Evolution is NOT a fact, but rather falls short in evidence

"Which evolution and science as a whole repeatedly does" - Yet since I debunked your previous arguments, you haven't posted any new "evidence" for evolution. "Even if it was based off of faith, does that suddenly disprove evolution?" Of course not, but it does prove that it is not a fact. You appear to be someone who agrees that you must have faith to believe in evolution, and I respect you on that behalf :) Now previously I talked about how evolution has no observable evidence (which you seem to agree on) and no historical evidence (which you did address, but I'm getting ahead of myself.) So there's no observable or historical evidence. You bring up a good point, however: We can't observe what happened in the Bible. The past is the past and therefore cannot be repeated. But, we do have a historical account: The Bible. Now who was the 16th President of the United States? Abraham Lincoln was for some time until he was murdered. Eye witness accounts have been written and are cited today. Now, we weren't there so that takes out observational science. We have to trust the historical documents of the eye witness accounts. Everyone usually does because they seem credible. Christianity/Judaism has that historical document: The Bible. If you didn't have the historical written documents, would you believe that Abraham Lincoln was murdered? Well, probably not; it would only be gossip (by word of mouth). That's not very credible. The Bible, however, is the most published book in history and read by millions every day. Prophecies in the book have known to come true as well as having very credible historical accounts. "Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible -- sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed." (http://www.everystudent.com...) So do you trust evolution with no observable or historical account. Or the Bible with a historical account? That's up to you :) What about living fossils? You just put a topic up there with no explanation. If you know anything about living fossils, then you would know that they go against evolution. Living fossils are fossils that we find that are exactly the same for creatures of today. There are many examples which can be found through investigation. How exactly does that help evolution? If we find an animal said to be millions of years old and find that it is still the same physically and internally (for example, the spider) that challenges evolution. Some say "luck" and "chance". That's not science. Frankly, the odds of having a "living fossil" is very unlikely. According to evolution, organisms change and so does the environment. To have a creature not change in MILLIONS of years while other creatures around it are is insane. The odds against that happening are astronomical. The environment changes, and creatures in the environment will change too. They will change even more drastically if you believe in evolution. So why, with so many examples of creatures that have stayed the same for millions of years, do these animals stay the same? Let's look at this quote: "Organisms are so complex that it is very hard to change one aspect without wrecking everything else""Yale University palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba. Think about it, in Darwinian evolution many things change, and when they change other organisms change as well. It's basic logic, and living fossils only help my point. "Would the Earth ever be the same if a worldwide flood ever occurred?" Flawed argument as we don't know what the Earth was exactly like several thousand years ago, and can only therefore speculate. My arguments: DNA. Now you try to use DNA to help you, so I'll do the same. It's a complex subject and I have found this video to be very logical and great at explaining my points (I can't say it better than him!) Please take a look (this'll count as my current argument): Fun extra question: Flowers were said to come on earth 300 million years ago; the first insects came 100 million years ago. How did those flowers survive (and thrive!) when there were no insects around to pollinate them? Best Wishes, Casey