Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

No, the biblical myths of adam&eve, the flood and the implicit theological timeline have been disproved by evolution. The creation of the world is disproved by other fields of science and philosophy.

Dear TheDuke,

All of those prominent occurrences have happened and are not myths. You can't prove that they are. We are at a stalemate and we both agree in different things. That is the only question here.

Ouch, so wrong. The BBT doesn't match the genesis account in the slightest, neither in principal, details, timeline or anything. Your disingenuous generalization serves you no good either, because although it's clear that you mean your god of the bible, the statement just opens the door to any deity of choice. But most importantly, the implication mentioned is arbitrary and groundless.

I don't necessarily agree with the BBT. I agree that my God did everything that the Bible says, though. I don't mention just any deity did it, because I only believe in the Deity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. They are One Deity.

of course they are, otherwise we wouldn't be here, called the anthropic principle.

If you want to believe that everything just came together so that all of life and the Universe just happened without God, then you are innocently being less educated than I thought. You can throw your anthropic principle out of the windows of your mind.

Where is that evidence, I'd like to know.
Good luck proving a negative without offering even an alternative explanation.

It is written that Our God made the Earth, Seas, etc. by His Presence and activities overlooking the water of the dark and deep. He first created Light, but not Sunlight. Just like the light that fireflies give, naturally glows, but God's Light is not that color. But not like Sunlight, once again I tell you. After that, He hovered over the waters and being the MASTER Chemist this Universe has EVER KNOWN, He created the Earth and the Heaven, and the Universe, and the animals and man. He made man from the dust of the ground. He also made the animals and insects from the ground. So I don't believe in a primordial soup whatsoever. I believe God created Hydrogen atoms to be part of our Sun, including Sulfur and Helium. I do not know what He made everything else with, because I am not a Master Chemist. Are you?

So wrong, firstly do be honest and admit that ID is nothing more than another word for "my god did it", secondly the DNA is only comparable to letters in a book because WE MADE this analogy on purpose, since it simplifies the understanding by invoking terminology and concepts that everyone is familiar with. In reality the "information" isn't there, becuase DNA is manipulated by cellular mechanisms on a molecular level, where the geometry and composition of one molecule interacts with another, just like pure chemisty. This is precisely the reason why most of the DNA isn't really "coding" for proteins, why the process is so complex and convoluted instead of just "reading a book".

You wish I would admit that God is an Intelligent Designer. I do. Can you do what He has? Simple man? Yes, DNA & RNA are quite complex, and God created them, and He alters them as He sees fit. Not man. God is the pure Chemist you are talking about and you just don't believe it because you'd rather believe that man's "Reasoning" is more true that His Maker, God. It's really quite a shame.

I don't know exactly what Darwin himself predicted, so maybe your statement has a grain of truth, however paleontologists around the world would strongly disagree with this embarrassment to apologetics regarding lack of transitional forms.
C'mon, just google it mate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils


Cheers, Duke

My own beliefs on transitional forms is that God makes every creature the way He wants to and HE controls the Chemistry and Biology of what He is creating. If He wants to change something, it's called similar, but variety, plainly. We are not descended from relatives of chimps. Get that out of your mind entirely. God worked His own Chemistry on chimps and men/women. So don't think they are descendants. They were separately made from Humans. There are a variety of chimps and a variety of humans. Whether I would include Neanderthals is debatable. He creates everything with their own Chemistry, and He also alters the DNA, genes, genomes, RNA, atoms, nuclei, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. as He sees fit, in each Creation He makes. Even while the twins are conceived in a mother's womb, it is He Who decides if they will be Siamese twins, or not. Siamese twins existed long before we found a way to separate them. They are unique creations and often can do very well regardless of their situation. The same thing with cleft palates. They can do everything everyone else can do but we can NOW operate on them and make them look more enhanced. God gives us that expertise and knowledge to do so. Scientists just didn't dream it all up. God gave the knowledge to those who are gifted by Him to pass it down to others. Some babies die in the womb. That is up to God and there are reasons that I won't go into now, because you couldn't handle it. Sometimes a woman is barren. That is up to God also. Well, I've really answered enough of your questions, but you are going to believe what you want to believe, so what is the reward for me spending time to pass on information to you. I can't say that I will answer all of the lengthy posts you throw my way. I do, however, suggest you peruse 6days post, right before this one. He's quite astute and helpful!! Check him out. I did check out your link also.

