There is evidence for Creation

Termites "This statement is contrary to natural selection and evolution. Evolution teaches that we are becoming better and better."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 thos less suited will die out.The relationship between the termite and protazoa is beneficial to them both. This means that their relationship made the termite more suited for survival and also made the protazoa more suited for survival. This is evolution." If we don't see animals evolving, or explosions creating order, or even explosions coming from nothing today then that is supernatural. You can't dismiss this evidence for creation just because it is supernatural. If you did this you would have to dismiss evolution since it also is supernatural."There is nothing supernatural about evolution or the Big Bang. You also strawmanned the big bang theory.Evolution through natural selection is a natural process. We have not directly observed it over the 3.6 billion years it has been happening to life on our planet, but we have observed it within our lives:Silver fox experiment[1]Bacteris evolving to resist anti-bacterial injections[2]And much more.Bees and flower"Same here as with the termite. If bees really did evolve and where getting better, then why did they become dependent on the flower."Again, that is not what evolution by natural selesction states. Bees would be able to get their food more easily from flowers, and flowers would be able to pollinate more easily with bees. This is beneficial to both. Over time, bees would evolve to be able better suited to the flower (their food source), and might become dependent on it. As long as it is beneficial for survival, the bee will survive and evolve.You so far have shown a misunderstanding of how natural selection works.MoralsA natural process of empathy or psychological influence of what is "good" and "bad" does not make morality objective. 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 (societal morality, which I will call ethics from now on).When living in a society where the ethics is "killing is wrong" then it can have psychological impacts on your own views of killing. This does not, however, influece whether morals actually exist or not." Our founding Fathers knew of our sinful nature, and that what we do we think is right. So they founded this country off of the Bible, the ultimate authority"Both irrelevant and false. The contitution was founded on secular ideals, not religious ones[3][4].Fossil"Here con states a contradiction. First they state that the original tissue was rehydrated. But then they said that the tissue that was rehydrated, might not be the soft tissue that was found"This is not what was stated at all. What was stated was that the tissue that was found was rehydrated, not originally found soft, and that it is unknown if that tissue is the original tissue of the dinosaur of the fossil they were looking at."But besides this, if scientists weren't really worried about soft tissue being found in a dinosaur bone, then why did they fire someone for finding soft tissue."First, you do not have a source. Second, if it is the story I am thinking about, the person was fired for not doing his job. He talked about the tissue, which was okay, but was also saying, to a class of students, that it was evidence that dinosaurs lived with people. THis goes against the ciriculum he had and was fired for doing his job improperly. It is like a janitor who one day decides not to clean the bathrooms, he will be at risk of getting fired."And finally, what does DNA have anything to do with soft tissue being found in bones. "It is important because it shows that dinosaurs lived long enough ago where we cannot get samples of their DNA, unlike with people.Dating"He brought up that there was a piece of wood encased in a basalt. When it was sent to a lab to find the date of it, the wood was found to be 45 thousand years old and the basalt it was encased in was 45 million years old."I have never seen a source for this argument. Without more details, it is stupid to try and address this argument. I would like to see a source, not the video of Ken Ham, about this 45 thousand year old wood in 45 million year old rock."Scientists say that they can't learn the date of a rock if it is earlier than 2 million years old."This is completely dependant on the elements within the rock beign observed. There are many types of radiometric dating, all of which appear to work with the geological column[5].Can God have created the universe?I never said that the universe has a purpose, I do not know where you got that from. The entire rest of your stuff in this point is built off this misconception of "purpose".P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.This means that god is the CAUSE of the universe, cause and effect. If there is a creator, then there is a cause and effect.P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.Causality requires for the flow of time to be real, that there is a true before and a true after (tensed facts). If there is no true before or after, if there is no real flow of time, then causality cannot occur.P3) Tensed facts do not exist.There is no true before or true after, the flow of time is not real but illusionary. This is supported by the 3 scientific pieces of evidence I gave (relativity, delay wait, time emergence) to support the B-Theory of Time (which is a tenseless theory of time). This allows for the illusion of time flowing within the universe as well as the illusion of causality within the universe, but they are not true things.C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).This follows directly from P2 and P3. There are no real tensed fact, therefore causality is impossible.C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).This follows from P1 and C1. If the universe cannot have a cause, and saying that god created the universe implies that the universe has a cause, then the logical conclusion is that the claim that god created the universe is false.ConclusionThere is no evidence for creationism and creationism (by claiming that god created the universe) is logically impossible. Sources [1] http://155.97.32.9/~bbenham/2510%20Spring%2009/Behavior%20Genetics/Farm-Fox%20Experiment.pdf [2] http://phys.org...;[3] http://monotheism.us...;[4] http://www.politicususa.com...;[5] http://www.talkorigins.org...;