»Creationism vs Evolution«

Only true in the vast majority of cases; you are ignoring - willfully or out of misunderstanding - the possibility that the mutation confers a selective advantage.

Additionally, when you seek to apply this critique to evolution itself, you forget the vastness of geologic time.

The magazines "Science" and "Nature" report some astonishing facts:
In other words: It underlines my theory that the DNA doesn't create life forms but that life forms use the DNA to produce the chemicals they need.

In other words: Evolution is not Evolution of the DNA, like I have stated in this thread many times.

In other words: You could have 2 different life forms (mice and men) with 100% of same DNA.

That's not enough:
1) The advantage must come without a greater disadvantage
2) The advantage must be already working and not being half ready, which is impossible in practically all cases, since only MANY mutations make one functioning advantage
3) The advantage must be so great that it isn't selected away soon.
4a) The advantage must happen at the same time in 2 animals, so that they can interbreed (= co-mutated partner)
4b) or must be of such type that it can be passed to children without a co-mutated

It-is-not-possible. There are no such random mutations.

1) Well if there were a greater disadvantage attendant upon the advantage, this would be a net disadvantage, would it not? So why not call it a disadvantage?
2)This is the all-time classic creationist argument against evolution. Even Darwin had to deal with this one in The Origin of Species, and the creationists today are a lot less sophisticated and knowledgeable than they were in the 19th century. I am not going to explain the phenomenon of regulatory genes ♣ to you because you seem to have not done your reading, and in any event you would say that such a thing is "impossible".
3) You don't understand genetics.
4a) You don't understand genetics.
4b) You don't understand genetics.

do you think that for massive differences in appearance that different species need massive differences in DNA structure and sequencing...this is not the case...a single change known as a single nucleotide polymorphism (snip) can cause massive changes in physical characteristics

Examples? And please no illnesses. Illnesses would be selected away. And what do you mean my physical characteristics? SNP is another name for a special type of mutation and it doesn't change anything I have said.

a snp is the most common type of genetic variation...not a "special type"...

as for the physical differences...you gave them yourself...tiny genetic differences between man and chimp...different species...different look

I don't think that SNP (= single nucleotide polymorphisms) would be enough to lead to another species. But even if this would be possible, then the new life form would come into being not DIRECTLY because of the mutation, but because the plan of the life form has changed and now has to use the altered proteins to make the best out of it. At leats in my humble hypothesis.

But seriously, there is a such thing as a germ line, KNN

Unless your "organizing source" has been engineering us from day one

nothing you have said comes close to trumping natural selection.

The best argument anyone has yet come up with for a new paradigm to supersede natural selection is punctuated equilibrium, and even that is generally regarded as a footnote to NS.