"Can you list these "fatal flaws" of evolution for me so I can tackle them"
1. No transitional fossils in the fossil record
2. No transitional creatures can survive because they're non-functional
3. No evidence of new genetic information ever being created
4. A living cell requires at least 256 genes, and even that may not be enough -- It's impossible for living matter to come out of non-living matter
5. No explanation for how universal matter can become clustered and organized into galaxies
6. Evolution still has no answer for how something came from nothing
There's a few. Good luck.
"Don't you think that if there WAS scientific evidence for creation that science would have looked at it?"
You have to know what science is all about. It's to gain knowledge of the physical universe. Genuine science is all about observations. The results of those observations are subject to interpretation. Science is indifferent, it just reveals information for intelligent people to look at with their presuppositions.
"I mean if there was undenyable evidence on creation occurring don't you think there would be a show on it or an article in aq reputable science journal"
Perhaps you haven't read articles about how our minds are hard wired to have a connection with God, or about all of the stuff on intelligent design. Science is not one sided, although evolutionists would like you to think this. Perhaps your science journals are by evolutionists. Like I've said before, people would love to know everything, and it would be a big scientific victory to have revealed where we came from. This is why many scientists lean towards evolution. For many this is the big basis for science, to achieve total knowledge and that going along with the theory already out there that's supposed to be the path to complete truth is the way to go when pursuing a science career. This doesn't make the theory of evolution true. You look at evolutionist materials, I look at creationist materials. Ultimately it comes down to two things for both sides: Where did our presuppositions come from? Which set of presuppositions makes more sense?
"Scientists are always studying things and I'm sure they wouldnt ignore evidence for creation if it existed."
Again, you seem to think all scientists are evolutionists.
"Uhhh... you ignored the whole paragraph about the stars... can't deny any of that can you?"
Ok thanks for remindng me, let's take a look...
"Look at the Hubble pix of the Orion nebula... can you deny that in thoise dust clouds there are stars forming?"
Yes I can. Let me first state that there's a strong publicity emphasis surrounding the Hubble Space Telescope. Without such exciting 'new discoveries' coming regularly, the HST could fall under the knife of legislative budget cuts. So discoveries made are exaggerated and assuptuous as usual... typical media for ya. They only tell you what they want you to know. There is no real evidence that stars are forming. The dust pushes its way through the hot gas. Gas along the front edge of the collision compresses and glows hotter. This results in the whitish appearing areas at the edges of the dark 'fingers' of dust. This gas is so hot that it will quickly desperse, giving it no chance of forming stars.
"Did you see the pictures of the star Beta Pictoris? There is an accretion disk around the star that will eventually form planets."
It will eh?
"If this disk of dust does not form planets then why doesn't our Sun have one still?"
Hmm, maybe because your idea of how stars form isn't true.
"Do you believe that there may be life on one of the dozens of new planets discovered? Out of the billions of galaxies with billions of stars each, I think the chances of finding a planet with the same distance from a Sun-like star with life is very very good."
For one thing, I don't think you realise exactly how precise the distance is from the earth to the sun. We're not just talking a few thousand miles here. we're talking millions of miles, and if the distance was any different life wouldn't be possible. For another thing, there are thousands of other variables that are set perfectly for life on this earth. Any variation would destroy the whole thing. The chances of this happening by itself are the same as if you dropped a bucket of quarters and they all came to rest on their sides. Do that 100 trillion times, and I assure you it will never happen. Having the assumption that this will happen as your basis for believing in evolution is off the wall. Even if it did happen, that still doesn't explain how life gets started from non-living materials.
"If the light takes millions of years to reach us, then the Earth and universe must be older than you think... unless you think the speed of light is made up too...."
Here we go with uniformitarianism again. There are many ideas of how we can see stars here on a young earth. Some are very technical while others are not. The Bible said that God lit up the night sky. If God had anything to do with the creation of the universe that would change all of our calculations. Many scientists say the speed of light is slowing down. I'm not sure if that's been proven or not so I'll move on. God could have just beamed the light from the stars here if he wanted to. He doesn't have to sit around and wait millions of years for everything in his creation to fall into place. It started out as a perfect world. Maybe in a perfect world the speed of light is instantaneous. I'm taking a on a biblical point of view here but it can't be ruled out. There is no way of knowing about everything that happened in the past without being there when it happened. You state that evolution has holes that haven't been figured out yet -- creationists don't have a complete knowledge either. That's when faith comes in for both viewpoints. The way I look at it is, only God can know the full truth about everything and we're in no position to even come close.
