Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

I see the usual attempt at misrepresentation. The Henry Gee quote does not deny that the fossil evidence is sufficient to concluse that humans are the product of evolution.- as you would have us believe.But then you've never read that statement in context, have you ?All you've done is copy material from a website which says what you would like to be true without doing any real research at all. I suppose if you want to "support" creationism or "Biblical inerrancy" that is the best you can manage.

Unfortunately for you, Ken, the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is based solely on the assumption that it involes increasing order. However since the Earth is not a closed system increases in themrodynamic order do NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics.In short the fact that the Earth is not a closed system, receiving energy from outside refutes the only possibly valid argument you have. Unless and until a valid argument is produced you have no case. Neoither of your web sites deals with showing violations of the REAL second law of thermodynamics.
"They insist that creationists simply don't understand thermodynamics."
And they are absolutely right !

I have to say that so far as I can tell the only relationship of this discussion to the supposed subject is that it implicitly denies the validity of Young Earth Creationism. If the universe is more than 10 billion years old then YEC is out by 6 orders of magnitude.

The "best" bit is where they try to argue that the Universe must have a personal cause. They dance around the issue but ultimately their argument is "the Bible says so".Just another case of Ken evaluating his sources on their conclusions rather than the quality of their evidence and arguments, I think.