I would like to kick a dead horse and argue the truth of biblical creation which in my view entails a literal six day creation approximately 6,000 years ago. I am preparing for some upcoming debates and I would appreciate anyone's time given to debate this topic. I stand on the Bible, but would like the challenger to argue against the science claims only, not that I am not willing and able to answer theological questions, but I would simply like to focus on the science (i.e. do mutations produce the type of change necessary for macro-evolution?).
Since there are many issues concerning this topic I will address three. I propose that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old but closer to 6,000. 1.) Helium and argon diffusion rates of zircon crystals found within Precambrian granite rocks most strongly points to an Earth ~6,000 years old. 2.) Life cannot come from non-living materials as per the law of biogenesis. Experiments since the time of Louis Pasteur until the present have shown that it is impossible to get even the necessary amino acids to form from "early Earth" conditions. DNA, RNA and the cell structure itself are necessary for life to exist and therefore must have been created thus refuting abiogenesis. 3.) Mutations as means for evolution has been falsified as observations of bacteria, which have very fast reproduction and life cycles, have demonstrated that the types of mutations necessary for gain-of-information changes do not take place. Bacteria may be able to adapt and become resistant to penicillin or develop the ability to metabolize citrate, but these types of changes can be attributed either to a loss-of-information change or a turning on of a certain part of the gene that was previously turned off. Even Richard Lenski, of Michigan State University, had given up hope on observing evolution in the lab and instead focused on computer modelling rather than bacterial experimentation. Bacteria was expected to be a great example of "evolution in action" but fell short of its promises. The latest findings on E. coli's metabolism of citrate do not show any form of evolution either, as the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid cycle, generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates. Also, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. So evolution is impossible and thus the hypothesis that all creatures were formed as original "kinds," and as natural selection and speciation took place, all the variations of animals we see today came about, is vindicated. I know I am not addressing many things but I feel these three are strong enough to stand on for now.