Christ making statements about Creation

Well guess who's been watching Youtube videos ?
Seriously is this where you find out all your information on creationists? Please if you think that you know the creationist position do some reading from actual creationist websites (like Creation | Creation Ministries International The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research http://www.trueorigin.org/) instead of just youtube. Right back at ya. It is in laymans terms which will hopefully be a bit more challenging for you then youtube videos.
This is getting a bit off topic but here they are:
Tiktaalik roseae--a fishy 'missing link' - creation.com
Are there apemen in your ancestry? - creation.com
Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax - it is a true bird, not a 'missing link' - creation.com (while mainly dismissing the "it's a hoax" idea, it also has good points why it isn't a transitional form. But then again Archaeoptreyx "missing link" claims are a bit old school, yip its in the textbooks but most scientists studying bird evolution have moved on.)
The Mythical Horse Series | The Institute for Creation Research Really? Please show me. No I don't think there is a direct conspiracy, evolutionists really do sincerly believe it (at least as far as I know). It isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened in human history. Again, it shows your lack of understanding of creation scientists and what they believe here is a nice list if you find that sort of thing helpful
Creation scientists - creation.com Again you have only looked into what evolutionists say. Please go read some articles at the websites already named above. No. I/we don't dismiss any actual evidence (i.e.observations made by scientists). Yip many scientists have got it seriously wrong, and yes there is a better, simpler, and fuller explanation, hence why i am a YEC. By this you probably mean "Show me another materialistic, naturalistic, explanation (i.e. something that excludes God and the Bible) and I might believe it."
So no I am not going to put such a theory out. You have already rejected YEC theory that is backed up with evidence, has peer-reviewed articles, and "trumps all of that". Oh dear. I am not a little kid. Why,do you guys act as if we had only heard of evolution yesterday. I have spent many years being interested in this topic, I have heard all these arguments before, and guess what, they aren't convincing. Again first read some actual YEC literature before you dismiss us.

And there is no evolutionary framework? This is like saying that darwin knew everything there ever was to know about evolution. Of course not! he set out a framework in which scientists refine and add more detail. So evolutionists seek to provide evidence for their framework. Creationists do the same.
Tiktaalik: So you think that the arguments made in the article aren't enough?
Archaeopteryx: There is a quote in the article by Dr Alan Feduccia, an expert saying Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that. This was also the conclusion reached at the International Archaeopteryx Conference in 1984.
hominids: And where in the article did you get this from? They never made that claim, in fact they said that there ARE MORE Australopithecus Afarensis fossils. Why? What the? I can't be bothered reading that many pages of internet debate. I read the first page and the only time somebody made an argument against Creationsists was that an article had not mentioned animal trackways and raindrops which are actually evidence for rapid burial so supports the Flood. And did you read Gish's reply? While the article did get me a bit sceptical of Gish at first, I found his reply very good. The final remarks by Arthur I find much less convincing then her initial arguments. true. But does this argument falsify the biblical account? No. There are also no tags on fossils saying "I'm X million years old"

Basically yip. So you agree that evolutionists work in a framework. So will you ever step outside of your belief that purely naturalistic processes over a vast period of time have resulted in producing complex organisms from "simple" organisms?
Do you see the similarity? "It’s important to note that all reasoning really starts with presuppositions (axioms, i.e. certain things that are taken for granted without being able to prove them). And there’s nothing inappropriately biased about that, it’s inevitable, but the question is then whether the presupposition leads to conclusions which support it sufficiently to justify trusting it further, and so on." (Who Is The Creator - creation.com)
tiktaalik:
So what have you got. A head and shoulders, a part of the front fins. No tail, no "hind fins". You have fins that are not connected to the main body and may turn out to be something similar to the coelacanth fins that were meant to be the beginnings of legs and were found on live coelacanths to be used for swimming not walking. I think the verdict is still out. There is not enough info to make a tight case for the tiktaalik to be transitional. So you know better than the experts?
Just for fun, lets use the argument you like to use. Are you more highly qualified in this area than Feduccia or the majority of scientists that took part at the International Archaeopteryx Conference?For both "transitional fossils" we are debating two fossils in isolation from the many and large changes that are needed for evolution from fish to tetrapod or reptile to bird. Again you show ignorance of what creationists believe.Gish:
Did you read his reply to this charge?This discussion has really gone off on a pretty big tangent. While I am happy to go on discussing these matters, I think we should take this topic elsewhere if you want to continue.