Someone Who Believes In God!!!

Michael



You can start typing here, if you want. Delete these two sentences first, if you wish.

 

[Interplanner]

Science is knowledge and the search for truth. Atheists, and most secularists exclude supernatural creation, and are unwilling to follow the evidence wherever it leads. They are committed to the religion of materialism.
As evolutionist professor Richard Lewontin said "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "

Well done, 6days. The quote explains a lot, with rare honesty.

 

[Interplanner]

Um.....appealing to supernatural causes isn't proper for science. If it is, perhaps you can explain how we can scientifically investigate and test God?



Who? Again, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century.

Jose,
who is to say what is proper? Lyell simply wanted to get rid of Moses. He was not agenda-free.

"Science" in your 2nd line means uniformitarianism. It was dictated by T. Huxley, who bulldozed Darwin into accepting it, and is not the only view out there, my friend. The geologist Steno in the 1600s had a complete system worked out in which the Biblical narratives integrated geology as understood at that point. Lyell and pals simply came along and wrote everything as though no events ever happened, because there are piles of evidence around for the vertical tectonics of the Genesis catastrophe. They favored a desired view over truth, and they knew that if they repeated it 1000x, everyone would have to accept.

As you may have noticed there is an annotated bibliography posted here, a thread of its own, but also in some of the threads, and those scientists are referenced there. You'll have to be brave and honest and look up what research is being done.

 

[Interplanner]

Well, so much for trying to educate a creationist.

Here's a little bit of my education. Just a little.




DELUGE OF INFORMATION
Annotated Bibliography


Ager, D. THE NATURE OF THE STRATIGRAPHICAL PROCESS. A peer scientist disputes Lyell's basis for uniformitarianism by evidence about rapid deposition and the Epeiric sea over north America.

Ager, D. NEW CATASTROPHISM.

Baugh, C. PRE-FLOOD ARTIFACT DEVASTATES UNIFORMITARIANISM. Youtube. A hammer made of sophisticated metal from England in a 'strata' where it does not 'belong.'

Baugh, C. THE WORLD AND MANKIND BEFORE THE FLOOD. Youtube. “Bizz-artifacts” of the ancient world re longevity, giantism.

Boudreaux. NEW THEORY FOR THE PRE-FLOOD CANOPY re sugilite, a trace found all over the earth's surface. Youtube.

Bretz, J H. 1920s. Geologic catastrophism in connection with Lake Missoula.

Brown, W. (various titles on the deluge and anomalies left around the world by it, but usually written apart from tectonic theory). Former DOD logistician.

CENTRALIA THEORY. A newer catastrophic view that the entire central 80% of Australia is a rapid deposit sedimentary zone as part of a global event.

Clemens, J. Research on granitic magmatism. Geologist Association of London.

Cooper, B. AFTER THE FLOOD.

Dona, K. ARTIFACTS FROM PRE-FLOOD WORLD & FALLEN ANGELS. Pres. By Habsburg Haus curator. Youtube. “Bizz-artefacts” of the ancient world.

FINDING NOAH. Oct.8.2015 limited screening.

Haynes. MAMMOTHS... Research on the thousands of mammoths in permafrost.

Hovind, K. FLOOD OF NOAH. Youtube. Hundreds of flood legends around the world. Hovind tends to wander off topic.

Hovind, K. THOUSANDS OF DRAGON LEGENDS AROUND THE WORLD. Youtube. Hovind tends to wander off topic.

Howorth, 1887. Early research on mammoths unable to explain the huge numbers found in permafrost.

James-Griffiths, P. TRACING GENESIS THROUGH ANCIENT CULTURE. Youtube. Extensive and well-illustrated comparative legend and literature.

