Best argument agenst Creationism?

Fine, my own words:

First, evolution has been observed both in the lab and in the wild, including speciation. Even the most die-hard creationists accept this, usually dubbing it "microevolution".

Now, we can take what we know of existing evolution (in terms of mechanisms) that has been observed happening today, and extrapolate back in time (based on fossil evidence) to chart evolutionary pathways of various organisms. This is based a) on historical fossil evidence (patterns in the fossil record), and b) on genetic evidence (of modern organisms) which determines how closely related different species are.

From there, we can conclude that, for all intents and purposes, the organisms on the Earth appear to have evolved over time from earlier organisms.

Now, if you want specific examples, visit some of those links I gave. I'm not going to spend time rehashing what others have already documented. And, if you're completely unwilling to read a link or check a resource (book, science journal, etc), then you're wasting your time in these forums.

how about some tangible evidence supporting creationism?

Inclined orbits: if we are to believe the evolutionists, the orbit of each of the solar systems 63 moons should lie in the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the earths moon, are in highly inclined orbits. why?

the problem with evolution is that every evolutionist has a different theory. you guys need to get your story straight instead of contradicting eachother. it's not a hard concept.

star clusters serve to indicate a young age for the universe. a star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving, as one author put it, "like a swarm of bees" these heavenly bodies are held together by gravity. in some clusters, the stars are moving so fast that they could not have been held together for millions or billions of years. star clusters tell us that the age of the universe should be measured in the thousands of years.

No, it shouldn't.

soil layers are an enigma to evolutionists. with layers of earth exposed to what is proposed as "millions" of years, you would expect to find many soil layers. even in the desert environment soil layers would build up after eons of time. yet, in the fossil record very little evidence exists. creationism predicts that only selected areas on earth would present soil layers; exactly what you would expect after a worldwide flood, and exactly what the earth reveals

Only if you attempt a linear extrapolation of oscillatory behaviour...

Now, how about some real evidence for creation?

I'm no geologist, but I'd think erosion might have something to do with that. And what about the locations where the entire geologic column is present? How do you explain those?

it's funny to visit these website that evolutionists post. they take little ideas and blow them up into huge essays "completely disproving creationism" but the problem is they ignore all the solid facts of creationism staring them in the face. how screwed are these people who spend their entire lives furthering evolutionism on their day of judgement.

What solid facts? You haven't presented any so far.

very well...

how long do animal tracks last in the woods? does rain leave an imprint for millions of years? ephemeral markings include ripple-marks, rain imprints, worm trails and animal tracks. these fleeting emblems are found in great abundance in the fossil record. as you can well imagine, such fragile marks are very easily disturbed, yet the fossil record yields a large amount of them. most of these imprints were made in soft, wet sand that hardened to rock. these marks must be buried very fast or they will just wash away with the next wave. furthermore, they must be buried at least to the depth of the imprint or the rock above the imprint will squash it away to nothing. this is ample prooof that these ephemeral markings were buried in a fast-moving catastrophic environment such as Noah's flood.