[editor-surveyor]

"However, evolution was observed in the fossil record. Everything done in biology since then, confirms the accuracy of the theory."

Both of those statements are blatantly false. First, the fossils are the ultimate proof of the flood, and nothing else. Just the massive decline in the number of species that is irrevocably recorded in the fossil record presents an insurmountable argument against evolution. Second, all statistical data gathered argues against evolution, and only the belief systems of a handful of powerful adademicians props up the evolution agenda.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

First, the fossils are the ultimate proof of the flood, and nothing else.

So you believe there was a flood of cement that encased animals with rock skeletons. How come there are no animals now with skeletons made of rock? Don't tell me they evolved. And what is the chapter and verse of that cement flood?

Just the massive decline in the number of species that is irrevocably recorded in the fossil record presents an insurmountable argument against evolution.

Up until your post, I had always considered this evidence for evolution. How is this an argument against?

Second, all statistical data gathered argues against evolution, and only the belief systems of a handful of powerful academicians props up the evolution agenda.

I think you're trying to revive that old argument where you're on both sides. If the specific mechanisms for evolution aren't known, how can you calculate their probability? In fact all the statistical data that biologists gather is evidence for evolution.