Giem, P. IS PLUTO YOUNG? Youtube.

Guthrie. FROZEN FAUNA... Research on the plant life around the time and place of the huge numbers of frozen mammoths.

Job 9. 'God moves and overturns mountains.'

Johnson, C. THE PRE-FLOOD WORLD: CREATION AND CANOPY. Youtube.

LIVING WATERS. See nrbtv (Direct 378). This is a rich photoessay against several aspects of Darwinism.

Lyell. Mid-1800s scientist who developed the idea of uniformitarianism 'to free geology from Moses.'

THE MAN WHO FOUND TIME. Re Hutton (mid-1700s) and the first attempts to state that there are vast amounts of time manifesting on earth.

Mial, A. (research on failures of uniformitariansm) Springer International Publishing.

National Geographic Society. (100 mammoths at Hot Springs, South Dakota).

Nurre, P. EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY AND THE BIBLE. Nwcreation.net. Comparing new archeology with Biblical record.

Oard, M. THE LAKE MISSOULA FLOOD. Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Oard, M. WHAT HAPPENED TO WOOLLY MAMMOTHS? Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Psalm 104. The creation psalm with a few verses on the deluge, if not on Gen 1:2.

Psalm 136. The earth is set on top of water.

Siccar Point, Scotland. This site is contested as a clinching site by both uniformitarians and Biblical creation/deluge believers.

Silvestru, E. GEOLOGY AND DEEP TIME. Youtube. Vertical tectonics, rapid sedimentary deposits by a highly-trained ex-uniformitarian.

Snelling, A. WORLDWIDE FLOOD; GEOLOGIC EVIDENCE. Youtube.

Steno, N. Mid-1600s 'father of geology' and his Biblical basis.

Tolmachoff. 1929. Studies on woolly mammoths as anomalies.

Vereshagin. MAMMOTH CEMETERIES. Research on cause of death of thousands of mammoths in permafrost.

Walker, T. (THE GENESIS DELUGE). Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Walker, T. MEGA-CATASTROPHE. Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Waltke, B. CREATION AND CHAOS. Study of ancient near east legend to show how Gen 1's mission is to declare that the LORD is the redemptive-creator.

Ward. CALL OF THE DISTANT MOUNTAINS. Research on the anomalies of woolly mammoths.

 

[Hawkins]

Um.....appealing to supernatural causes isn't proper for science. If it is, perhaps you can explain how we can scientifically investigate and test God?

That's misleading statement. Science is a way to discover truth. If truth is supernatural, science should be able to live with it.

"Science must not be supernatural" <-- this is never part of what science aims for. This remains the agenda of the atheism belief.

 

[Jose Fly]

Science is knowledge and the search for truth.

By employing the scientific method. Science isn't "read a story, believe it absolutely, and then invoke supernatural miracles whenever you encounter a problem"....i.e., the creationist "method".

Atheists, and most secularists exclude supernatural creation

Well yeah, because supernatural acts can't be scientifically investigated. As I said to IP, if you disagree, then tell us exactly how you think God can be tested and studied.

As evolutionist professor Richard Lewontin said "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "

And that's true. As soon as science starts accepting claims of "God did it" as an explanation, science will have died.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose,
who is to say what is proper? Lyell simply wanted to get rid of Moses. He was not agenda-free.

"Science" in your 2nd line means uniformitarianism. It was dictated by T. Huxley, who bulldozed Darwin into accepting it, and is not the only view out there, my friend. The geologist Steno in the 1600s had a complete system worked out in which the Biblical narratives integrated geology as understood at that point. Lyell and pals simply came along and wrote everything as though no events ever happened, because there are piles of evidence around for the vertical tectonics of the Genesis catastrophe. They favored a desired view over truth, and they knew that if they repeated it 1000x, everyone would have to accept.

As you may have noticed there is an annotated bibliography posted here, a thread of its own, but also in some of the threads, and those scientists are referenced there. You'll have to be brave and honest and look up what research is being done.

