I was referring to evolutionists.

Too bad you referred to science that way.

And they have, and continue to claim that they are the only one's who know the truth.

Not because they say so, but because the evidence says so. If you are the only one who follows what the evidence says, you are the only one who knows the truth.

They should declare themselves a religion, and get it over with.

Evolutionists aren't trying to claim that they are right just because they are right.

They refuse to consider any claims that contradict uncle Darwin.

This is false.

People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for doing so.

If you don't provide actual evidence how evolution is incorrect, you should lose your scientific job when you claim evolution is false. That's how it works.

That's not evolution. It's called adaptation. You might want to study that a bit. Big difference between that and evolution.

Adaptation is part of the theory of evolution. You claimed that no part of the theory is correct.

A flu virus has always been, and will never be anything other than what it is.

A claim that you can't back up with science.

Yeah, no. Your links don't discredit evolution, they simply make the (incorrect) statement that actual speciation has never been observed, the (also incorrect) statement that changes to existing information or increases in the total information in dna cannot occur, and the (still incorrect) statement that evolution needs to be dismissed because it is reliant on infinismal probability.

Probability is only applicable to speculation regarding future events when there is a lot of missing information regarding it. Discussing the relative probability of something that happened in the past is only useful as an intellectual exercise; you can observe that a flipped coin has a close to 50-50 probability of having come up heads or tails, but a coin that has already been flipped has already come up heads; it no longer has a ~50% probability of having come up tails. And again, spontaneous formation of organic compounds is not a question of probability, but a question of conditions. Chemicals react predictably in given conditions; there is not a probability X of organic compound Y forming spontaneously; there is a set of conditions Z that make organic compound Y's formation an inevitability.

All of those say there is evidence for evolution, but that evolution is not the correct answer. He specifically said there is absolutely no evidence of evolution.

I will help point out what the problems are. I know it is a waste of time, but I enjoy explaining things.

1

"As has been said many times on this site, duplications (see “Yeast Fails to Rise to Evolutionists’ Expectations” [PDF]) and mutations do not add new information to the genome. Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information."

This paragraph is where they derail. Everything after it is worthless. When you say neither of them provides new evidence you are eliminating the concept of them working together. If a duplication occurs and then mutations change the duplicated genetic information, you have brand new genetic information without losing the previous genetic information.

2

"operational science"

If you use fake terms to limit what can be explained then you can easily get the conclusion you want.

" animal kind A"

A kind of animal that answers in genesis describes is one that doesn't change in a human lifetime. There is no scientific definition of kind.

"life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life"

This is not a problem with evolution. This is a problem with what comes before evolution. But, nobody actually believes this is true because even Creation says that life came from non-life (God).

3

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

You seem to have a problem with understanding my queries. How could science prove evolution to you? What proof do you need? Maybe I can find it for you.

Evolution has no proof. Even some of it's biggest supporters admit that.

It isn't about proof, it is about evidence. The concept of proof doesn't exist. According to science nothing has been proved. Evolution is considered the correct description of how things work.

It's time to put this baby to rest.

I agree. It is time for you to stop with your delusions.

Evolution has been shown to be a fraud.

No, it hasn't. If it were a fraud, you would actually be able to show it was a fraud. Christianity on the other hand doesn't give any way to show it is a fraud.