Creation vs Evolution

CBC is all up in arms for a Conservative MP defending an Ontario MPP  for stating on twitter he doesn't believe in evolution.

James Lunney, a federal Conservative MP, is using his Twitter account to come to the defence of an Ontario Progressive Conservative who told reporters last week that he doesn't believe in evolution.
The British Columbia chiropractor, first elected as a member of Parliament in 2000, has jumped into a fray that started last week in the Ontario Legislature.
Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls, who represents the province's Chatham-Kent-Essex riding, was heckling the provincial education minister on Wednesday when the matter of human origins came up.
Education Minister Liz Sandals was responding to PC criticism of her government’s new sex-education curriculum when she quipped that a PC government "could opt out of teaching about evolution, too."
"Not a bad idea," said Nicholls, who later clarified his position to reporters in the lobby.
"For myself, I don’t believe in evolution," he said, adding that his views were "a personal stance" rather than party policy.

Oh the horror, someone who doesn't believe evolution!  Must be a backwards neanderthal hick!
Even some scientists have discovered that The Big Bang may not have been the origin of life as what was once thought.

If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.

In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.

"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

Here is a very good source for case for MP Lunney's creation belief is Ian Juby , a creation scientist from Canada who explains why it's mathematically impossible for evolution to have occured.   
You can also catch Ian Juby at IanJuby.org 

Another good source that supports James Lunney's  creation stance is Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith from Creation Magazine. 
In this video they point out scientific evidence for a recent creation.   Please take the time to watch it.

 
I am on the same page as Dr. Lunney, I believe in creation. There had to be an intelligent designer.  Here is why I agree:

1. Fossils do not show evolution.
Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.¹
2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds.
Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead.² A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.³ Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead.⁴ None truly evolved.⁵
Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science.
3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution.
Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.⁶ Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations.
Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.
4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution.
Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system.⁷ Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.
Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow.
These four observations show why the unbiblical evolutionary idea that creatures change without limits is unscientific. If creatures evolved through nature—and not God—then Scripture is not trustworthy, since from beginning to end it credits God as Creator.⁸ But science clearly confirms the Genesis creation account.