I tried to educate you on the history of this, but you refused.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's misleading statement. Science is a way to discover truth. If truth is supernatural, science should be able to live with it.

Then please explain how God can be studied and tested.

"Science must not be supernatural" <-- this is never part of what science aims for. This remains the agenda of the atheism belief.

No, it's "science cannot study or test God".

Look at it this way. Let's say some people believe God created everything last Thursday, but supernaturally made everything appear to be much older, including our history, memories, etc., none of which actually existed. So every time someone finds something that looks older than a few days, a Last-Thursdayist says "God just made it look that way".

Is that science to you?

 

[Hawkins]

Then please explain how God can be studied and tested.

How can what you did last week be examined by science? Does science need to deny what you did or your existence?

If what you did last week stand truth, science has no bearing in denying what you did and who you are.


Science can only be efficient in dealing with a very small set of truths which can be repeated endlessly. It's inefficient in dealing with other truths such as what you just did in every minute last week.

 

[Jose Fly]

How can what you did last week be examined by science?

By examining evidence left behind by my activities. And given that I don't have the ability to supernaturally make everything disappear, or seem to be other than what it really is, it's not at all like trying to study God.

Does science need to deny what you did or your existence?

Nope.

If what you did last week stand truth, science has no bearing in denying what you did and who you are.

You're not making sense.

Science can only be efficient in dealing with a very small set of truths which can be repeated endlessly. It's inefficient in dealing with other truths such as what you just did in every minute last week.

That's quite a bit different than trying to study gods who can do absolutely anything, including making absolutely everything appear one way, when it really is quite different.

 

[Hawkins]

By examining evidence left behind by my activities.

What makes you think that there is ever evidence left behind the every minute you spent last week? Or shall we only accept your absence during those minutes?

Science may fail in those minutes without evidence, however it makes no sense for science to deny your deeds where it fails to prove.


You give too much credit to what science can do!

 

[Jose Fly]

What makes you think that there is ever evidence left behind the every minute you spent last week? Or shall we only accept your absence during those minutes?

Science may fail in those minutes without evidence

Then we say "In the total absence of evidence, we cannot say where Jose Fly was at 10:47 AM".

however it makes no sense for science to deny your deeds where it fails to prove.

You give too much credit to what science can do!

What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand (scientifically investigating gods)?

 

[Hawkins]

Then we say "In the total absence of evidence, we cannot say where Jose Fly was at 10:47 AM".

What? You mean in a court what is said by a witness doesn't count? A court needs science to confirm what a witness said? You must be kidding me. Or rather, you don't know what you are talking about completely!

Moreover, can you be more specific on what evidence can prove your presence at 10:47 am last Wed, and how available to get to that piece of evidence scientifically speaking?

What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand (scientifically investigating gods)?

I simply point out your flaw to think that science is the only way to confirm a truth.

 

[Jose Fly]

What? You mean in a court what is said by a witness doesn't count? A court needs science to confirm what a witness said?

Usually, yes. When a random person comes to them and claims to be a witness, the police typically check their claims against the evidence.

Moreover, can you be more specific on what evidence can prove your presence at 10:47 am last Wed, and how available to get to that piece of evidence scientifically speaking?

You're not making any sense at all.

I simply point out your flaw to think that science is the only way to confirm a truth.

Where did I say that?

 

[Hawkins]

Usually, yes. When a random person comes to them and claims to be a witness, the police typically check their claims against the evidence.

How to apply this to the daily news? Or are you saying everyone should put discredit to what is said in a newspaper.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. Plus that you are completely out of this reality!

BTW, have you ever been in a court. Human witnesses without evidence count in a court, just to let you know what reality is!

 

[Jose Fly]

How to apply this to the daily news? Or are you saying everyone should put discredit to what is said in a newspaper.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. Plus that you are completely out of this reality!

BTW, have you ever been in a court. Human witnesses without evidence count in a court, just to let you know what reality is!

