In my honest opinion, why evolutionists claim that there is so much evidence for that theory, and none for creationism, is something that I just can't fathom. Simply put:
How does it even happen? Natural selection does just what it says; it selects from existing traits. It doesn't create new ones. No matter how a species mutates, whether through deletion, repetition, or interchange it never involves addition.
In what order did it happen? The human body has eleven systems. Ten are needed to survive, and the the other one to reproduce. So which one evolved first? They all need to work together. Even with systems, various organs are useless without the other pieces.
On top of that, there's one system that's useless without another system in a different body! How could the original species evolve two different sets of reproductive systems? Their interdependence means that they would have to evolve in the same environment at the same time. And even if that happened, how could each of them be more beneficial than asexual reproduction, but not more than each other?
How did it start? If evolutionists claim that they know a situation in which life can spontaneously arise from non-life (a reducing atmosphere and whatever else), then why can't they just lay our doubts to rest by recreating that situation in a lab and producing life?
I understand that scientific theories often don't answer every question, but at least they answer some fundamental questions. This theory of macroevolution just doesn't seem to answer anything.
Creationism isn't about a blind faith in any particular supernatural power, such as the God of the Bible or anyone else. That's a different discussion for a different time. All I'm saying is that I believe bacteria only produce bacteria and humans only come from humans, and that it makes more sense than the idea that humans come from bacteria.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' " ~John 14:6 (NKJV)
