1 & 2 have nothing to do with evoution.
3 is an excellent example pro evolution
4 is a historical critique on Darwin; the theoriy of evolution has evolved since 1830's
5 is not evidence nor a valid argument
6 is an again an excellent example ignorance
7 is actually - again - an argument pro evolution

Actually, the whole article is filled with invalid arguments and provides us with an excellent example of ignorance and uncritical reasoning.

So let's skip to 17 and I'll rest my case:

Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolutio...

1 & 2 have nothing to do with evoution.
3 is an excellent example pro evolution
4 is a historical critique on Darwin; the theoriy of evolution has evolved since 1830's
5 is not evidence nor a valid argument
6 is an again an excellent example ignorance
7 is actually - again - an argument pro evolution

Actually, the whole article is filled with invalid arguments and provides us with an excellent example of ignorance and uncritical reasoning.

So let's skip to 17 and I'll rest my case:

Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God.

1 & 2; These have very much to do with evolution. It goes towards the question of how old the Earth is. Evolution expects a certain amount of time behind it.

3; This is your interpretation. However I believe that's analogous to saying that the reasoning behind water evaporation explains alien life.

4; It hasn't changed all that much

5; Huh? Of course it is!!! Probability pays an enormous role in science! When someone says, "I think that could be a planet around that star." they are referencing the probability law. With a history that we were not around to witness, everything is speculation.

7; I fail to see your reasoning for this. A lack of vestigial organs is in no way pro-evolution t...

1 & 2; These have very much to do with evolution. It goes towards the question of how old the Earth is. Evolution expects a certain amount of time behind it.

3; This is your interpretation. However I believe that's analogous to saying that the reasoning behind water evaporation explains alien life.

4; It hasn't changed all that much

5; Huh? Of course it is!!! Probability pays an enormous role in science! When someone says, "I think that could be a planet around that star." they are referencing the probability law. With a history that we were not around to witness, everything is speculation.

7; I fail to see your reasoning for this. A lack of vestigial organs is in no way pro-evolution that I can surmise.

17; Oh I see, because you don't believe makes it all untrue?

Listen, I like debating but you seem to have a very closed mind about this. You cannot have a debate with someone who refuses to listen because all it then becomes is an argument. Just saying, "It is or it isn't" doesn't justify your reasoning.

So Djiezes, after looking at the article, I dont understand why you skipped the ones you did. They're some of the strongest arguments against evolution and yet you're trying to find valid ones? Fossilization has lost its significance. All the physical evidence we have for evolution is in fossilized form. So they found a tiny man with a sloped forehead in Asia somewhere...I'm sure there's a short unattractive/ape-looking man walking the earth right now, but that's ignored.

As far as molecular biology is concerned, how could verbrates possibly be more closely related to a silkmoth than another vertebrate? For evolution to happen would mean small changes in makeup over millions of years w...

So Djiezes, after looking at the article, I dont understand why you skipped the ones you did. They're some of the strongest arguments against evolution and yet you're trying to find valid ones? Fossilization has lost its significance. All the physical evidence we have for evolution is in fossilized form. So they found a tiny man with a sloped forehead in Asia somewhere...I'm sure there's a short unattractive/ape-looking man walking the earth right now, but that's ignored.

As far as molecular biology is concerned, how could verbrates possibly be more closely related to a silkmoth than another vertebrate? For evolution to happen would mean small changes in makeup over millions of years within one species for it to change into another (taking the traditional view). Did the organisms' makeup change to form one organism and then change back? What about survival of the fittest? Why would old molecular structures reappear after they'd died out? They point is that it presents more questions for evolution than it answers. At this point, and in this way, evolution's theory is all over the map, slightly chaotic, which flies in the face of the ordered, law-ridden science they claim to be using to investigate it.

Some quick and random thoughs that came from my mind when I read that, realize that I'm not scientist but I have some basic knowledge that can be used to refute some points (mostly common sense):

In 9, there are not evidences against evolution, those are against punctuated equilibria.

I don't see the point in 12. Obviously there were animals like dinosaurs (and even more in popular cultura) and today you can see some reptiles that resemble dinosaurs (and you don't need to go to an uncited jungle to get your camera broken). Those affirmations have nothing to do with evolution nor creationism. And I think that Noah should have put some Triceratops in the Ark, everyone likes Triceratops. Poor...

