Creation vs Evolution

[Ironside]

Nah, do a search in yahoo or google. Use "billions of fossils".

If 6 billion humans died tomorrow and some archeologists would find 60.000 of them in a million year it would be a fantastic find. That's 0,001% of all humans living at the time. The reason why it's plenty of fossiles isn't that the dead specimens commonly forms fossiles, but because it has lived a lot of them during a very long period. How many 500 year old skeletons of elephants exist?

I don't mind using the word micro-evolution. Its macro-evolution that is a fallacy. Like I said before about the flu (viruses) a virus will always be a virus, a dog is a dog and always will be, a human is a human...etc.

The dogs evolved from wolves and a chihuahua and a grand danois can hardly mate with eachother naturally. Now in nature there's several examples of "cousins", that is simular species, but not the same. And unlike the dogs, thier hybrids (caused mostly artificially) is often sterile.
Now I've been mention human involvment in many cases, but what exactly makes it impossible for God to use the same methods (AKA divine controlled evolution) as Pape pointed out?

Science and God isn't mutually exclusive, but as long as you cannot scientifically prove the existance of God, they aren't in the same field.

Ahh, prokaryote to eukaryote. Another example of evolutionist trying to cram something into an evolution box that does not belong. The following a quick reads if you would like to know why.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...dosymbiont.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/eukaryote.asp

The interesting thing about Ignicoccus is that it's periplasm is so large that it looks like it has a nucleous, like the eucaryotes. What's making it even more interesting is that some specimen have "parasites" (non-symbiotic, but the Ignicoccus doesn't seem to be hurt by it) on the outside that cannot live except on it's host. If this develops into a symbiotic relationship, then mitocondrical structures isn't far away.
So is it transitional?

The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.

You're aware that increased levels on carbondioxide and more importantly oxygen would decrease the life span? Oxygen is cancerogenic and choking kills you by carbondioxide poisoning, not oxygen shortage.
This lush world would probably make human bigger too (better abillities to sustain a larger biomass often leades to larger creatures), but that's another issue.
And the suggestion about a bottleneck of long living people creating short living people feels a bit odd.