1. Fossils do not show evolution.

Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.

2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds.

Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead.2 A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.3 Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead.4 None truly evolved.5

Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science.

3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution.

Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.6 Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations.

Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.

Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow.

These four observations show why the unbiblical evolutionary idea that creatures change without limits is unscientific. If creatures evolved through nature—and not God—then Scripture is not trustworthy, since from beginning to end it credits God as Creator.8 But science clearly confirms the Genesis creation account.

They show, they do not prove. Palentology demonstrates the capacity to define species traits across time spans that are shared by extinct species and existent species - Which is compatable with evolution

For example, when examining species of equine that have been extinct and currently existant species of equine which didn't co-exist, you can make a reasonable argument that the species are both related with the origin of one being based on the other, despite the differences between them.

One thing that's over looked is the importance of remembering that species currently existant now, did not exist in the past - But bear a similarities to species that did previously exist, but have become extinct.

This presents a case of a continual development across time, in which species change, new species come into existence, and other species become extinct.

This is entirely untrue, given the fact that species of rats become immune to posions, the mutagenic nature of flu and the fact that antibiotic immune strains of diseases occur in periods of time.

No one has seen an entirely new species develop (but that would take millions of years), however evolutionary change within a species is very well documented and demonstrated.

These are evolutionary because they involve RANDOM SELECTION and ENVIROMENTAL FITNESS

Ok so explain why both the modern Horse share similarities to Eohippus, despite the modern horse having no historical period of cross over.

It doesn't, Evolution is based on traits, not genes. Whilst Genetics is the process of cellular production and reproduction, it is not the same as an evolutionary trait, it is associated to a trait.

You need to read more about what evolution is and isn't, rather than 'why it doesn't exist'. Evolution is the development of a species, through natural selection and environment fitness.

Only if you completely misunderstand that system develop over time by small changes, not by instant changes. The eye is the best example of this. The eye couldn't occur as one mutation. However, all species generally demonstrate some kind of light sensitivity (jellyfish have light sensitive cells). What happens is over the course of species changes to these cells, that improve survival chances (and sight is very useful) eventually create an increasingly complex system, resulting in the eye.

Changes that create a new species occur over hundreds of millions of years of gradual small scale evolutionary changes. Not as the result of a single change.

No it wouldn't. See above. The change isn't 'single step changes' but squences of very small changes (consistant with genetic entropy incidently) that are inherited across generations, and over generations these in more noticeable changes.

They don't and evolution doesn't posit changes without limits. Limits are provided by environmental benefit and sexual selection.

Of course, if god is the creator, then the question becomes why is the human being so flawed? Why did no one mention the T-Rex and other huge f**king dinosaurs in the bible and of course why the Christanity is so down on incest, given there was only ever Adam and Eve.

Kin 'ell.... reading this thread is worse than answering the front door to a Jehovah's Witness.

[Link]

Its a bit of a rambling verse, sounds like Christian Right wingers trying to explain Natural Selection. Also, why is darkness evil, light is simply the presence of photons?

You should take heed, because evolution is a process of creation, which is the manifestation of gods will, denying its truth is rejecting what god has made plain - the divine nature of gods invisible qualities are evolution.

Only very stupid people think that Genesis is a literal truth.

I thought they only had to believe in his son, there's a contradiction in your post. There was nothing about glorification or giving thanks in John 3:16 above.

So which is it.

Which one of the 230 books of revelation is the true version? Also you do realise its a prophecy of the fall of the Roman empire, right? Its not even remotely about the modern world.

Cut and paste is for weaklings, please present your argument in either Coptic or Koine Greek - The St James translation is a very poor translation.

That's the one. I'm not an academic, I work in IT. Which is fine, because you're not the messianic saviour you so desire to be.