?????????? You're making even less sense.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Science is knowledge and the search for truth. Atheists, and most secularists exclude supernatural creation, and are unwilling to follow the evidence wherever it leads. They are committed to the religion of materialism.
As evolutionist professor Richard Lewontin said "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "

Dear 6days,

Thanks for posting. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Too bad there's not a science that incorporates God and science together. I was taught the same thing about science, but my heart still belonged to God and Jesus. I just disagreed with their Darwinism. Otherwise, biology and Human Physiology were quite interesting. Well, I'm going to get to bed now. Chat with you more soon!!

May God Refresh Your Spirit,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Creation vs. Evolution

This site was completed after having grown weary of false evolutionary doctrine promoted by public television, national networks and other media, and taught in our public schools. Although "evolutionary theory" does not meet the universally accepted definition of 'theory' or 'hypothesis' or, for that matter, the universally accepted definition of 'science' (see section, Creation versus Evolution, for definitions), students continue to be taught evolution as “proven fact”—and later in life, they perpetuate this doctrine as teachers, journalists, and parents without question.

What many people today never hear and realize is the fact that so-called evolutionary theory is not based on known scientific laws or the preponderance of scientific evidence. Rather, scientific creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, is perfectly consistent with all known laws and evidence—and such evidence is overwhelming. The reality is, evolutionary doctrine is built on false assumptions and poor science. It is the greatest deception in modern history.
Why do secular scientists continue to adhere to a false evolutionary doctrine? This site provides the reasons, and summarizes much of the evidence for scientific creation. I ask any skeptical person to give this site an impartial reading before dismissing the scientific creationist viewpoint.

Consider the following evidence for Creation:

• Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.

• There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are “uphill” (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.

• Geologic land-forms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.

• Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—not slow and gradual processes over billions of years. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.

• A worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8 is within the boundaries of known geophysics—see phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.

• There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.

• The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.

• There are no transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for “the” missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.

• Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.

• Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)

• Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)

• Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is “fatally flawed”—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.

• Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth’s lithosphere, not slow and gradual processes over billions of years.

• Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radio-halos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
• Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.

Each of these evidences, examined individually, is enough to convince most rational people that evolution is a false doctrine and the earth is, in fact, young!

Article from Christian Science Today

 

[TheDuke]

Dear TheDuke,

All of those prominent occurrences have happened and are not myths. You can't prove that they are. We are at a stalemate and we both agree in different things. That is the only question here.


I don't necessarily agree with the BBT. I agree that my God did everything that the Bible says, though. I don't mention just any deity did it, because I only believe in the Deity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. They are One Deity.


If you want to believe that everything just came together so that all of life and the Universe just happened without God, then you are innocently being less educated than I thought. You can throw your anthropic principle out of the windows of your mind.


It is written that Our God made the Earth, Seas, etc. by His Presence and activities overlooking the water of the dark and deep. He first created Light, but not Sunlight. Just like the light that fireflies give, naturally glows, but God's Light is not that color. But not like Sunlight, once again I tell you. After that, He hovered over the waters and being the MASTER Chemist this Universe has EVER KNOWN, He created the Earth and the Heaven, and the Universe, and the animals and man. He made man from the dust of the ground. He also made the animals and insects from the ground. So I don't believe in a primordial soup whatsoever. I believe God created Hydrogen atoms to be part of our Sun, including Sulfur and Helium. I do not know what He made everything else with, because I am not a Master Chemist. Are you?


You wish I would admit that God is an Intelligent Designer. I do. Can you do what He has? Simple man? Yes, DNA & RNA are quite complex, and God created them, and He alters them as He sees fit. Not man. God is the pure Chemist you are talking about and you just don't believe it because you'd rather believe that man's "Reasoning" is more true that His Maker, God. It's really quite a shame.


Michael

Dear Michael,

I'm fully aware of your faith and I'll try and keep this short.
I was responding to the individual errors in the post you recited before and not to your beliefs.

I'm glad to hear that you're aware of the neanderthal I wonder how you explain their cognitive capacity...

