Here are some better links for the thinkers.
I posted a link to a website which is based on science. Your links lead to websites based on apologetics, not science.
But since you mention the Institute for Creation Research, check out their Tenets of Scientific Creationism (excerpts below).
They are doing pure apologetics, not science.
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
- The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
- The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
- Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
- The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
- The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
- Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
- The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
- Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
- Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.
Here are some better links for the thinkers. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp http://www.icr.org/
They're hardly "better links", but it is better for "the thinkers" to have your links handy as endless concrete examples of the various creationist fallacies, falsehoods, and propaganda talking points documented in Coyoteman's Index of Creationist Claims link.
I have long found AiG and ICR to be prime sources for that kind of blatant BS, and I have repeatedly debunked a lot of their dishonest material myself, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and so on. You should also check out, for just one site out of many which have taken on the never-ending task of keeping up with ICR's and AiG's gross misrepresentations: Articles examining the claims of 'Answers in Genesis'
If you think there's anything critical of evolutionary biology left at Aig/ICR which actually stands up to examination and hasn't already been dismantled by the links provided, feel free to provide what you think are your 2-3 *best* examples, and I'll be glad to go over them for you.