Alright let's handle your "evidence" systematically.
Fossil evidence. Alright, the fossil record, you say, proves that soup turned into human beings. I'd beg to differ. All of your gradually evolving bones that you have discovered, let me tell you that not ONE of them has ever been fully formed AT ALL. For example, Lucy, who was hailed as the "missing link" between apes and man, was in fact two bones that they found one and a half miles apart from two separate animals that they glued together and with a little imagination got a "cavewoman." She was not a transitional species at all, you have been LIED TO.
Comparative naatomy. Supposedly because we have similarities to apes we once were apes, huh? Think again. Charles Darwin himself calculated that for species to be directly linked to another, and here he was specifically talking about apes and men, there would have to be 95 percent genetic similarity. But with apes and men, what we find is 85% genetic similarity, making the assertion that we are directly descended from apes impossible even by the low standards of evolution. Also, the large brow lines that you claim are proof of transitional humanoids are in reality hyper-aged humans who lived 900 years just like the Bible and countless other religious texts speak of. The brow lines are exactly what we as creationists would expect. Your humanoids are in reality human beings who walked among the patriarchs.
Molecular biology. Humans do not share 98.7 percent of there DNA with apes, those numbers were made in the '60s when we had inferior technology and they've since been proved to be less than 85%, just no one wants to admit it.
Embryology. Are you saying that because babies look different than humans somehow proves we came from soup? If so, you're crazy. Those "Tails" in fact serve distinct purposes and are clearly an intelligent design.
Biogeography. The distribution of species across the globe provides no evidence for evolution. The flora and fauna found on the Galápagos Islands, were created there by God. It proves nothing.
Đọc thêm
Let me add my own point -- Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is opposite from his theory of evolution, though he had no way of knowing it at the time because he lacked DNA technology. In reality, DNA cannot create new information, which makes macro-evolution impossible, but it always looses DNA, making natural selection possible, and indeed we've seen it happening with wolves to dogs and such. WE creationists accept wolves to dogs, just not soup to man.
Explain morality with evolution? Why are some things right or wrong? We can all agree that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, but why? If some of those could further the purposes of the species, what does that mean for morality? There can be no morality in evolution. I'm not saying, let me be clear, that you're necessarily immoral, but that you're logically inconsistent -- with evolution you'd have no reason to believe in morality or conscience. Hitler was logically consistent though terribly wrong, which is why the Holocaust happened -- he was a devout Darwinist who believed in evolution and thought he was furthering the species by killing innocent Jews.
Why do we have laws of logic without God? How did they originate, and why? Please explain.
Hope to talk soon, there's some food for thought. Thanks for the discussion, I enjoy showing who's wrong.
P.S. Watch on YouTube the video "3 evolutionists vs. 1 creationist" for a balanced and thoughtful consideration of the different viewpoints. Highly entertaining, wild fun.