What a lot of words. I'm too tired to read them, so sorry if this is has been mentioned before: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_li...3481305829426D. Rhy, watch that. It's mainly aimed at YECs, but the general idea comes accross. You should learn a lot from it.

Okay. So what I have gleamed from scanning the past 2 pages is that the Creationists among seem to have very little knowledge of scientific theory, combined with a good dose of Argumentam ad ingorantiumum, Argumentum ad verecundiam, and enough Straw Men to fill Ohio.

They also tend to be religious, which is yet another logical fallacy, unfortunately I am unable to remember what this fallacy is called, but it's the one where it is dependent on an outside condition of the arguer to be true, as opposed to being uncaring as to the arguer, as all arguments must if they are logically correct. Anyway, I'm sure someone will remind me.

Anyhoozle, unless something can be explained by process of natural law (or Occams Razor if you prefer), it is up to the theory maker (In this case creationalists) to provide the scientific explaination. Not our job to do your work.

So yeh, the ball is in your court creationalists. Evolution is as much natural Law as Magnetism or Gravity.