A Creation Website For Children

Thank you for taking the time to create yet another source that completely misrepresents the theory of evolution, and the rest of science using lies and false logic. I'm sorry, but evolution is "To [sic] Much Work" is not a valid argument. In response to this website, I would like everyone who visits it to also read Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne. It was just recently published, and is a ~230 page book that neatly lays out all of the evidence for the theory of evolution, properly explaining what the theory is all about.

---

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Just a quick note here. You said in a previous post: And more recently: Which is, in a sense, true. However, you've just assumed that entropy, scavengers, and the natural elements work to destroy shark teeth before " 'millions of years' can become a reality". But where is your evidence for this? Do you have the deterioration rate for shark teeth, or more importantly fossilized shark teeth since that's what we're actually dealing with? Just because you can't imagine that something could last for millions of years doesn't mean that it can't.
As for giant floods leaving the sharks teeth on mountains, there is absolutely no evidence for this. Was it raining simultaneously all over the world? If so, where did all this new water come from, and where did it go? Why is it that there's no evidence for this? Surely a huge influx of rain water into the oceans would've have left obvious tell-tale signs especially in coral.

---

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This is a confusing statement. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you meant to say: However fossilization is NOT a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be DEcomposed before it becomes a rock. Otherwise your statement makes no sense.Again, I ask you: how do you know this? Bones last a very, very long time even when they're not fossilized. And they obviously last long enough to become fossils because we have them. Which you acknowledged when you said . So if bones can't last long enough to become fossils, yet, as you say, Noah's flood gave us all our fossils, how did that happen?Also, it would be nice if you could actually give some of your arguments instead of telling me to go watch 19 you tube videos. I don't need you to assign me homework. By all means, cite your precious videos, but defend your position in your own words.So what evidence is there for a global flood? Where did all that water come from, and where did it go afterward?

---

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This is nonsensical. If fossilization is so rapid then why is there not enough time for skeletons to fossilize? We have fossils! They exist! Sure, given enough scavengers and bacteria, the soft tissue of any organism can easily be gotten rid of in days, but the don't eat bones. The skeleton usually gets scattered, which is why fossils are rare. No one is saying that fossils are created every time something dies. It requires very specific circumstances. Again, skeletons don't just disintegrate in a matter of days. First of all, your pet fish floats when it dies because there is still oxygen left in its swim bladder, a feature not found in sharks, so there's no guarantee that it would float when dead. Secondly, we were talking about shark teeth, not whole shark skeletons. So even if the shark's skeleton was scattered by scavengers, the teeth would still fall to the bottom of the ocean, were it would be quickly covered in sediment and then slowly fossilized.If Noah's flood brought dirt up and covered everything to make fossils, then why are the types of fossils we find so skewed towards marine life? "most of the fossils we have are of marine organisms, which live on or in the ocean floor, or naturally sink to the floor when they die" (Why Evolution is True by J A Coyne) If Noah's flood did all the fossil making, then why don't land plants and animals have more representation in the fossil record? Hmm, and yet the entire scientific community disagrees with this assertion. No, I want YOUR answers. I want you to be able to defend you argument. If you can't even paraphrase, then how can you even say you believe what you do? I'm not going to wade through hours of video making your case for you. I watched the first 10 minutes of the first video and it was intolerably inaccurate. There were dozens of misrepresentations and lies within that short bit alone.