Listening to Arguments about Evolution

It was frustrating listening to some arguments in one of Richard Dawkins' books about "proof" for evolution.

-Many of the arguments it seemed could have been flipped around to argue for creation, which to me means they are just rhetoric.

-Evolutionists use this rhetoric, but there rhetoric still leads to them having to have tremendous faith in their beliefs.  Christians have faith, but our faith is based off of a God Who was seen and therefore known to have existed - JESUS CHRIST

-the arguments presented only make sense if evolution is true.  As these arguments are presented they do seem to make sense, but that is because they do make sense only if evolution is true.  However, there are so many problems with evolution, and most importantly, so many proofs for creation, that it is scientifically irresponsible to present evolution as fact.

-Of course if you are assuming something to be true, then the arguments you use to prove it are going to be "true".  For instance, if I made up a fictional story, and in that fictional story I came up with a way for how life was created, and I explained in detail all the ways that life was created in my fictional story, I could indeed come up with a plan that seems to make sense.  However, that is a fictional story.  I made it up.  It is the same with the theory of evolution being the means for how the earth and life was created.  The story may sound like it makes sense, and the proof/explanations provided in favour of it may seem to make sense, but that does not make it true.  This is one way that evolution is actually deceptive.  Explaining how evolution could have happened, does not make it true.  And Dawkins and other evolutionists explain what could have happened in a way that presents these ideas as "facts", saying that they absolutely happened this way.  That is deceptive and scientifically irresponsible.

-Many people say that books like Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator" is a God of the gaps book, saying that it only fills in gaps of evolution.  I think this is a foolish argument.  For one, that's what it should do.  It should fill in the gaps that evolution has.  And secondly, why do people who accept evolution not look at this arguments that are filling in the gaps?  These gaps serve to disprove evolution, showing that it cannot be the means for how life was created.