Ok, Scott...
I am not going to get into replying to all the points you made with your last post, but at least I feel honered that you would dedicate your longest post ever to trying to refute what I said. Now, with all of that out of the way, let me inform you of a few interesting facts, and sorry if I am very blunt about it...just returing the favor.
Everything you said was classic evolutionary indoctrinated bs...exactly what I would expect from someone educated by tv shows and liberal school textbooks. Also, you made quite a few assumptions about me based on a VERY short series of posts. If I gave you all the information I have at my disposal to refute evolution, I would need my own forum. I will tell you this (repeat it actually)...everything that scientists THINK they know about evolution is based on ASSUMPTIONS and INTERPRETATIONS of the available data. I cannot give you access to "peer-reviewed" papers on creation-based geology because, as you can imagine, the regular science journals like Nature and Scientific American would never publish anything that makes their entire publishing history look like a joke (in fact, they HAVE published more than a few articles exposing the holes in Darwinian evolution).
You cannot compare math and physics to evolution...those sciences are constantly being backed up and confirmed by litterally millions of repeated tests on a daily basis...can't say the same about evolution. Your little comment about the Big Bang being shown as a viable model is only based on an INTERPRTATION of starlight travel times and background radiation...other things could have caused those things, and unless someone was there to see it happen YOU DON"T KNOW. By the way, you cannot measure star distance accurately past 2-3 light years because of the problems with parallax trigonometry (which is the only tool available for that). So anything past that distance is a guess.
I also have a VERY good understanding of evolution, especially from the geology side of the fence...and for you to assume that I don't understand based on a few posts is just plain "irresponsible" (if I may use the term). Do you judge a book by the first few pages? You may not like what you've read so far, but there is lots more. I think the big issue here with the whole "understanding" thing is more a matter of definitions. Yes, I use "layman's terms" more often than not because I am usually talking to people who have no background in geology.
You also keep assuming that I am trying to push a "biblio-centric" point of view, when in fact, I am not. I am pointing out that evolution theory has more holes in it than a shoting range target, and that most if not everything about it is based on assumptions rather than good lab experiments. I find it funny that people keep running back to that same tired old argument..."you can't directly observe evolution because it takes millions of years...". How convenient to rely on "evidence" that takes too long for us to see. Also, your references to race car "evolution" makes my point exactly...race cars don't get better by random accidents..they get DESIGNED that way. Wrecking a car might make it more aerodynamic, but then it won't function in other ways (like starting up and driving)...so your "beneficial" mutation doesn't actually do the car any good in the long run.
Now for the really important part...even though you act like an expert on this subject (where are YOUR peer-reviewed papers), I don't really care. I'm not posting any of this for your benefit. However, there are other people in this forum who will benefit from the discussion no matter what they believe...including all those google folks who might appreciate a different point of view. You think I am misleading people...I think you are doing the same...so who is right? Who knows...that's what is so great about the first ammendment
Just a last little comment to save you some trouble in the future....NEVER recommend a UC Berkely ANYTHING to a creationist. That's like asking me to be friends with President Obama. Berkeley is just about the most liberal university on the planet, and I wouldn't trust anything that is produced by one of their researchers. I know that you will heartily disagree with me on this, since based on more than a few posts of yours I'd say you are liberal leaning (observational data). Not a problem, it's your choice...but I don't think it would take any scientific study to see why we don't see things the same way.
Good thing we both like Subaru's huh?