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

This will mainly be a rebuttal round to your previous claims. So it is clear that you have no regard for what a well known cardinal has to say, and it appears that you are not from the same sect or congregation, who has just as much merit as you. And to state that evolution contradicts the scriptures, you must first prove the scriptures true. which you have failed to do. , The entire spirit of the scientific community is rooted with inaccuracies and collaboration, which is why scientists always debate claims and thesis's. Which is also why it seems Christianity as a whole is the cause to much disagreement and violence. Carbon dating can never be truly 100% accurate, due to outside sources constantly affecting methods. For land and select sea life, that has a constant exposure to the atmosphere and plants until death without any interference from the environment, could be measure more accurately. You also seem to be using examples (most likely from a source riddled with inaccuracies) that are from 40+ years ago, which is when there was a weaker understanding of the science, given that radioisotope research only took off as a result of the Manhattan project, and 1/2 of your examples have a major flaw, the mollusk acquired much of its carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Limestone is the largest reserve of carbon on the planet. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes water based shelled animals seem older than they really are. You also lack sources of the studies. I never stated that bacteria evolves into non bacteria, I stated that through genetic variation, bacteria can change into new species of bacteria that has a changed genetic code. Genetic variation can be proven by simply looking at your genetic code, it would have differences compared to lets say, my own. If one was to breed 1000s of just me, and a female version of my genetic code, becoming homogenized, then after an unspecified amount of generations, due to inaccuracies dealing with protein and dna synthesis, The population of me would have very different genes. Also your statement- "Although some bacteria may become immune to a chemical, this is not caused by positive, but negative mutation. The bacteria become immune when they lose the part that the chemical would latch on to. Although the bacteria is spared of the chemical due to the missing part, it is still inferior to the other bacteria that still have the part." You seem to misinterpret genetic variation and Mendelian traits. An example of dominant and recessive traits can include the modern transformation of the peppered moth. And if genetic information cannot increase, then the Ophioglossum, which has the highest chromosome count of any known living organism, with 1,260 chromosomes, could not exist.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) It is the process of evolution and genetic variation, which in turn is the result from inaccuracies that can occur during dna synthesis, which then affects the primary structure of proteins, which can effect the secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary structures of proteins, changing everything that is associated with said protein. But moving outside the evolutionary topic (for some reason), astronomy is apparently relevant. Beginning with the big bang, it appears that you are not familiar with (E)^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. The matter of the big bang, (this is where theoretical physics is required) where before the (technically not) big bang, there was no time, and no space, and therefore no laws of nature, it is impossible to assume anything because it is outside of the observable universe. the observable expansion of space provides evidence that all matter was once in one point of infinite density. I really could go on, but it would be off topic. Then to the planets. it is important to realize that Venus rotates backwards, due to an axel turn. and a larger interference with another celestial body with a strong gravitational pull. Also, it was found that the current positions of Uranus's moons could be explained if the planet was struck when it was still surrounded by a protoplanetary disk, which is the band of material from which the moons ultimately formed. The collision would have destroyed the disk, which would then have been able to reform around Uranus's tilted equator. (http://io9.com...) I will agree with your claim on Abiogenisis, where as no one knows how organic life started, Its even in the original cell theory, that is 100% correct (http://biology.about.com...) I haven't even the topic of sediments, but I shall in the next round. You must now refute the existing rebuttals