"Evolution refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter."
No, it does not, not even close. Biological evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms. That means overall genetic changes in an existing population. Check a real biology textbook, not some web site.
If you want to get on here and tell us about evolution, you will only be taken semi-seriously if you show some sign of knowing what it is.
'An Evolutionist states “facts” for which he has very rarely researched"
I have worked in and around science since 1970 including 19 years in various kinds of laboratories and the last 22 years and nine months looking up facts in scientific and technical publications almost every working day. I know where to look for facts.
Have you ever researched creationist claims? Why not?
Just as a mild amusement, I started checking out young Earth creationist claims 14 years ago. I have found only one that might be true. Might be, not is. What I have PROOF of, is that young Earth creationist leaders are liars and their followers witlessly repeat these lies as facts which they have never researched.
For example, here's one creationist claim:
"Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)"
My response:
In this case "very close" means about 104 kilometres (65 miles) away. The "Java man" remains were in the flood plain of the Sulo / Solo River, the Wadjak skulls were in caves in the hills. Dubois published on the Wadjak skulls in 1891 in a Dutch scientific journal, but since they were of a modern type they were not of great interest. This 1891 publication is available from several libraries in the USA alone. After some prodding from friends, he published again in 1923. The "Java man" material was not modern so it got most of the attention.
Hanegraaff is wrong, and his source is a liar. This particular creationist lie dating from 1985 was exposed in a book called "Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism" by Ian Plimer, Random House, Sydney, published in 1994, four years before Hanegraaff published and the lies can still be found on the net.
You can Google the text of the Hanegraaff quote if you like, I'm not making it up.
"Earth's crust devoid of fossils" (Duane Gish, 1980s) [I suppose they hang in the air just like bricks]
The 1981 claim by Gish that English scientist Solly Zuckerman had studied the" Lucy" fossil for 15 years and concluded she could not walk upright. The fossil was found in late 1973 and Zuckerman retired from active science about 1969. Though corrected, Gish made this this same claim on two known occasions in the later 1980s. This lie can be found on the net too, more than 30 years after it was exposed.
The deliberate mistranslation of German "instabil" as English "explosive" in the case of the bombardier beetle.
The deliberate omission of "In a closed system" from their recitation of the second law of thermodynamics to "prove" that evolution cannot happen. That turns up here every few weeks.
The false claim that "information" must be added to a genome for mutations to occur when evolution requires only a change - which may include addition, frameshifts, deletion or the change of just one nucleotide to another, something which can be observed by direct chemical analysis. Biological patents often contain many pages detailing such mutations, both natural and artificial.
The claim that C-14 is used to date ancient rocks when it is not capable of such use.
How many more straightforward creationist lies do you need?
How many mining and oil companies run on "Flood geology"? How many manufactures of drugs, vaccines, insulin, growth hormones or agricultural chemicals use "creation biology"?
If they do not use these creationist ideas, why not?