Evolution is based on scientific facts, while Creationism is a common pseudoscience

Evolution contradicts the story depicted in the Scriptures (if the scriptures are true). This is my statement disagreeing with the priests that you mentioned. I am not in the Christian sect of religion."The entire spirit of the scientific community is rooted with inaccuracies and collaboration" Then why do you place so much trust in what they claim. "Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientist have excepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it." Said evolutionist H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin (1980), p. 138. Your scientists are are coming up with theories trying to support evolution, and are ready to lie about their observations to do it. But this is why there is so much trial and error within evolution science, because they are wrong all together and us Creationists who read the scriptures are 100% correct. This is why you can never bring up one piece of evidence that destroys our "theory." "Carbon dating can never be truly 100% accurate" In 1996 up at Berkley University, they used two advanced and different dating methods, the bones of "Erectus" were found to be between 53,000 to 27,000 years old. That's a 96% error. And that's not 40 years old, that's only 18 years ago. It's not getting any better with time. You mention that 1/2 of my examples are flawed but only mention one. I'm sure you know that when carbon 14 mixes with oxygen most of it becomes carbon dioxide, which plants breath. An animal gets carbon 14 when it eats these plants, It has nothing to do with the exposure to the atmosphere. Another problem with carbon dating is the equilibrium factor. The earth's atmosphere makes carbon 14 when nitrogen gets blasted with fast moving neutrinos in the atmosphere, turning it into C14. As I mentioned earlier, it is also decaying at the same time (1/2 every 5,750 years assumed). At some point, increase and decay will reach equilibrium. Scientists wandered, back in 1950, how long it would take for the earth to reach equilibrium. The consensus was that it would probably take about 30,000 years for the earth to reach equilibrium. The problem is is that we know that radiocarbon is still forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying, which proves that the earth is less than 30,000 years old or else it would all be stabilized by now.I know about the variation in the genetic code. but the variation never changes from one kind of animal to another. You talk about creation having no lab proof, but your own "macro" evolution has no lab proof. When has a dog ever produced a non dog. Just an example, pick whatever you want. The peppered moths vary from light to dark color due to the variation in the genetics, just like we humans all vary in hair color. Because of the pollution cause by the Industrial Revolution, the trees were covered with soot, causing the lighter colored moths to be prayed on most. This left mostly moths with darker color in their genetics. But the lighter colors were still in the gene pool, just less dominant. Since then, the lighter colors in the gene pool have become more common again. But no new gene has ever been added to the peppered moth. Its stages that it goes through in its life time are included in its gene code.Of course the Ophioglossum could still exist with no increase in genetic information. God made them the way they are with 1,260 chromosomes. It has never had less chromosomes or less genetic information. I believe in "evolution" and genetic variation within a kind, but give me one proof from one kind to another. If it can't happen in a lab, how much less probable by itself in nature."before the big bang there was no time, and no space, and therefore no laws of nature." Are you unfamiliar with the part of the theory that says that before "it" blew up it was a swirling dot? This swirling dot theoretically included all energy and matter as we know it today. therefore the laws thereof that we know about today would be the same as when it was theoretically REALLY small. All the laws apply. "no time?" When did time start? What is time? Time is either ticking down or ticking up. (According to the second law of thermodynamics it seems to be ticking down like one day this will all be over, but debatable, not here or now.) If it is ticking down (or up, doesn't matter), when did the count start? how does evolution explain that? An honest question. "no space?" What did it "blow up" into? And before all this, when and how did all this matter and energy contained in this swirling dot COME TO BE? The When should be hard for you to answer because you just said that time didn't exist "before" the big bang. "Before," at the same time, being a reference to time, even though you said six words later that time didn't exist. What??The expansion of the universe proves what the bible says, "God stretches out the heavens." (Isaiah 40:22) About the planets: "could be explained" rebuttal doesn't count as it's a guess