The difference -- huge difference -- is that none of that would "disprove" Creationism.
I've tried to explain this many times to many people before. Creationism requires a supernatural being with supernatural power. It's obvious. Of course, right? It's the theory that God (supernatural) used His powers (supernatural) to create everything we know (natural). It makes sense for a supernatural being to have supernatural powers.
Evolutionism, on the other hand -- especially if the Big Bang is included -- attributes supernatural powers to supposedly natural foundations, mainly nature itself. There has never been any evidence of any of the larger moves taken as fact in Evolutionism -- not only the animation of matter itself, but the graduation of unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms, or the move between sea-dwelling and land-dwelling organisms.
Not to mention, of course, the simple yet unanswerable (to Evolutionism) question of, "Why didn't organisms in the same environment evolve into the same final family of organisms?" You try to relate it to dogs, and of course dogs would make sense with Evolutionism -- a dog from Siberia and a dog from central Africa wouldn't need or want to be the same. But that's conveniently bypassing the fact that creatures in the same relative location still split into thousands of different organisms. If Evolutionism were true, there would have been no need for humans and apes to evolve anywhere near each other, because if they were in the same environment, they would have either all evolved into humans or all evolved into apes.
And you seem to have answers to everything, but nothing to back you up. Do you have anything other than "you're wrong because I say so"?
EDIT: When Evolutionism starts following the laws of nature, you can start bitching about how Creation doesn't. Until then, concentrate on the plank in your own eye.
Bookmarks