Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

I'm wondering if d-yankee could give some references for the folowing statement?: As for this one: "Humungously" larger?
Not really. The Imperial mammoth could reach approxiamtely 14 feet at the shoulder while the African elephant of today can attain approximately 13 feet at the shoulder.Not what I would call a "humungous" difference in size. What exactly do you mean by "small snouts"??? A "snout" is usually defined as a long projecting or anterior elongation of an animal's head; especially the nose.
Did you mean nostrils?
T. rex had an enormous olfactory organ for example, as did many of the hadrosaurids. And where can we see fossils, artifacts and habitations of such 'giants'? Or is the evidence confined to your interpretation of Biblical scripture? Do you mean a quartz prism, or some other sort of mineralised formation?
Are you not actually referring to refraction?
Refraction is affected by atmospheric density, temperature & humidity,
but I doubt that conditions would exist over an entire planet that would prevent the formation of a rainbow everywhere.In any case, I am puzzled as to your 'Biblical source' for this comment or its applicability to the argument at hand? And beneath this layer of water/cloud/ice, we are to believe that photosynthesizing plants, plankton and entire ecosystems dependent on them flourished? There is a great deal of surmise and wishful thinking in this statement.The fact that it inherently ignores basic physics, geology, palaeontology, climatology, cosmology, ecology and biology should be more than a clue to most people as to its efficacy even as poor
Christian apologetics. Sudden deposition isn't the problem you seem to think it is.

In modern geology, it is a well established fact that single, local floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick.
In addition, trees buried in these sediments don't suddenly die and decay immediately and can remain there for years or even decades.
This was conclusively proved well over a hundred years ago by John William Dawson (c.1868) described upright giant lycopod trees at Joggins, Nova Scotia; of a few metres in height, preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones and dated to the Carboniferous era. These trees had extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrated into the underlying sediment, which were either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. Moreover, such polystrate fossils were formed at different periods of geological time - not at any one point (i.e. - various examples don't even share common strata) therefore creationists can't even point to a correlation in time to support their "single event flood" hypothesis. Plates? Does this mean you agree with modern geology on plate tectonics and therefore continental drift? Then define what a "kind" is please? This would make it easier to understand your argument.Are all Insects of a 'kind' then?Is a racoon a dog, bear or weasel "kind"?How about a marsupial mouse, mole or possum? What 'kind' are they? What is the creationist criteria for defining a 'kind'? What happened to all the fresh-water fish then? Did they have some magical adaptation to protect them from the high saline levels generated by the flood? So you believe in "microevolution"?Why is macroevolution not possible in your opinion?I'd be inteersted in your response.Cheers & God bless

...for straying from the topic somewhat.From what I've seen from my lurker's viewpoint I would tend to agree with your summation.Cheers