Ever gonna answer some of my more vital questions? You seem to ignore what I say when making your own arguments.
"True life can not arise from non living material."
A common misconception among creationists is that evolutionists think that there was a pile of mud laying somewhere on the primeval Earth when suddendly some atoms lined up just right and POP! A single celled organism appeared. That is absolutely not the case. Complex carbon molecules led to the eventual formation of amino acids, which led to the formation of simple proteins, and so on. If you think this is infinitely unlikely, simple amino acids have been experimentally shown to form when sunlight strikes nebulae or nebulae-like conditions.
"There are no intermediate forms between animals, which should be abundant
if evolution were true."
Are you kidding? There are TONS of transitional forms in the evolution of the horse. (Hyracotherium to Equus) Connecting fish with amphibians are such lungfish as Eusthenopteron Sterropterygion. (look them up) Connecting amphibians and reptiles are such species as Seymouria, which is neither classified as an amphibian or a reptile. Connecting reptiles to birds are species like Archeopteryx. There are even connections between reptiles and mammals through Cynognathus and Diarthrognathus. Look them up. There is a clear evolutionary progression in humans too. Homo habilus, homo erectus, homo sapiens, etc.
You are right in saying that there are no transitional species between the phyla. For some reason there are no (or few) studiable fossils from that era (before the phyla split.) However, I think you would agree that either everything evolved or nothing evolved. Since we can trace the evolution of so many different classes, the using the phyla argument to universally refute evolution is ridiculous.
"True human bones found in the same strata as their "ancestors""
Homo sapiens and Neanderthal did indeed exist at the same time, if that is what you are referring to.
"modern birds found next to the Archaeopteryx"
Show me the source on this. I find it dubious. By "next to" do you mean in the same type of strata, or do you mean found in the same area after an earthquake? :)
With regard to the second law of thermodynamics, it unbelievable how many people misunderstand what the law says. There was even a creationist here a while ago who said that since energy cannot be created or destroyed, an afterlife had to exist since our consciousness could not be destroyed. This is a GROSS misunderstanding of physics (and, dare I say, extremely convenient to believe in science whenever it seems to confirms your beliefs and discard it otherwise.)
True, the disorder of the universe must increase. But the disorder of the universe as a whole. Pockets areas can indeed have a negative entropy (have taken physics yet?) as long as the entropy of the entire system [the universe] is positive. That's why it's possible to build a sand castle, or sculpt a statue, etc. The same is true of evolution. Survival of the fittest and the passing on of genes temporarily 'stalls' entropy in the isolated system of living things.
"Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed."
It doesn't matter if it says nothing about how it is converted: the second law of thermodynamics easily allows such things to take place. I get the impression that you are regurgitating knowledge given to you, but with little understanding of your own. Not to insult you or give offense, but that is the impression I often recieve from Fundy types.
"Evolution is not occuring now. We don't see any transitional forms now."
Because it happens slowly. As in, over more than 6000 years.
"If a fox evolved into a horse, where are the fossils inbetween?"
A common misconception is that species of today evolved from other species of today. That's not the case. For example, we didn't evolve from chimps. Both we and chimps evolved from the same common ancestor. That's an important distinction.
"But these skeletons have a different number of ribs, some have 15, then
19, but then it drops to 18. That is just illogical."
Why is that illogical? Because it doesn't make intuitive sense to you?
"How do they know if the coelacancth
fossil they found was not 6,000 years old, and subsequently, dated other fossils incorectly."
Because most of the fossils and rocks dated are not coelocanth based.
Anyways, keep 'em coming. But please address more of the issues I brought up, as well. You have to defend creationism from me, as well as attack evolution.