Evolution Did Not Occur.

"Bacteria dates back to be the oldest life forms on Earth in science." The oldest life forms we've managed to recover are Archaebacteria, which are different from the bacteria we know commonly today (Eubacteria). The oldest life form resembles viruses more than bacteria, as the bacterium itself is highly sophisticated. However, I said I would let this slide because it has little to no bearing on the debate, so we'll leave it at that. "I apologize for my misconception. But, even if information is gained also, why is bacteria one of the most simplist types of organisms we have today? I know that there are simpler organisms such as nanobacteris and others, but bacterial goneomes contain much less information than any other genomes today. In that case, pretty much all of the information would have had to been gained. According to my understanding of the topic, through mutations, more information is changed/aletred or at a loss than gained. How is it that pretty much most of the orgnaimss today have more information in their genomes?" Wrong again. Most information is changed/altered PERIOD. Not at a loss. It is difficult to explain to you since you don't have knowledge of protein synthesis, but let me put it to you this way. Take the word "RAKE". If we change the K to a T, it becomes "RATE". Is there any more or less sophistication? No. What if we delete the letter E? It becomes "RAT". Still a word. No more or less information even though a letter is missing. Suppose we add a letter, B. It becomes "BRAT". A letter is added, but information isn't really being added. Just a new word, new meaning. Same thing with mutations. But simply speaking, your premise is wrong, therefore, your conclusion is unsound. "How do we know our method of dating is correct? We don't. We have no idea that such and such animals evolved from so and so species." Yes we do. Radiometric dating is a very particular physical (not just chemical) reaction that is constant. Many people argue that the rate has changed over time, but that is only because they don't understand first order and second order reactions. "Here are some more facts that prove against evolution from http://emporium.turnpike.net....... I do know that this is just a website, but after doing some research, this is some more information that I came up with." Please don't throw around the word "prove" if you don't mean it. I got a little lazy, so instead of debunking each point in great detail, I provided short arguments. To make up for it, here are not one, but two sites that debunk the specific site you linked, point by point, and in great depth. http://www.geocities.com... http://members.aol.com... Below are my own responses. "Evidence #1 There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present." Burden of proof fallacy. I have a photo of George Bush wearing a golf shirt on January 10 and a photo of George Bush wearing a suit on February 12. Would it be reasonable to assume that two George Bushes were simultaneously created at birth, or that he changed clothes sometime between? Fossils are merely rare photographs, not videos. The fact that we have enough og them despite their rarity shows how valid evolution is. "Evidence #2 Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order"." Begging the question. This is a conclusion, not a premise. It is also one that has absolutely no proof. Also a burden of proof fallacy. "Evidence #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." False. Scientists have enough evidence to show abiotic synthesis of organic compounds (Miller Urey experiment) dictating that there is no magic switch between living and non-living, they believe that matter always was, similar to how you believe God always was, and evolution explains that humans and animals are not as separate as you think. The last one was also begging the question. "Evidence #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." Incorrect. Some were unrevealing and inconsistent, but not thoroughly. Even being able to find a couple would validate evolution based on sheer probability. "Evidence #5/6 Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all. The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between." That's completely misleading. Man did not evolve from monkeys OR apes, they evolved from a common ancestor. This whole thing is debunked. "Evidence #7 Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies." Not really. What we deem social and practical is often against nature anyway. This point is invalid. "Evidence #8 Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies." See above. "Evidence #9 The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution." Not so. Many of the arguments for rock strata are based on faulty explanations of geology. I know because after I used rock strata evidence for my debate DEFENDING early earth, I also came upon some flaws in my own arguments. You're now at a complete lack of arguments. Even your backup has been debunked. Since that is the case, I now recall your attention to the points I made above for the validity of fossil evidence is still there.