Creationism is a better model than evolution

While I understand that I am in the minority on this topic, I believe that I can put up a spirited and friendly debate on the subject. I was not there with a recording device at the creation, so I cannot "prove" that creation happened the way the Bible says it did. No more can my opponent show recorded proof that however many billions of years ago, something crawled out of a swamp and began the process of changing into the abundant life we see today. However, I can show that the only logical, non-contradictory option left to us is that God created everything from the most distant star to the most insignificant fermion. To begin, I will point out that to believe in evolution, you must believe in violations in the "laws" of nature and physics. I say this because, "The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things. .. " (1) If only living things give rise to living things, then life cannot come from non-life. There would never be a case where non-life could become life. However, evolutionists claim that this law was violated in some primordial swamp when lightning (or something) struck water with just the right collection of amino acids, and turned them into a living thing. This is impossible! Even the most basic, least advanced form of life is so infinitely complex that there is no way for it to spontaneously happen. To believe in creation, you have to believe in an entity that is more powerful, more intelligent, and more wise than anything we can comprehend. This is infinitely more reasonable to believe than it is to believe that one species can change into another species. I am not discounting natural selection. It can be proven that minor deviations over time can produce dramatic differences between members of the same species. But that does not account for deviations into different species. Take for example, the mule. A mule is the result in the cross between a donkey and a horse. The donkey and the horse are very closely related based on the evolutionary flowchart, but when they are bread together, the resulting mule is always infertile. It cannot reproduce after its kind. The Liger, the ofspring of a lion and a tiger, is in the same situation. It cannot breed. Why? Because the lion and tiger, and the donkey and horse, while similar in form and function in the ecosystem, are not the same animal. They never were the same animal. Otherwise, their offspring would be fertile. Why is evolution impossible? Let us examine the lowly protein. For a protein to function properly, it must not only be constructed with the amino acids linked in the proper order, but they must also be folded in the proper way. This folding takes place in the mitochondria inside each cell. However, the mitochondria is made of protein. The mitochondria could not exist (let alone the rest of the cell) before many different properly constructed and folded proteins were in place, but the protein cannot be made without a living mitochondria inside a living cell to fold it properly. The only way for a protein to exist is for God to have created it. Without intentional design, a protein could not exist. Additionally, if there were a continual evolutionary process going on, then we should see numerous continual changes in every species and in every part of the world. However, we do not have a single case of a transitional phase of plant or animal in any species in any part of the world. It makes no logical sense that for millions of years evolution has been changing things around but it just happens to get it right in our time. Yet there are still constant negative influences in every ecosystem that should still be causing evolutionary development, if that were truly how things developed in the first place. However, the best argument against evolution is that evolution would demand a violation of "one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. ": The Law of Entropy. "No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18" (2) This means that never, in all of recorded science, have we documented even the slightest deviation in the direction of more complex, or more organized. Everything, unless influenced by intelligence, breaks down and goes toward disorder. You will never see an avalanche result in a Sistine Chapel. You will never see a bucket of paint fall off a truck and result in a Mona Lisa. These things cannot happen because those are ordered and designed objects. Order and design never result from disorder. Therefore, there is again only one option for us to consider. An intelligent being must have set in order all the laws, rules, systems, and structures that exist in the natural world. Referenced: 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 2, . http://www.icr.org...