Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

I am suddenly meant to abandon my beliefs and be taken in by the words of fools? If you'd rather believe the words of desert goat herders form the bronze age go ahead, or as in the case of your link the words of a priest written in ignorance in the 1920s. If you want to believe what you believe then that is your entitlement, I do not wish for you to abandon your beliefs, in fact i respect a man that will stand by them wrong or not. To assume these men fools is in itself folly as most scientists of repute are respectable scientists that use and accept or reject any evidence, it is a great achievement of any scientist to properly debunk accepted theory.You say there has been a 99% DNA match; how do I know that is accurate?Do you think it is not, it is accepted as true and thought in all decent. universities. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/ 4/325.full.pdf+html  (this may be a bit old, as it does not include baobabs but the info is sound.) As for "you obviously know better than..." I am flattered.The sarcasm is obviously lost on you.The in-depth study I have done in science is related to how scientists believe the world came about. The reason I study this is because when discussing creation with an atheist, we would appear ignorant if each one of us had not studied the other's beliefs.I'd like to see the results of this in-depth study. I also have read a lot of creationist material as I do not comment unless I know.Therefore when debating creation, I feel much less ignorant as I know the many theories which makes the debate a genuine and more interesting argumentThat's a good thing, it's better to know what the other side are propagating.I may not be as intelligent as many of the top scientists in the world, but I do however feel their intelligence is wasted and could be put to much greater use.This is a bold statement, the top scientists you speak of are using these data to make life better.As far as your link is concerned, this mans facts are old and out dated, he states that the world is 60 million years old and this is false, which puts his maths completely out, the known age of our planet is somewhere in the region of 4.5 billion years old. He also puts the origin of man in the bronze age, a time when anthropologists and paleontologists agree was past the agricultural revolution a time and a means for rapid population growth. A growth that would kind of coincide with your posts estimate on when the worlds human population started to take off, rendering his mathematical proof invalid. The article goes on to state that their is no observed evolution, this is also completely rubbished by the work of John Endler, he observed the macro evolution of guppies where due to predation in a small few generations they lost their characteristic spots that were essential to mating, female fish without spots in the new system, where predation was introduced favored males with out spots, something that in their previous habitat was an essential to attracting a mate, that is, environmental adaptation in a large complex organism within a relatively short space of time. Evolution in action. Evolution on the micro scale has been observed many time, HIV viruses become resistant to drugs and diversify into organisms that are obviously more complex, as they now have the ability to survive in a more hostile environment, the same applies to bacteria such as Mrs a penicillin resistant super bug that has become so prolific due to the overuse of antibiotics.The reason micro-evolution is observable while macro is generally not is that there are so many generation changes in such a short space of time enabling the microbes to become different to the common ancestor in a short time line by human standards. There is also many untruths in his facts and figures, such as his estimate of how many species exist, this also puts his figures right out. There is too much on this article to dispute all, but I've thrown in a few nuggets to keep this debate moving, I hope you'll appreciate this, if there are individual points you think are relevant I'd be more than willing to go head to head on them.As a fellow debtor, I ask you to not take any words out of context or twist words to suit your argument. I hope you find the link of some interest; I certainly did, I always find something new on pages such as these.Sometimes I think that you are reasonable and sometimes I think that you are being arrogant, please stop telling me your "rules", I'd be insulted if I was a lesser man.