"No, there ius NO organic material in dinosaur bones. In no magazine article I've read has anything been siad about organic material in the dinosaur skeletons."
Well that's too bad. Here's what evolutionist experts have to say: "An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones."
"Maybe your creationist literature, but no mainstream science magazine or journal."
It's very profitable. Evolution makes billions of dollars a year. It keeps NASA from going broke. Sure it will be mainstream. People want to think that scientists have figured out everything. Creationists are more short on cash but their message is still getting out to many people. There are a lot of non-profit organizations out there working to spread the truth. Some schools are reviewing their curriculum in terms of the evolution theory. This is good, because with schools pushing this out as fact violence is up and self-worth is down.
"Don't you think that if organic matter survived we would be activley trying to clone long-extinct life?"
There have been ideas thrown around since the 1980s. Some think that we'll be able to do this in a few decades.
"what about the American creatures? Noah didn't know of America and so couldnt have collected them."
Come on man how many times do I have to tell you, the world was one continent back then. Ok?
"if God created everything in the beginning than he could not have added anything later on... that would go against what the Bible says and so would refute creation altogether."
Natural selection doesn't add anything, rather it takes information away.
"What about my Black Sea theory a while back? Isn't that as feasible as your story? Since the world was that small area to a common Middle Eastern man, wouldnt a catastrophic event like the formation of the Black Sea be interpreted as a global flood?"
All over the world, even on the highest mountains we find the remains of dead creatures that have been buried in mud and sand laid down by huge watery catastrophe. These fossils are of marine and terrestrial animals and are buried everywhere. We also find lots of vegetation that has been buried by the Flood, and this has turned to coal and oil and we use it for fuel. Those who discovered evidence for the Black Sea flood needed a historical flood to associate it with, one that would generate a lot of public interest so they picked the biblical flood. There are flood legends in cultures all over the world, not just in the middle east. There's no reason to link the Black Sea with the biblical flood.
"Also, what about the ark being the size of Rhode Island?."
Where did you get that piece of information from? The ark was large but didn't need to be that big.
"You must not know about the effect of salt on creatures."
It's been observed that some invertibrates could have survived the flood outside the ark, possibly on rafts of pumice or tangled vegitation or on driftwood as Darwin suggested. Garden seeds could still sprout after being immersed in salt water for 42 days, and could have traveled 1,400 miles on a typical ocean current.
"evidence in the fossil record with older life forms in lower layers progressing to modern layers in upper rock layers show us that life started out simple and got more complex over time."
How about some proof, something you haven't shown much of. Evolutionists have drawn full transitional creatures from tiny fragments of fossilized bone. I haven't seen any evidence for simple life forms turning complex, transitional fossils or proof of added genetic information.
"If God created them (island species) you'd think he'd be a little more original and make something completly different at each island...but no, they are all similar."
You're not God, how do you know what he thinks? You'd think that perhaps, but what you're saying doesn't support evolution at all. It's shows natural selection, a proven scientific observation.
"What about the fact that we share around 98% of our genetic makeup with apes?"
It's actually 96%. A point often overlooked is the vast differences between different kinds of creatures. Every creature has an encyclopedic information content, so even a small percentage difference means that a lot of information would be required to turn one kind into another. Since humans have an amount of information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books, a 4 percent difference amounts to 40 large books, even if we assume that the hybridization data really correlates to gene sequence similarity. So basically, random mutation plus natural selection is supposed to generate the information equivalent of 12 million words arranged in a meaningful sequence. This is impossible even if we grant the 10 million years evolutionists claim.
"What happened to all the transitional hominids that existed before us?"
What transitional hominids? It is now recognized widely that the australopithecines are not structurally close to being similar to humans. Alleged "ape-men" are various finds of either varieties of real humans or australopithecines. There hasn't been any real evidence that we came from apes. The human fossil record is completely compatible with special creation. In contrast, the human fossil evidence is so contrary to evolution that it effectively falsifies the idea that humans evolved. But perhaps you know something that no one else does and can prove me wrong.
Great source you got there, a Geocities site. I'm not going to spend a ton of time refuting all of that. That's a lot of stuff, but it's littered with errors and assumptions. I added it to my favorites and will take a closer look at it later, thanks. <br>
<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<br> 
Everyone knows it was a snake in a tree. thats how the world started, a snake in a tree. But one thing the bible does seem to leave out is all the incest and the mother f*cking going on. because you know for the world to start out with just two people there was a WHOOOLE lot of mother f*cking going on. So yeah we can argue about creationsim and evolution forever, f*ck it we'll just get together and have a big tug of war, and whoever wins is right. thats how we'll figure it out, and it makes just about as much sense. 