I thought I might make a comment here but I would just be saying the same old thing as most replies have said.
There are two camps and then many sub camps in the relationship beliefs about humanity's origins.
Why are we at loggerheads and bickering, surely we are all grown up enough to listen to each others points and understand others views and then
respect their choice.
I dont believe in evolution, the big bang and then abiogenesis as it stands, scientists are still working hard on finding answers, if creation was the
wooden duck then why are scientists fighting so hard, why this thread,why the animosity.
If creationism was dead, why the thread, little victory dance? The I am better than you approach, well you can have it, you can be the winner, me I
will allow you to believe that.
Me I will wait on answers to evolutions problems
Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism
producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: "The NCSE, Judge
Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information," "Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's
Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum," "Opening Darwin's Black Box," or "Can Random Mutations Create New Complex
Features? A Response to TalkOrigins");
The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see "Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil
Record" or "Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology");
The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life." (For details, see: "A Primer on the Tree of Life");
Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is
highly unlikely. (For details, see "Convergent Genetic Evolution: 'Surprising' Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design" and
"Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem");
The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see "The origin of life remains a mystery" or "Problems with the
Natural Chemical 'Origin of Life'");
The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: "Evolving views
of embryology," "A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology," "Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for
The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see "Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute
the NCSE's Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution" or "Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for
A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA. (For details, ] see:
"Intelligent Design and the Death of the 'Junk-DNA' Neo-Darwinian Paradigm," "The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important
Function," or "Does Darrel Falk's Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit 'One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular
Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder
the nature of the universe).
Of course, even these "top ten" still just scratch the surface. What would you add?
I respect your beliefs in evolution, just dont accept them myself