In the above image, you see two diagrams. These diagrams depict what is known as the "Evolutionary tree of life" and the "Creation Orchard". These diagrams illustrate the way in which both groups believe life originated and diversified until it reached its modern form.
What most people will have noticed is that there is actually only one diagram shown in the image. All I did to create the Creation orchard was take a giant white circle and use it to blot out the bottom of the Evolutionary tree of life. This is significant. What this means is that ultimately, Creationists and Evolutionists agree almost 100% on things like speciation and natural selection.
As a Creationist, I do not deny that all domestic dogs are descended from a common ancestor. In fact, doing so helps my case. Noah would have had to dedicate an entire deck just to all the individual dog breeds if they all existed in his time. However, nothing compels me to believe all dogs share a common ancestor with cats, bats or gnats. Neither do I have to believe an antelope is related to a cantaloupe. Fish and chips are certainly not the well-cooked remains of distant cousins. I could go on.
The thing with the Evolutionary tree of life is that it ultimately has only one "trunk", and all living organisms are attached branches. In fact, in 1960, Gerald Kerkut gave the definition of Evolution this ministry officially endorses (as far as we're talking about biological Evolution): "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." (1) That, my friends, is quite the stretch. You don't have to believe any of that to believe finches with different beak sizes share a common ancestor.
The main difference between Creationists and Evolutionists, therefore, is not the theory that species change. Rather, the difference is what sort of change we think happens. As we've already discussed, an Evolutionist believes a world of nothing but magically created microbes eventually became the world we see today. By contrast, a Creationist believes in a much more realistic starting point: God made all living organisms according to their kinds, and commanded them to reproduce after their kinds.
An Evolutionist might ask, if we both believe in change over time, why is Evolutionary change unrealistic? There are several things to consider.
Time
It would be far beyond the intention of this article to go into depth about the problems in Evolutionary dating methods, but in order to sustain this "what if" type defence, Evolutionists must assume that enough time has elapsed in order for such Evolutionary changes to occur. The problem is, this assumption is untenable.
For one thing, the heavens and the earth were created with what is called "functional maturity". From the moment God breathed into his lungs, Adam would have taken the appearance of a fully grown, likely sexually active (otherwise, it would have been both pointless and extremely creepy to marry him off to Eve and tell the pair to make babies) man. All the other animals would have needed the same functional maturity. In order to feed them, so would the plants. And what would they stand on if the planet wasn't fully formed? Thus, the world would have appeared "old" from day 6! Even on day 4, the world would have had the "appearance of age".
As I said, I don't want to get into too much depth in this post, but that's some food for thought on the whole change over time thing.
Natural Selection
Ironically, natural selection is Evolution's worst enemy. Whereas Evolution requires the invention of brand new traits, natural selection only serves to select from what already exists. That which does not work is ultimately destroyed, sometimes in even a single generation.
Darwin himself admitted that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (2). As it turns out, such features exist in every single living organism on the Earth. You, yourself, have many features which, if they were not fully functioning from the beginning of our species, would lead to our extinction. Your heart alone, ignoring the complex systems it is a part of, would not function if it was designed in any other way. If our ancestors did not have hearts, any offspring they had that was part way to having a heart would have died instantly. This problem doubles when we consider sexual reproduction, which not only requires that two complete sexes form in a single generation, but that they also be compatible with each other.
Some Evolutionists think they have found the answer to this: other organisms have alternative ways of doing things. However, this hits the identical problem, as it is just as impossible to switch from one system to the other. To evolve one system into another inevitably requires sacrificing the function of the original.
Design
When God created living organisms, He designed them to reproduce according to their kinds. Given the curse that would soon follow, which would ultimately throw the world's climate and environment into complete chaos (even ignoring the flood), this would require adaptability. But they were designed to reproduce according to their kinds, not to produce wildly new ones.
Contrast that with Evolution, which is not designed at all. If Evolution was true, reproduction itself would have to reproduce. The variety of reproduction systems we see today would be doubly impossible, given what we have seen above, as a non-functioning reproductive system would be selected against in a single generation.
As you can see, the idea that a single celled organism might be able to evolve into the diversity of life we have today is just not feasible. Contrast that with the idea that God intelligently designed the original organisms, fully functional and fully equipped to be fruitful and multiply on the Earth. This just makes sense. It explains why life exists in a world that is so primed to destroy it. It explains why life appears so designed that even many atheists admit it seems to have been. It explains why we see the degeneration of kinds that already exist, not Evolution of new kinds.
But most of all, it explains why a supposedly primitive, iron age carpenter was able to do with a word what modern doctors cannot do with the most sophisticated technology, medicine and techniques. No one could do the amazing things Jesus did if not for the power of God. Jesus commanded the weather. Jesus transformed water into wine. Jesus multiplied food. Jesus walked on an unfrozen sea. Jesus healed genetic disorders, severe medical issues, even raised the dead. And Jesus suffered the most brutal public execution at the hands of the most efficient killers of His era, yet in just three days walked it off as if He was never injured. Who could command such power over the creation but the Creator Himself? If Jesus could do that, it makes sense to not only trust Him about how the world came to be, but also about how it will come to no longer be. Or rather, more importantly, what will be done with you.
This is where things start to get scary. We have rebelled against our Creator. We have even mocked Him by making up silly stories, like Evolution, just to temporarily gain the illusion that we are free from His authority. But ultimately, we are not. Like every generation before us, we will all die. When we do, we will be judged for every thought, word and deed. This is a judgement that will ultimately result in a guilty verdict, and the punishment is death. Or, more specifically, the "second death". That is, Hell.
But here's the good news: The trial has already been held. 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, and died on the cross. There, He took the full punishment for sin. Because God punished Jesus in your place, He can reward you in Jesus' place. Through faith, and only through faith, you can be completely forgiven for your sins, and reconciled to God forever.
References
1. Kerkut, Gerald A. - Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (link)
2. Darwin, Charles - On the Origin Of Species, 1859