Let's take a look at your link. I'll address what I can, and I invite my fellow eggheads to handle the rest.
Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution
3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Any theory concerning the origin of the universe or the origin of life is independent from theory of evolution. I implore you to show me where the theory of evolution is the necessary result of the big bang or any one origin of life theory.
I could also take "social and practical inconsistencies," but I'm a little too tired. Maybe in the morning. Finally, I will make an addition to the list:
11. The theory of evolution violates the unreasonable a priori assumption that the creation account given in Genesis is correct.
"1). There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world."
Laughably wrong.
"2). 2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order"."
The link provides no better explanation for this supposed reason than *each according to its kind*.
"Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. "
Not even close to all mutations are harmful. And this was supposed to be written by scientists? lol
"Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening."
Argument from incredulity.
"Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing."
This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution isn't in any way concerned with the origins of the universe.
"4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were."
Poppycock.
"5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all."
Nonsense. Where did they get these people?
"6. The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all."
Nope. It's easy to just ignore the evidence, but you would think these *scientists* could have done better than *I don't want to see it!*.
"7. Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies."
Completely ignores the fitness value of cooperation.
"8. Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies."
Same crap.
"9. The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution."
Apperently there were no working geologists in the *scientists* that wrote this. A universal flood would not order the fossils in any way approaching what we see.
"The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason."
That isn't what is seen.
"Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low."
That isn't what is seen.
"10. Bias towards evolution."
I guess they had to find something to fill out their list of ten. How anticlimactic.
"Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. "
No they didn't. Another feature of these types of creationist lists is the lack of concern for bearing false witness.
Thanks for the morning laugh though. I needed it! :)
PS: I don't know if you realize this, but the link you provided is from a PRO-EVO site. They listed the ten reasons to not accept evolution and then proceeded to DEMOLISH them, one by one. I didn't notice until I got to the end of the page. Read the whole page.
I have researched quite a bit of science and so have many scientists that see the falsity of TOE...here's some interesting facts about the confused state of the proponents of evolution. Not out of my league at all. It's not hard to understand; doesn't take a genius. Anyways, I do hope that info will open your mind a little because the facts are there for us regardless of what agenda is trying to work through us. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=813053.
I took a look at your link. The section titled "Evidence 4" deals with fossils (a field with which I am familiar). It recycles the same tired old creationist nonsense: it is full of fabrications, exaggerations, wishful thinking trying to pass as evidence, and mistakes. Most of its claims have been long-since rebutted. (Here is an extensive list of creationist claims, and detailed rebuttals.)
One easy example? Piltdown Man. Your link claims "The 'discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years" and they "wrote some 500 books on it." Both are flat out lies. Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946). It was the South African finds that led to Piltdown being largely ignored after the mid-1920s. And the 500 books? That is often claimed to be 500 Ph.D. dissertations rather than just books. Neither is true. There have been a number of books since the final proof that Piltdown was a hoax, but those have concentrated on the hoax itself. I doubt the author of your link could find five books on Piltdown from before it was shown to be a hoax.
Another example? Your link claims "The brow over the eyes which supposedly characterized lesser humans existed in none of the fossils prior to Neanderthal or after." Here are some examples of the brow ridges that "don't exist":
KNM-ER 3733, Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster)
TM 266-01-060-1, "Toumaï", Sahelanthropus tchadensis
OK, one more example: Your link states "Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, 'Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away.'" The actual facts are given here. This claim is typical creationist wishful thinking nonsense. The source I just provided did a complete analysis, including contacting creationists who made this claim. Here is a summary:
At least eighteen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.
OK, one more example. Your link notes, "In addition to being poor, the fossils are also inconsistent. The Boisei skull has a large crest on the top (picture #6) unlike any supposed hominid before it or after it and nothing like any human ever."
So? If you note in the chart below, Paranthropus boisei is a side branch (on the right side, abbreviated as P. boisei. The fact that it has a crest is of no importance to human evolution, as this fellow in not on the human line. So this supposed "proof" against evolution means nothing.
(Well, it might mean that the author of your link didn't actually know where P. boisei fits and made a whopper of a mistake.)
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
I have now shown a bunch of the claims made in your link are nonsense. What say you?