I suspect that if, indeed, your wife has a PhD in Biology and believes in the evolutionary model (which means she agrees with 99.9% of other scientists — this is a higher percentage of scientists, incidentally, then those who against the flat earth model), and if you have indeed spent 17 years researching both sides of the debate, and if you still manage to come down against the fact of evolution, then there is little I will be able to say to change your mind.
In your Darwin post, you stated that there were NO transitional fossils in the fossil record. This is blatantly false. Please watch the following videos:
Transitional Fossils I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0puoduvfBxA&feature=related
Transitional Fossils II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM&feature=related
Transitional Fossil Redux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTVgmjlXLo0&feature=related
Creationists and Transitional Fossils: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY&feature=related
Now, let’s look at some other things about the creationist model.
You told me, in one of my responses to you, that the fossil layer is more easily explained by the flood than millions of years of animals dying. I don’t understand why you think this.
If massive death were explained by the flood, we would expect to see a tremendous amount of intermixed deaths. That is, if dinosaurs were around at the same time as, say, elephants, we would expect to see dinosaurs and elephants in the same layer of fossilization.
This is not at all what we see. What we see is primitive creatures in the oldest layers, and more evolved creatures in the more recent layers. We see NO poodles and velociraptors in the same layer. The fossil record is consistent everywhere, and shows evidence in exact accordance to how evolution would predict it to be.
Now, there have been some who have suggested that during the flood the animals all tried to climb to higher ground, and it is natural to assume that the smaller, less advanced creatures naturally couldn’t crawl as fast. I sincerely hope that you are not one who believes this.
As for your two other questions in that post:
* first, give a factual account of how any element, molecule, atom, chemical or particle of any kind came into being out of nothing.
* second, give a factual account of how life came into being from non-life.
Neither of these questions have a single thing to do with evolution. As to the first, I explained that matter and anti-matter are being created all of the time in the emptiness of space. You did not give me points on this answer, but instead brought up the question of where all the anti-matter that should have been created in the Big Bang has gone. There are theories about this, but the answer is a big, “I don’t know.” This does nothing, however, to prove creationism.
As to the second, the question is one of abiogenisus, which is not related to evolution in the slightest. I refer you to the following video. There are many, many more, but I haven’t had time to review them. I am perfectly happy to accept the answer as “I don’t know” at the moment:
The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
As to your other assertions in your main paragraph:
* i say evolution as a theory is a total failure. it has no empirical evidence whatsoever, and it amounts to nothing more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis which should be discarded. not only that, but the geological, historical, anthropological, chemical, and genetic information falls in support of the creation model over the evolutionist.
Well, virtually every geologist, historian, anthropologist, chemist, and geneticist in the world disputes your claim. There are ample videos and websites explaining this.
And you state that to prove evolution, we must answer questions that meet your criteria. No sir. You are wrong. I have 150 years of research and 99.9% of scientists on my side. My claims are therefore by no means extraordinary. You, on the other hand, are saying that all of these fields support creation. The burden of proof falls to you, my friend. And as your claim is extraordinary, your proofs must be likewise. Show me the evidence that has survived the accepted truth evaluation methodology.
I will make it very easy for you. Show me one, single, peer reviewed, scientific paper from ANY reasonably reputable journal that has not been invalidated by later evidence that concludes that creationism or intelligent design (which are basically the same thing with a different name) provides better evidence for ANY even reasonably significant aspect of ANY of these sciences. I would truly love to see it.