YEC is unlikely

Evolution. >All of your examples show 'micro evolution', (a horrible and deceptive term) which only means: A certain variation within one kind of animal, proving more successful under certain environmental conditions, survives. This is how the breeding of cattle or pigeons works: Certain attributes (larger, fatter pigs or slimmer , taller pigeons etc) are selected and bred. But, (and here is the crux of the matter) there are limits. No one kind of animal can become another kind. Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that one kind of animal has ever become another kind. *Please note I am not using the word 'species' but 'kind'. "Take a look at my evolution evidence. " >That's the trouble isn't it? It's not yours. You have seen fit to continue to post links rather than show you actually understand the arguments, I will reciprocate BUT it is not strictly debate: "Natural selections in populations" >"micro evolution" Already refuted. "Origins of new species" >Specieation is simply variation within one KIND of animal. "How scientists study evolution" >They can only ever study variation within a kind because that is all they have ANY evidence for. "Take a look at my evolution evidence. Fruit flies, bacteria, viruses, and the peppered tree moth have all been seen to evolve within our lifetimes. We've witnessed it. The acceptance of the evolutionary theory is not a mere assuption, it is well evidenced. " >Again, you are simply stating that there is variation within KINDS of animals. In order for Evolution (*note capital E: meaning all life forms have developed from a single cell amoeba) There would have to be evidence (and Darwin wrongly predicted there would be) that certain kinds of animals (dogs, cats, bears, horses, lizards etc etc) have become another kind. There is not. Carbon dating. . http://en.wikipedia.org... >. http://forums.qj.net... Big Bang . http://encarta.msn.com... Think about this for a second. You are asking me to believe that NOTHING exploded into the known universe? That time, space and matter instantaneously appeared out of nowhere and that then this matter began arranging ITSELF into complex chemicals etc? Anyone who believes this nonsense has a whole lot more faith than I. "All of these theories are well evidenced. " >Science is the study of observable and repeatable (through experimentation) phenomena. Who, pray tell, observed the big bang? ARGUMENTS Grand Canyon "My source shows that the grand canyon was developed from 2 sides. " >No, your source assumes that the canyon was created by the water that STILL runs into it from two sides. This is a circular argument. "How could a flood make a DEEP CANYON in a matter of WEEKS. " The flood left a gigantic lake above where the canyon now is: As more and more water poured into it, it finally spilled over creating the canyon. The ground would obviously have been very soft. "Why didn't the flood put canyons everywhere? " There are many canyons, hence the 'Grand' in the canyon in question. (or what would it be called 'Grand' compared to? ) "As far as noah's flood goes, there is no evidence of that event. Only negative evidence, attacking other theories and pressuming validity as the only standing hypothesis. Even if it happened, I don't understand why it would create the grand canyon. Also, if the Bible is a valid source of evidence, why isn't the Greek, Egyptian, or Native American accounts of earths creation? " >There are the FACTS: Geological observations. Then there is interpretation of these facts. You have made the mistake of assuming (because the scientific establishment of the day has) that these observations are now part of the facts. They are not. And I have not used or quoted the Bible once.