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

Of course, what happens in the past can not be 100% proven as you weren't there. So there's always a certain amount of faith (whether big or small) that must be taken to consideration when we talk about years before :) As for the Bible quote, I was just reiterating how much the Bible has influenced the world. It had nothing to do with proving it/using it as proof against evolution. As for Tyre: "Concerning Tyre"s present condition, other sources have noted that "continuous settlement has restricted excavation to the Byzantine and Roman levels and information about the Phoenician town comes only from documentary sources" ("Ancient Tyre...," n.d., emp. added). Another report confirmed, "Uncovered remains are from the post-Phoenician Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab and Byzantine times.... Any traces of the Phoenician city were either destroyed long ago or remain buried under today"s city" ("Ancient Phoenicia," n.d., emp. added). Thus, the only connection that the present town maintains with the ancient one in Ezekiel"s day is location, and the present buildings, streets, and other features are not "rebuilt" versions of the original city. If Ezekiel"s prophecy extended to the island city as well as the mainland city, it can be maintained legitimately that the ruins lying underneath the city have not been "rebuilt."" (http://apologeticspress.org...) Creating Life in the Lab: "It"s important to remember that this is a carefully engineered, artificial environment that is allowing the enzymes to survive. As ScienceDaily reports, "The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze." And Scripps Institution of Oceanography chemist Jeffrey Bada, who was not involved in the research, cautioned that "it still leaves the problem of how RNA first came about. Some type of self-replicating molecule likely proceeded RNA and what this was is the big unknown at this point."" (https://answersingenesis.org...) Now, I applaud science! I love science! I just came back from experimenting with silver nitrate and hydrochloric acid in the lab (as well as magnesium). So, do not think that I am anti-science. "I can't answer this, therefore God." That is said here and there, but not by me. I totally support more research into different subjects, HOWEVER: Do not teach evolution and the origin of life as a fact. That is ignorant of the scientific method. You can continue to research and test what you want to, but do not brainwash people into thinking that evolution is the only way, and the Creator in the Bible is wrong. That is superficial and the zenith of ignorance. I'm sure you would agree with me (as you seem like an intelligent person), but I have argued with many who just insult me and say that their belief is right. I admit that mine is a faith, and so do you. I support you trying to back up your faith with science (which is not working as of modern research) but maybe in the future, you'll find some type of proof to back up your statements (I don't think you will, though.) Argument: Transitional fossils. This is a weak point for many evolutionists. IF we (and other creatures) evolved from single-celled organisms and from less-complex versions of ourselves, where are the transitional fossils? "I will lay it on the line"there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." - Dr. Patterson. He's right! All of the "transitional forms" that evolutionists show to creationists don't have a full fossil form, but rather are drawn by artists or pieces are added by paleontologists, who with their assumptions, assume that the fossil would end up like this. That's not science. (Ex: Rhodocetus...the tail was never found (even stated by the founder of the fossil).) So where are all the transitional fossils? That's my argument, but you never answered the following 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?