Evolution VS. Literal Creationism (PART ll)

Here is the link to our first attempt to a debate like this: http://www.debate.org... See this site for good information on all the types of evolutionists/creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org... The main reason I believe in Creation is because I believe that the Bible is God's Word and I don't see how you can be a Christian without believing that His only way to communicate with us isn't true. Because of this belief of mine, I tend to ask, why would God create us to watch apes just evolve into human kind? The Bible clearly says God created us 'of our own kind.' Further more it says we are made in His image, unique in His eyes and with the power to love, hate, make choices (free will), and advance in technology (inventions, machines, electricity, etc.). My second argument will be "Evolution Disproved." One of the main reasons I believe in Creationism is because of the many flaws and conspiracy involved in evolution. Evolutionists are constantly changing what they believe in because of evidence that constantly disproves their theory. For example: the hyenas. Evolutionists have puzzled over where to put hyenas on the supposed evolutionary "tree", at various times linking them to the cats (Felidae), dogs (Canidae), or civets (Viverridae). four hyena species are therefore grouped in their own family, the Hyaenidae"the smallest family in the order Carnivora, and one of the smallest in the class Mammalia. I know about this from study. Hyenas are similar to the felines and viverrids in their grooming, scent marking, and other behavioural aspects. However, like canines, hyenas are non-arboreal, cursorial (endurance-running) hunters with non-retractable nails (ideal for making sharp turns) and they catch prey with their teeth rather than their claws. The hyena"s similarities with cats, dogs and civets reflect not common ancestry but instead a common designer"One who might be said to have specifically designed the stark differences between non-related creatures in order to deliberately thwart attempts at naturalistic explanation (Romans 1:20). In the famous book 'Evolution the Grand Design," the author says that: -The land animal would have to develop a dorsal fin. -Its bony tail would have to change into a cartilaginous fluke. -The land animal"s teeth would have to develop into a huge baleen filter. -The hair would have to nearly disappear and be replaced by blubber for insulation through chance mutations in the DNA. -The nostrils would have to move from the tip of the land animal"s nose to the top of the whale"s head, disconnect from the mouth passage, and form a strong muscular flap to close the blowhole. -The land animal"s front legs would have to change into pectoral fins. -Its body would have to increase in size from 70 kg (160 lb) to 160,000 kg (360,000 lb). -The land animal"s external ears would have to disappear and then develop to compensate for high-pressure diving to 500 m (1,600 ft). I am a Christian. That means I believe in God and that Jesus died for our sins, suffering in our place on this earth. I know you are a Christian, CDB, so I am going to challenge you for why your belief in God and why you do not take the Bible literally. For me over all, the Theory of Evolution does not satisfy my faith in God. If I believed in evolution I would be putting my faith in things that don't make sense--or even matter--such as 'the earth is millions of years old,' and then I would be believing that God didn't specifically create humans as special in His eyes. A question for you that comes up is this: how and why would we have advanced in physical features over millions of years, and once we became humans we advanced in emotional features, and once we were fully human (we'd all agree that's about 2,000 years ago) we started advancing in technology instead? Answer me that. If God made us in His image (as His Word, the Bible, says), why would he make us to evolve from animals? Do you believe that He created the world as a habitat for us and that is His main purpose for the earth? More importantly, do you believe He created us because He needed company? I believe that. Because the Bible is the only source of communication from Him to us, I think I should rely on that fully in order to be a real Christian. Even though most of what God's Word says is difficult to understand and/or emotionally hard to take in, I still think it is true and believe that is where I should put my faith in as well as God Himself. But that's where Creationism comes in. It is something that satisfies my belief in God because it proves that what is said in it is true. We can study the Bible through archaeological, historical, functional, and sometimes observable scientific discoveries in this world. Creationism science is everywhere, from examples such as DNA to the amazing universe that we humans have not even explored the end of it yet. I am going to give some examples of how science proves the Bible. Starting with bones. There have been great number of fresh, non-fossilized bones discovered over this year. We've found dinosaur DNA, proteins, blood cells, and more that prove the young earth and utterly disprove what evolutionists say about the old-earth and about dinosaurs. Next up is Flood Geology. What formed the Grand Canyon? As we look at this you must remember that the facts used are the same, for evolutionists and creationists, but look at through the two different interpretations. Evolutionists say that a little bit of water formed it over a long period of time. Creationists say that a lot of water formed it over a much shorter period of time, particularly from the water of the Flood. There is even a canyon that's 1500 ft long, 120 ft deep, and it recently formed in just 6 days in Washington! [http://answersingenesis.org...] One of the bet evidences that support the Flood are fossils found globally, and the beset explanation for this phenomenon is a world wide flood. Don't even mention neocatastrophism; it is just another adaptation where evolutionists realized the vast amount of evidence proving rapid erosion so they decided to make a new hypothesis. [] That's all I have for now! Thank you for debating me, CDB, and next round you can just copy and paste all the arguments you had from "Part One" (I gave the link at top). Next round will be the rebuttals.