Some quick and random thoughs that came from my mind when I read that, realize that I'm not scientist but I have some basic knowledge that can be used to refute some points (mostly common sense):

In 9, there are not evidences against evolution, those are against punctuated equilibria.

I don't see the point in 12. Obviously there were animals like dinosaurs (and even more in popular cultura) and today you can see some reptiles that resemble dinosaurs (and you don't need to go to an uncited jungle to get your camera broken). Those affirmations have nothing to do with evolution nor creationism. And I think that Noah should have put some Triceratops in the Ark, everyone likes Triceratops. Poor Triceratops.

13,14 and 15 is like witnessing a 100 W lightbulb going out. You see that the light goes from 120 Candela to 60cd in 0,1 seconds and from 60cd to 30cd in another 0,1 seconds (just to say some easy numbers). If you apply the same reasoning used in the article, you can say that 10 seconds before the experiment, the light intensity would be 122880 cd...

And 17 is not an evidence against evolution.

I had some problems trying to explain all that in English but I hope you see my points.

1. Moon Dust - “It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense meteorite and meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists’ multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.” Source: "http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp"

2. Magnetic...

1. Moon Dust - “It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense meteorite and meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists’ multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.” Source: "http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp"

2. Magnetic Field – “First, it should be obvious that one cannot perform an unweighted fit, completely ignoring any experimental uncertainties. The early data from the mid 1800's, which are derived from experimental methods that are far less accurate and precise than modern methods, necessarily have much larger uncertainties associated with them, and should be weighted accordingly in any attempt to fit the data to a curve.”Source: a href = "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html"

3.“There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.” Source: "http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html"

4. Embryonic Recapitulation -“The fact that contemporary biologists reject the literal or universal form of recapitulation theory has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by some creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's hypothesis was presented as supporting evidence for evolution, Haeckel's theory is wrong, therefore evolution has less support". This argument is not only an oversimplification but misleading because modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

4. Embryonic Recapitulation -“The fact that contemporary biologists reject the literal or universal form of recapitulation theory has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by some creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's hypothesis was presented as supporting evidence for evolution, Haeckel's theory is wrong, therefore evolution has less support". This argument is not only an oversimplification but misleading because modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory#Rejection

5.Probability – “In other words, ignoring all the laws of chemistry, which create preferences for the formation and behavior of molecules, and ignoring that there are millions if not billions of different possible proteins--and of course the result has no bearing on the origin of life, which may have begun from an even simpler protein. This calculation is thus useless for all these reasons, and is typical in that it comes to Coppedge third-hand (and thus to us fourth-hand), and is hugely outdated (it was calculated before 1942, even before the discovery of DNA), and thus fails to account for over half a century of scientific progress.” Source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#et_al

The body may be evolutions product, I can see it all the way to the first mega star explosions that created the matter that makes up our atoms.
I think our intelligence could be spiritually created tho.
Our bodies have been around for a couple million years but our civilization spontaneously erupted in the last couple hundred thousand years. A million years is 999,999,999 + 1 year.
The spark that put us on the path of wisdom and industry is even younger. What if the religions are right but we are misinterpreting the scales? What if we are mixing apples and ideas and trying to clump it all together like some unified ominous law?
Consider what it took for the universe to become aware of itse...

The body may be evolutions product, I can see it all the way to the first mega star explosions that created the matter that makes up our atoms.
I think our intelligence could be spiritually created tho.
Our bodies have been around for a couple million years but our civilization spontaneously erupted in the last couple hundred thousand years. A million years is 999,999,999 + 1 year.
The spark that put us on the path of wisdom and industry is even younger. What if the religions are right but we are misinterpreting the scales? What if we are mixing apples and ideas and trying to clump it all together like some unified ominous law?
Consider what it took for the universe to become aware of itself? Scientists guess its been about 14 billion years. Those scientists are also part of the universe trying to figure itself out. What we call GOD may be the universe at a higher level of conscience that we have not figured out yet. Energy never dies it just changes shapes and states. Perhaps the energy that is created in our being is part of the universe too.
I feel it is all linked. God and Science and probably some other qualities that we cannot fathom yet are what makes up reality. To me, arguing over the issue is really just a silly immature aspect of our current level of intelligence. I say Both theories are right and wrong.