicting yourself. First you say the earth has been around for 3.5 billion years. Then you say that time doesn't really exist, there was no past. This argument makes absolutely no sense. Since this argument is mostly the base for your other arguments then the others aren't logical. A great book to find more things that ancient man did is The Puzzle of Ancient Man. http://www.archives.gov... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://www.timesrecordnews.com... http://www.world-mysteries.com... http://www.cfr.org... http://www.bbc.co.uk...