If evolution is wrong, is Creation right?

No, it's not. The Theory of Evolution is a strictly biological theory that explains species diversity on Earth, and that's it. The rest of your list encompasses cosmology, geology, and organic chemistry. These are not biological sciences.Surely somebody who styles themselves as a scientist is familiar with the division of scientific fields. It is true that evidence from all these different fields contradicts the Creation story. But these fields are not evolution. Evolution is strictly biology. There's several errors here that betray your standing as a "scientist."Firstly, there's no such thing as "kinds". Kinds is not a functional category of living things. There's no way to tell if any two given animals are in the same or different kinds. "Kinds" is not a term scientists use in biology because it has no meaning.Therefore it's inaccurate to draw a distinction between micro and macro-evolution, and the reason is simple: It's like trying to draw a distinction between walking to the store (micro-walking) and walking to the next town (macro-walking.) There's no difference because it's the same process occuring for different time periods. What you've disproven is that you're motivated by the pursuit of knowledge. Instead you've proven that you're all too willing to post already-refuted Hovind-esque nonsense to further a preconcieved religous agenda. You're not the first 15-year-old creationist to post this stuff. Maybe you'll be the first to be able to defend it, but I doubt it. I predict - because that's what scientists do, make predictions from data - that you'll post maybe 20 times and then abandon the board and all your arguments. Huh, funny. I believe that it's possible to prove that an all-powerful, benevolent Godas that described in the Bible doesn't exist, and moreover, have done so in several threads. By all means, let us discuss.

Yes, you're absolutely correct.That's why the Theory of Evolution isn't a theory of origins. It's a theory that explains species diversity. It's hardly the theory's fault if you don't know what it's supposed to explain, right? No, I don't want to address them because they're not my area of knowledge, and they have little relevance to the theory of evolution. No such thing. You might be thinking the dog genus, the cat genus, the horse genus, and the monkey order. None of these are "kinds" because there's no such thing as kind.I notice that you haven't even tried to define "kind". If you're able to provide a functional definition of kind, you'd be the first ever to do so. Says you. Care to provide evidence? Why not? The only difference is genetics. And mutations change genetics. So the change is possible, however unlikely. Except, of course, for the fish that have lungs. Well, his claim that human cytochrome C is more similar to a sunflower's than a chimpanzee's has been demonstrated to be wrong on a number of occasions, though he has never retracted the statement.He's claimed the Paluxy River Tracks are actually human and dinosaur footprints side-by-side. Obviously this is impossible under evolutionary timelines. Moreover, even the Institute For Creation Research and the Answers in Genesis group don't think those tracks are valid.His best-known lie is his ridiculous quarter-million "bet" that he can't be convinced that evolution is true. Firstly, he doesn't have the money. Secondly, all he has to do to avoid paying the money is not allow himself to be convinced. Sounds like a bogus bet to me.When I say that his arguments are "nonsense", it's only because he's the biggest, most dishonest charlatan in the Creationist movement. If you care at all about actually doing some good for creationism, as well as acting like a good Christian, you'll do whatever you can to distance yourself from this clown, just as the ICR and AiG have. Do you think Jesus wants you to lie for him? Oh, well it's perfectly reasonable to believe in a do-nothing, powerless God. But why would you want to? And how could such a God create anything? But as long as you agree that the Christian God is contradictory to the evidence... and as a scientist, surely you can't deny evidence, can you?

Sure it has. In fact, another poster has often posted an experiment in evolution you can do yourself:

quote:

---

Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.

​

Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.

​

What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.

​

But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.

​

How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.

​

But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.

​

Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.

​

But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.

​

What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.

​

But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.

​

Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.

​

So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.

---

See above. And search PubMed.org. You can see plenty of scientific, peer-reviewed papers about mutations adding new genes and capabilities. It's actually pretty common. You yourself have probably between 10 and 50 mutations of your own.

If you're really worried about it, take it from a grammar Nazi - the word you probably want to use is "corrobarating."