I probably won't write any more until tomorrow evening. Finals, ya know.
"The classic geologic column never occurs how the charts show it. (Precambrian, then cambrian, then ordovician, etc.) Of course precambrian is lower than modern, but the whole world is not uniform as evolutionist say."
Okay, so you are referring to overthrusts? Like when a mountain is formed or some other giant change to the strata (like, an earthquake) that stirs things up? True, it's not uniform, but the general pattern is still there, especially in more relatively undisturbed areas. And you also have to explain away the radiometric dating.
By the way, you still haven't explained why the fossil distribution is so uneven. Why don't we find humans in the precambrian rock, especially since humans were created before animals, according to the bible.
"The design is not flawless now, but it was when
God created men."
Have we found any record of these flawless men? If there were ubermenches as our ancestors, we should expect to see an increasing complexity as we dig deeper, but we don't. And again, human fossils are only found in the cenozoic layer.
"By the way, cavemen
were just as smart as we were. Most of them simply
were afflicted by rickets, so they appeared to be less "evolved" than us."
I wouldn't say 'just as smart as us.' We were the only ones proven to have developed tools, to my knowledge. Though you are right to a certain extent (neandethals had a larger brain cavity, for instance.)
"I don't understand. Why would a functioning organ
be evidence for evolution?"
Because it's on the way out. On other animals, the appendix is more of a genuinely functioning organ than with us.
Also, you didn't deal with the nipples on a man's chest thing.
"Where did that new genetic information come from? How did
some new DNA sudden come into effect?"
There are two ways. First, small variations in parent to child DNA result in small species variation. Those with small mutations that were helpful (say, if they were taller than average person, and could reach higher in a tree, or if they were smarter, more dextrous, stronger gluteus maximus muscles to help them stand bipedally, etc) The other is random mutations caused by sunlight, infections, and so on. Although most of it is survival of the fittest. Take two couples, put one in Bermuda and one in Antartica, wait two million years, and tell me there won't be adaptations to the environment that render the two groups quite different.
"And by the way, up to date, there have been NO beneficial mutations"
How can you say that? Did you ever watch The Incredible Hulk? :) If a mutation is good for you, it helps you pass your genes on. If it's bad, it doesn't. Are you taller than your parents? Do you have a different shoe size than your dad? Are you faster, or a better climber, or smarter, or anything, than they were at your age? Those are minor mutations.
By the way, do you feel like moving this conversation up to the top in our other thread? It might help the current split between the two issues, and keep the discussion more coherent.