Ok, I have my reasons to believe that part of the evidence for creationism has to deal with debating against evolution as well. I do have hard facts for creationism though. Op says “pretend for a moment evolution were false” I pretended for a moment of evolution were true!

Carbon dating. It is used to show that the earth is billions of years old. We look at C-12 levels is substances that are found and said to be billions of old. However, carbon 12 slowly decays overtime. It takes around 100,000 years for it to decay into an undetectable amount. If we are finding these artifacts from what is said billions of years ago, there would be no C-12 found in them at all. We can see here that the things said to be found billions of years ago are not really all that old. The rock layers are not billions of years old, only a few thousand. The Bible says that the earth is several thousand years old so this is to be expected.

Comets. Comets are constantly losing material. They also cannot exist past around 10,000 years. If they die off so fast compared to the supposed age of the universe, why can we still observe them? I am aware of the “Oort cloud” that supposedly generates new comets, but is is not observable(we cannot see or detect the small objects within it) and science needs to be observable. I would say that the Oort Cloud is a rescuing device, made up information to try to fit it into a worldview. I can not prevent rescuing devices so it’s up to the interpreter to make his/her final decision on what to believe.

I believe there is no way to prove creationism WITH SCIENTIFIC FACTS(caps for emphasis) , because creationists and evolutionists have a predetermined world view in which they look at facts from different angles. Rescuing devices are part of this. What we can do is take a step back and look at it from each others world views.

I do imply acceptance of micro evolution- how species adapt to new environments. What I don’t accept is macro evolution when kind changes into another kind. For example, a fish turning into a bird, a sea creature turning into a land animal, a frog turning into a bunny.

For morality, you you’re saying that if we live in groups, we can kill the other groups and it will be fine? I was talking about our individual morality. Why do we say it’s not okay to steal, to lie... why can’t I lie if it prevents me from hurting another person? Why can’t I lie for my benefit? You took my reasoning for morals for one person and changed it to a group of people. Who sets the standard of one group? What if one group thinks it’s ok to steal? Well, they can because who is telling them not to? The other group over there says stealing is a no no but murdering is ok. Yes, there might be survival value but to whom?

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840 There are a lot of scientists who agree that Darwin’s theory of evolution is flawed.

I understand if you don’t want to or have time to watch the video. It’s always here if you’re interested though.

I have one question for you, why do you believe in evolution? Who do you cite your belief to?