[Digit]

sorry if i repeat anything anyone else said or tkae the discussion back to the begining, i only had time to read cotton's first post.

Reason #1:

Evolution goes against the second LAW of thermodynamics. Evolution also goes against the second LAW of thermodynamics by saying the universe is moving towards a more complex state. How can this be when everything that's left to itself in a closed system (which, by definition, the universe is) moves towards higher degrees of entropy and disorder?

so you take this to mean evolution is wrong, as opposed to your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and its application. ... or even our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

Reason #2:

The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at a steady rate. This has been carefully studied and documented for about 150 years, and the halflife of the magnetic field has been determined to be 1,400 years. So 10,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have been 32 times stronger than it is today. Big deal right? Well if the Earth's magnetic field were to be 32 times stronger than it is today, it would be as strong as a magnetic star. This is impossible because stars have thermonuclear power generating their massive magnetic fields. The Earth has never had, nor will it ever have these types of reactions going on in its core.

ok... this is a hard one to argue with someone who believes god just magically made the earth.
i'm not sure where you got your figures from, but asuming they are true, who is to say that the study and documentation over the last 150 years is enough to let us estimate with any accuracy what happened to the earths magnetic feild over 10,000 years ago. alot happens in the core. 150 years isnt even enough to take us back to the last ice age, the last pole shift or even the last mass extinction.

Reason #3:

The fossils found in the earth's geologic strata can only be acceptably explained by a massive, world-wide flood. Fossilization requires rapid, permeant burrial in order to preserve the animals in the rocks. If the process were to occur over long periods of time, the animal would decompose before it had a chance to fossilize. Secondly, if these rocks took millions of years to form, why are there petrified trees found going through multiple layers of these rocks? Any organic material would have long rotted away before the surrounding rocks would have a chance at forming... that is... if they took millions of years to form like evolution teaches.

ah the flood.
because floods are mentioned in the bible that means the bible is correct, sience is wrong.

i get what you're on about with the fossils. thats something i always wondered too... perhaps you'd be better asking a palaeontologist before making your assumptions though.

I don't have too much time left so I'm going to get going. I'll be back later with more. And I'm sorry guys... You can't argue against things that are proven fact (like the second law of thermodynamics and the magnetic field and such).

I can and I did (though mainly because of your over eagerness to decide upon a conclusion). Any mind that accepts things as "proven fact" is clearly not all that clued up on the history of science. Any open minded scientific mind well always be aware that at anymoment, data could come along that would completely destroy all previous held ideas of our understanding of fact. remember... the world was once flat.