>"Evolution of life randomly is proven absurdly impossible mathematically"
If you mean the *ORIGINS* of life, then where is it "proven" that it is "absurdly impossible"?
If you mean *EVOLUTION* of life after it started, then that is NOT RANDOM. That is the entire point of Darwinian natural selection. Evolution is NOT random but driven by relentless selection by the environment.
>"... and it also goes against the law of Entropy which everything in the universe drifts towards chaos."
That is NOT what the Law of Entropy says! It says that the entropy of a CLOSED system must increase. The earth is not a closed system ... it has an external energy source ... therefore there is no contradiction with the Law of Entropy. This is a great example of how reading Creationist literature leads to a badly mangled understanding of *ALL* fields of science (in this case physics). They *have* to redefine terms, oversimplify theories, and flat-out misstate laws in order to make their case!
>"... Only intelligence can make order out of chaos"
Trivially false. One word: snowflakes.
A snowflake demonstrates that order can emerge spontaneously out of disorder. Why? Because of the way that energy enters the system from the sun. Slow heating of water vapor, followed by rapid cooling, produces order ... crystals. There are literally *thousands* of examples of processes in nature that produce order with no intelligence.
>"... and only intelligence can design something as complex as a living organism."
Well now you're just declaring dogma. "If I declare loudly enough that only intelligence can produce X amount of complexity, then it is true."
>"Another thing, for example, a fish evolves scales into feathers"
??? So much of your argument depends on this absurd notion that bird features had to evolve in fish! NOBODY says that feathered creatures (birds) evolved directly from fish. They evolved from dinosaurs, which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from amphibians, which evolved from fish. Feathers are indeed useless to a fish, but they would be very useful to a warm-blooded land animal like a small dinosaur trying to stay warm while having to stay small, light, and agile.
>"... the intermediate state of this would be useless"
Again, just wrong. Small, warm-blooded dinosaurs living in a tropical environment would gain an advantage with even a small ability to venture into colder climates. So even a small amount of feathers allows for a few more colder nights and seasons survived, and therefore a few more offspring produced.
>"A animal half bird, half fish, probably wouldn't survive long, but they say birds came from fish."
NOBODY says that "birds came from fish"! As long as you keep going to Creationist sources to get your information about evolution, you will continue to make absurd arguments like this.
>"There are so many logical things that disprove evolution yet they preach it like its a fact. why?"
Because when "they" (scientists) say that "evolution is fact", all they mean is that *species evolve*. Period. That just means that species change over time. Do you deny that? Cocker spaniels and racehorses and dairy goats and corn and bananas are all products of human manipulation of evolution ... but it is evolution nonetheless. The Creationist sources you are reading will try to find another word for this besides evolution, but then they are just arguing over the definition of a word ... not over the *FACT* that *SPECIES CHANGE*. But since evolution is *defined* as the change in a species over generations, *EVOLUTION IS A FACT*.
>"is it because the only alternative is believing in God?"
There is NOTHING in evolution that contradicts belief in God. Nothing. Nada. Zip. I am a Catholic, not an atheist, and I have no problem accepting evolution. Neither does the Catholic church (home to over half of the world's 2 billion Christians), nor millions of non-Catholic Christians, nor any of the 11,000 Christian *clergy* members who signed the Clergy Letter Project (see source).
The problem is that you are confusing "belief in God" with the simplistic, *literal* acceptance of the stories in the Bible. They are NOT the same thing.
If you let go of literalism, not only does the Bible come *alive* as a source of really Deep Truths (capital D and T), but you can have faith in God *AND* you can accept the results of science. Science stops becoming the enemy (where you find yourself posting in science forums and getting bashed about by people who actually understand the subject) ... and science becomes a way of glorifying God! Properly understood, there is NO CONFLICT AT ALL.