Evolutionist argument:
Evolution is a fact as much as gravity and nuclear fission.

My response:
What about the first law of thermodynamics? Entropy - everything tends to go toward breakdown and disarray(layman's terms)

Evolutionist argument:
You need a science lesson. Science has nothing to do with the concept of God.   Ignorant religionist deny the facts and have no concept of science.  You can't believe in creation and be scientific at the same time.

My response:
I disagree here also. You said I need a science lesson. Perhaps you are not as versed on science as you might think. Go back and research science history and you will find that almost all major science studies originated from creationists and religionist. Science has been shifted away toward a godless thought process, but in the beginning it was not this way. Science had everything to do with God and exploring the universe from a creation stand point. Atleast in creation science, you don't have to hide half the evidence. For example, why is it that all the so called missing links made headlines when discovered but the evidence disproving them has been swept under the rug? All these disproven missing links are still being taught today as 'science'. Evolution educators teach them as fact, but the researchers have long disclaimed them as misinformation.
Why is it that everyone says evolution is a fact except the ground level researchers who develop these theories? People like Dawkins and Sagan call it a fact, but the actual researchers call it a theory or hypothesis.
In reality, there is no proof of billions of years. For example, I watched
a secular science program on volcanoes. A seasoned geologist was talking
about the excitement of Mt Saint Helens eruption in 1980. This scientist
said that she is accustomed to viewing the sediment of the earth and
thinking in billions of years, but Mt Saint Helens was unique. This
eruption accomplished in one day what usually takes billions of years to
accomplish. Well maybe this volcano is not entirely unique. Perhaps, Mt
Saint Helens gives us a clue that maybe some data is not calculated in the
aging of the earth formula. Without any eye-witness accounts we can't
possibly say that we know how everything formed. Some scholars estimate the
biblical account as being around 6,000 years. The fact is that the Bible
gives a glimpse backward in time as far as specific events before the time
of Moses but gives no time tables. Moses wrote the book of Genesis and
compiled previous historical records but dates are not given. The only
thing we can go by is at the time Cain and Able were born. We can begin the
clock there, but that is as close as we can get. I personally believe that
the 6,000 theory is more credible. One thing evolutionary scientist refuse
to take into account is the flood. If you remove the flood, then you need
billions of years to make some pieces fit. For example, the Grand Canyon
erosion. It would take a long time table to fit this into the equation.
But if you include the flood, this canyon could form quickly. Have you ever
seen the erosion after a local flood has washed the dirt away as it
subsides? If the Grand Canyon is the product of billions of years of
erosion, why aren't larger rivers such as the Nile as eroded as this Grand
Canyon.

The United Nations World Population organization put the current world
population growth at 1.7% per year. Under developed countries have an
annual growth of 2.4%. If you begin with only 2 people (Adam and Eve) and
figure in a population growth of 2% per year, the current world population
would only take 4,000 years. Figure in famine, disease and war and 6,000
years is a realistic timeline - much more realistic that billions of years.
If you calculate billions of years as the evolutionist argue, the world could not hold the people. There is a reason
why evolutionist never mention population growth. It doesn't fit their end
result. Evolution only sounds credible because evolution advocates toss out
any evidence that does not support their predetermined outcome. Evolution
as a belief system only survives because people take everything at face
value and refuse to look outside of evolutionary science. Anything that
proves to contradict evolution is labeled as religious and cast aside. I
was in a conversation with an atheist/evolutionist recently. He completely
refused to look at anything but evolutionary material. I said that the best
way to prove your views is to study the opposition. If your facts hold
true, you know you are right. If they do not, you should rethink your
views. He refused saying there was no point. Evolution was proven and
everything else was religious junk. There is a reason they won't look.
Side by side, creation massacres evolution. But you have to dig into
creation facts as well. Everyone knows the evolution presentation, but even
Christians do not know proven facts that debunk evolution and solidify
creation. In general, 99% of the population are to lazy to research and
find out what is true and what is not. This slack attitude is the only
reason evolution survives. Evolution was founded on ignorance and thrives
on the same. The fore-runners of evolution did not know the facts because
of limited technology. Ernst Haeckel is credited for making darwinism
popular. After studying evolution, he concluded that it was possible
because the cell structure was as simple as a ping-pong ball - nothing more
that a blob of microscopic jell-o. In sincere ignorance he bought into this
theory and took off with it. Modern technology such as the electron
microscope, X-ray crystallography and NMR technology have shown amazing
complexity that was unknown when evolution was born. People don't like to
let go of beliefs so even though evolution was founded upon mis-information,
people continue to build upon it. The problem now is that as technology and
science increase, more and more information has to be ignored for the
evolutionary model to hold up.

If you only listen to one side of the story, you will always have a warped
perspective. You can believe evolution if you want, but the facts don't
support it. Richard Dawkins is the leading preacher of evolution today. He
frequently bashes Christians for believing the Bible and openly mocks
creation. He calls Christians ignorant people who depend of faith because
they don't have knowledge. In his book 'Garden Out of Eden' he pleads
guilty to the very thing he accuses us of doing. He said that even though
we can't provide proof of evolution that doesn't mean it isn't true. It
means our knowledge is limited.

That sounds a lot like blind faith don't you think? We don't have evidence,
but we know it is true... Evolutionist are guilty of the very thing that they claim creationist are guilty of - blind faith.