What do you think of my disproof of evolution (finalized list)?

• I am planning write a book on why evolution is false, and I plan to have each of these to be its chapters. 1. Evolution is false because it contradicts the Genesis, most importantly. 2. Evolution is false because it assumes that God is not perfect to begin with. This contradicts the nature of God, who is perfect. 3. Evolution is false because it states that the DNA changes; however, what has been designed by God cannot be changed. 4. Evolution is false because it states that creatures have been extinct due to not adapting. This is false, because the Bible states that Noah was able to collect 2 of each species, allowing them to breed again. 5. Evolution is false because it requires a world view which claims that the Earth is billions of years old; this is false, as shown in the Bible which states that the Earth is no more than 6000 years old. 6. Evolution is false because it was originally created by Darwin to be a religion, not an actual science. 7. Evolution is false because it violates the fact that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old; evolutionists claim that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old, when the fact is the dinosaurs never existed. 8. Evolution is false because homosexuality exists - if homosexuality was really genetic, they should have been Darwinistically wiped out a long ago. However, they are around, and that suggests that homosexuality is a curse from either God or Satan. 9. Evolution is false because it states that incest is not favored; however, some of God's most favored people have had incestuous relationships. If you are an adherent of Evolution, please do not flame. God bless.

• Answer:

  Most of your points have been nicely addressed by others, but I'll add in a rebuttal of 8 for you. If homosexuality is genetic or partially genetic (it may not be), there are several hypotheses about how something so apparently contradictory to natural selection could persist in the population. Most involve kin selection. And the selection pressures are probably different for male than female homosexuality--especially since, through much of history, women had little choice about being impregnated, homosexual or not. Kin selection hypothesis 1: having an "extra" adult around increases the survival of young children, so a homosexual individual's nieces, nephews, and other young relatives are more likely to survive to pass on their genes, passing on the "gay" gene(s) at the same time. Primarily a (probable) factor in male homosexuality Kin selection hypothesis 2: the gene(s) that cause male homosexuality cause extra fertility, or some other useful trait, in females with same, or vice versa. So, even though homosexuals with the gene won't be passing it along, their opposite sex siblings with it will. Bonding hypothesis: same-sex sexual behavior helps bind groups together, increasing cooperative behavior that is pro-survival. Primarily an explanation for bisexuality and female homosexuality. Harem-invading hypothesis: If a dominant male has claimed a harem of most of the females in the group, a male that seems to be more interested in men than he is women might be trusted to guard them when the alpha is away, where a clearly heterosexual male wouldn't. This may give the (presumably bisexual) guard a chance to pass on his genes when the alpha's not looking. There are probably other hypotheses. And the fact that a boy with a lot of older brothers is more likely to be gay suggests that 1. homosexuality may be more related to prenatal environment than genetics, and 2. it may be at least in part due to the "surplus" factor, one male can impregnate many females, but females can only have one pregnancy at a time.