As for your first point,
"All of those prominent occurrences have happened and are not myths. You can't prove that they are."
Sure I can, the question is whether you'd want me to?
And the follow-up question is, how do YOU prove the opposite?

Cheers, Duke.

 

[TheDuke]

It just never ends.......

It just never ends.......

This site was completed after having grown weary of false evolutionary doctrine promoted by public television, national networks and other media, and taught in our public schools. Although "evolutionary theory" does not meet the universally accepted definition of 'theory' or 'hypothesis' or, for that matter, the universally accepted definition of 'science' (see section, Creation versus Evolution, for definitions), students continue to be taught evolution as “proven fact”—and later in life, they perpetuate this doctrine as teachers, journalists, and parents without question.

What many people today never hear and realize is the fact that so-called evolutionary theory is not based on known scientific laws or the preponderance of scientific evidence. Rather, scientific creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, is perfectly consistent with all known laws and evidence—and such evidence is overwhelming. The reality is, evolutionary doctrine is built on false assumptions and poor science. It is the greatest deception in modern history.
Why do secular scientists continue to adhere to a false evolutionary doctrine? This site provides the reasons, and summarizes much of the evidence for scientific creation. I ask any skeptical person to give this site an impartial reading before dismissing the scientific creationist viewpoint.

So much projection in one paragraph....

If you want to make a case against an established scientific theory, you'd be advised to take science seriously and not handwavingly dismiss everything as one giant conspiracy. Instead of empty assertions and pretensions - show the evidence.

• Amateur wannabe science with an agenda --> Pseudoscience
• Intentional deceitful misrepresentation with a dogma --> Antiscience! (That's what is to be found in this case...)

• Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.

(without exception!!!!) makes it sound so definitive, right....
Can you please be so kind as to explain what do biological processes have to do with other natural laws from all disciplines like physics, astronomy, geology etc.?

While we're at it: Creation is by definition (which you agree to) supernatural, hence it cannot be consistent with laws of nature!

But wait, there's more: The fundamental laws of thermodynamics deal with energy conversion and transfer.
How they have anything to do with biological life is beyond comprehension and should signal to anyone reading such a statement, that it's author has no honest intentions and is most likely utterly clueless!

But here's the cherry: The "law of biogenesis" states explicitly that life forms cannot come into existence from non living forms (that's why the formation of self-replicating organic compounds is called "abiogenesis") which contradicts the "creation" of life in the most straight-forward way possible. How can someone shoot himself in the foot like that is amazing.

• There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are “uphill” (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.

Let's try to break down this cascade. The statement is in essence that "mutations don't add new information". So in order to deal with it, "information" has to be properly defined. Please do so!
In lack of a clear definition, I'll just assume it means a different (i.e. new) protein that is coded for. That is very easily achieved by random mutation and can be observed directly in simple single cell organisms that can obtain new metabolic capacities after quite a short amount of time.

• Geologic land-forms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.

I'm not going to deal with topics outside of evolution, why this matters to the author is yet again beyond comprehension

• There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.

No, dating techniques are used in so many branches of science and have nothing to do with evolution. There is no guesswork, as there is generally no guesswork in any scientific endeavor. The only reason creationists oppose dating is because the results negate the idea of a young earth

• The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.

Sure, the global consistency of the geologic column must be fictitious. Denial is the first stage of dealing with loss, you've got 4 more to go.

• There are no transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for “the” missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.

Yet again, just pretending that something isn't there. How pityful.
I will address one minor point though, nobody expects "billions of examples". This is just another indication of a complete lack of understanding of the subject.

Anyone curious - just google for transitional forms....

• Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.

Absolutely true, I don't know why popular belief would suggest otherwise. I also don't know how this affects the veracity of human evolution at all. I can say however that it certainly makes the survival of adam&eve in the "real world" rather highly unlikely...

• Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.

Care to point out where they are to be found?

Article from Christian Science Today

And that folks, is why "Christian science" is such an oxymoron!

The irony of it all is that many christians are perfectly happy to acknowledge evolution and incorporate it into their religious worldview - so that they don't need to deny reality!