Bacteria a powerful evidence of creation

Bacteria: Fossil RecordAs with this example of a bacterial fossil, we can see that recognisable bacteria, from 1 billion years ago, have been found.Since bacteria are asexual, reproduce much much faster than humans, then a fossil of 1 billion years would represent the equivalent of a human fossil which is what? 100 billion years old?The silly examples of flagellum apparently "evolving" certainly seem to not to be impressive, when put next to such a living fossil.If creation is true, you would expect that bacteria would be found in the fossils, as recognisable. This is evidence therefore, as defined in a mdus ponen, evidence being classed as a "viable" component.Now given the hyper-ability of bacteria, to mutate, given that higher organisms such as humans don't have this phenomenal ability, we would expect EVEN MORE evolution. Yet what do we find? Powerful evidence that they adapt but do not change over time.Now all you can do is ad-hoc -explain-away, the actual evidence, with nonsense such as normalised selection which is the equivalent of saying; "NOTHING is a better explanation, therefore this favours evolution".It's the same with millions of years. "Nothing" is supposed to be impressive. What would be impressive is if we actually saw some evolution in the fossils. "Nothing" certainly doesn't favour you guys.But ofcourse - just keep on stating ad nauseum, that there is no evidence for creation whatsoever. This doesn't make you scientific - it makes you dogmatic, because even a very weak theory has evidence.Evidence is weak, as defined scientifically.(Red balls only in a bag theory) -- pick one ball out, if it's red, that is evidence of red-ball theory. A weak consequent. Weak, because of the fallacy of affirmation, whereas a strong falsification is only one green ball). -- Intellectually, you have no option but to agree that if creation was true, such "evidence" would follow, and this particular evidence IS POWERFUL!(put topic where you so choose)