DNA similarities ARE NOT proof of evolution

Follow along--this is complex:If a human is 98 % similar to some apes, that would be ONLY in terms of DNA-structure. Just look at Jennifer Lopez and Alfred Hitchcock--are they 98% similar in appearence? NO!!! God decided to use DNA as his building block for life--so it makes sense that DNA-similarities between animals indicate a common creator, not a common ancestor.Let me elaborate in lamen's terms... many engine parts on a Pontiac Firebird will fit fine on the rims of a Camaro--but that does not prove that they both evolved from a corvette millions of years ago! It just proves that they have a common creator--well, it works the same for DNA. If you mapped out the DNA sequence in EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on earth, you'll find that no two are exactly allike, but that does not prove that we have a single ancestor for EACH person! Trust me, evolution is trying to build a brick bunker of an argument against Christianity, but the 'bricks' (evidence) the are using has no form. The use evidence that APPEARS to be tall, wide, and self-supporting, but when you hold the evidence at the right angle, evolution's arguments are as thing as a sheet of paper--it's an illusion that is posing as science to draw kids' faith away from God.

What a "common creator" would not be responsible for?Well, the DNA similarities are just that: similarities.
By the way, if evolution is a FACT, why is there no posted evidence for it?
G. K. Chesterton said, and I quote: "The evolutionists seem to know everything there is to know about the missing links, except the fact that they're missing..." How true.
Ernst Mayr, a professor at Harvard, and an evolutionist, wrote in his book: "This chapter [2] will be a presentation of the evidence that led to the 'evolution is a fact'..."
Interesting enough, the ONLY evidence he uses were: the geologic column, bone structure, embryology, biogeography, and molecular analysis. Here is where I see his faults:Geologic column: This was 'made up' by Charles Lyell in 1830, contains many polystrate fossils, and is inconclusive at best. (not to mention, 80% of the world's geological sites do not contain rocks in 'proper order' to be used as real evidence for the strata ages).Bone structure: Just because a human and a whale both have appendages with bones named "radius, ulna, humerus, etc." does not prove evolutionst--it just proves that people gave the same names to the fin-bones of a whale that they gave to the arm-bones of a human. Besides, the bones of a whale's fin were developed on DIFFERENT parts of the chromosome, which actually proves that it is unsufficient evidence.Embryology: Mayr used Haeckel's drawings of 1870, comparing the similarity in the early stages of the embryo in different animals. Haeckel was brought on trial in the 1870's and he confessed that the drawins were fraudulant. In fact, when compared to real photographs, the drawings are obvious pro-evolution propaganda.Biogeography: That just proves that similar animals live in different parts of the world. Although interesting, I see no evidence that that proves we evolved from bacterio 3.6 billion years ago.Molecular analysis: Actually, bacteria are quite complex. In fact, the greatest missing link of all lies between bacteria and nonliving matter--that's more like the entire chain is missing (for the "SIMPLEST" creature to come together, that would require the spontaneous combination of 20 different amino acids, ribo-nucleic acid strands, ribosomes, cytoplasm, and a cell membrane.) Do HONESTLY think that that just happened by chance. To believe in that requires MUCH MORE faith than to believe in God's hand in the deal. Actually, common sense led me to reject evolution BEFORE I BECAME A CHRISTIAN, because those odds are too enormous.If you have hard, irrefutable evidence that the Bible is lying please let me know, (AND CITE YOUR SOURCES SO I CAN LOOK IT UP ON MY OWN).
In Christ,
Booboo

First off, haven't you ever heard of the ice age?
Yes, after the flood, the glaciers expanded, and the oceans receded a little, which is enough to allow a dry passage from Malaysia to Australia (just because there was a flood, there are many ways to solve the problem of "how did flightless creatures get to islands")
Also, Infidels.org (where you got your "biblical errancy" page) is full of crap!!! They're an online tabloid! I've read their articles, and I've spent hours on their website reviewing their so-called biblical errancy.
First, they wrote: "Paul said that God is not the author of confusion." But then the article began discussing how there is so much confusion in the world, even among the Christians. That is the dumbest, most illogical conclusion drawn from that Bible passage. First, it was not the "Bible of God" that caused confusion--it was people who tried to 'twist' and rewrite the Bible so many times that has caused the confusion. If you try to blame God on the problems that man has caused, you are a fool!

Your ICE AGE was 20,000 y.a. right? WRONG! All dates pertaining to the 'secular' ice age are based off of the same assumptions as the formation of the Grand Canyon: it has a small river in it, so geologists ASSUME that it took millions of years to form.
By the way, the ice age from the Bible did not happen 4000 y.a. it happened 4350 y.a. through about 4100 y.a. There is ample evidence of that, too--get Dr. Morris' book "Young Earth"

First of all, your "seasonal" layers are not what you think.
You see, when it is warm the ice in Greenland glaciers begin to melt (at least a half-inch layer or so of water) that creates clear ice. Then, when it gets colder, the snow compacts and forms white ice. So, you are trying to say that the layers of clear and white ice indicate summer, winter, summer, winter, right?
That's not true, you see, in 1942 the Lost Squadron of WWII pilots landed their planes in Greenland because they couldn't make it across the ocean with the fuel they had. Anyway, they abandoned to planes until 1990 when some excavators decided to get the planes back from Greenland. The problem is, after 48 years, the ice had covered the plane by 263 feet of ice. However, there were THOUSANDS of those "annual layers," so you see the layers represent warm-cold-warm-cold--you can get 10 of those in one week in Greenland!
Also, the rate of ice accumulation (263 feet in 48 years) would give the ice caps and age of around 1900 years old! But since the packing of the snow compresses the ice slightly thinner, just over double would be the calculated age for the ice caps in Greenland (that's funny, that would by about 4000 years old). I told you, I am full of anti-evolution evidence when it gets down to it.

Again, you are misunderstanding.
I have read evidence for-and-against the ice cores.
The "refutes" are based on speculation.
Anyway, if the poles are reliable to the evolutionists who study them, and unreliable to creationists, you don't KNOW that they are reliable at all. You also notice that the same results were found in Antarctica right? Seriously, the evidence for a young ice age is much--notice that there were leaves, trees, and coal found in Antarctica right? You probably didn't hear the whole story: the plants are not fossilized (that means they were not buried BEFORE the ice age, and since they were not decayed, they were obviously placed in the ice very rapidly). Your "annual layers" need to be checked again--the ice caps show ample evidence of a young-earth.Also, if you think that my 'evidence' is lousy then give me a good evolutionism-argument and allow me to dissect it logically.