How do creationists explain the vast evidence for evolution and an ancient earth?

When confronted with the evidence, they chant lines from the creationist propaganda sites. You know -- "you can't prove evolution", and "that's microevolution, not macroevolution", and so on.

Those lines comfort them and help them avoid thinking.

And why can't people who "believe" in evolution see that the theory is fundamentally flawed and there is no evidence to support the theory. Evolution works very well on some levels and not at all on others. For many years scientists have been looking for the missing link which clearly does not exist - especially now that we have evidence that cro magna man and neanderthal man co-existed. Yes, you can observe evolution in a lab using bacteria but human beings are not bacteria. There is no evidence at all to support the theory as it is applied to human beings. I am not a creationist and am not religious at all. Believing in evolution is the same as believing in religion. Evolution is a possibility up there with all the other possibilities but the only truth is that we don't know. Evolution theory really is theory and was based on Darwin's observations and ideas nothing else. It does not explain how we came to be here. I am totally able to understand (very well thank you) and am au fait with the evidence presented - its just not a convincing argument.

To call evolution a theory is to give it more scientific credit than is appropriate. Such evidence as is presented to support evolution is spurious at best, demanding that guesses and assumptions are accepted as fact when they are as unsubstantiated as the theory - or rather hypothesis - of evolution itself.

Dating techniques - Calculating dates based on the decay od radio-isotopes is invalid unless those dates can be verified experimentally. As an extreme example, Uranium 235 is said to have a half-life of 700 million years. However, no sample has been observed that has demonstrated this. Hardly surprising as no-one but God could be around for that time. The behaviour of radio-isotope decay has only been observed for a relatively short period of time. The decay rate is governed by probability, there is no control mechanism that ensures it is a constant rate. Calculation of age based on radioactive decay demands that the original proportion of isotopes is known, and that the system remains closed during the elapsed time. In other words, no material is added or removed. The decay rate would also have to be constant, unaffected by any other force. None of this can be determined with certainty, therefore such dating is invalid.

An evolutionary chart shows how creatures change throughout time. However, this connects morphologically similar creatures, not genetically related ones. Until DNA can be extracted from fossils, this will ever be the case. In other words, the chart is guesswork and is no more scientific than one based on rocks and pebbles.

Evolution cannot explain exclusive symbiosis. Two distinct species becoming so dependant on one another that neither can exist without the other.

Evolutionists offer spurious evidence of evolution in action. Experiments with peppered moths and fruit flies show mutation. Nothing that can honestly be shown as evolution. Mutations tend to make a species less viable, not more successful. Speciation has also been offered. However, even though we have many breeds of dog, for instance, they are still basically the same creature. They have not evolved. Then there is selection. MRSA is often suggested. However, what happens is the removal of rivals from an extant sub-species. The sub-species was already in existence and did not evolve. No evolutionary process has ever been documented on higher creatures.

So, what evidence is there to the contrary?

There is the evidence of mitochondrial DNA which suggests we are descended from a single human individual. It does not suggest we came from a common primate ancestor od any kind.

The decay rate of the Earth's magnetic field and the low salinity of the ocean both suggest that the age of the Earth is much less than evolution would require.

Evolution cannot even explain how an organ such as the eye could come about, or how non-living chemicals could form life, or how related but incompatible oxygen carriers could evolve.

By claiming that we are all mad or mistaken, debunking some of the evidence with crackpot theories which hold less water than a sieve and reading the bible a lot.

Not all who believe God created the world believe in a young earth.

Yes and thats why there is a living tree in sweden which is 9000 years old. Which means it was around before god did his magic number on the universe.

Funny old thing factual evidence. Isnt it?

They consider it a virtue to believe in spite of the overwhelming evidence.

The stronger the evidence, the stronger the faith needed to overcome it.

For them to be able to read it it hast to be reworded so that none of the words contain more than three syllables.

Evil atheist scientists will invent a time machine and plant evidence.

Seriously, I've heard that.

Let me quote a few explanations... "All that evidence is Satan deceiving people.", "Goddidit" and an oldie but goody "What evidence?"