There is proof of evolution/no proof of creation

POLONIUM HALOS MAY BE OBSERVED IN SAMPLES OF SOLID ROCK FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD Polonium Halos could have formed only if the rapidly decaying Polonium atoms, and the Halos of radioactive particles around the atoms, had been instantly encased in solid rock, with the emission of radioactive particles preserved as Polonium Halos. These observable Polonium Halos provide undeniable evidence that the first created Polonium atoms were instantly preserved in solid granite, since the half life of Polonium is 3 minutes at most. POLONIUM HALOS PROVE CREATION Polonium Halos are found in granite samples all over the world, and may be viewed using a microscope. The occurrence of these Polonium Halos in granite samples from all over the world indicates that the Earth was formed in an extremely short time, in complete harmony with the Biblical record of Creation in Genesis Chapter 1. . http://www.freechristianteaching.org...... Evolution Could Never Happen at All The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18 The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models. " Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this. Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics. " And what is this flaw? Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19 This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed. The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present. From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. "Evolution Could Never Happen at All" is from; . http://www.icr.org...... Transitional Fossils "There are NO transitional fossils! !! All you have is bones in the dirt. You put your interpretation on them. You can not prove that those bones had children never mind children different than themselves! !! (which has NEVER been observed EVER). There are NO transitional fossils, even if there was 1 supposed transitional fossil somewhere then my opponent failed to show it. There simple are NONE. " . http://debate.org... There yeh go, good evidence for creation and some good evidence against evolution I AM NOT DEBATING AGAINST "CHANGE" or "GROWTH"change happens. things change. things grow. for future reference when I am debating evolution I am talking about molecules to men. not things growing. I call growing, "growing". not evolution. I call changing, "changing" not evolution. I'm sorry this debate was so messy, I didn't want to accept it to begin with because my opponent is all over the place with definitions and very unclear about what he is talking about. He appears to be speaking english as a second language or something. I provided good evidence for creation and several good pieces of evidence against evolution. ALL UN-REFUTED.