I'll have a look at your link about Mr. Flew. I don't think that his deism is all that relevant to the creation/evolution debate, but I found it interesting that he was being used in that way.

I don't think pterosaurs are all that relevant either. Scorpions and crocodiles have existed since before the dinosaurs and you don't see scientists trying to hide them under a carpet. Yes I think many creatures remain to be discovered, though the obviously fake pictures that have been posted here are . . . well, let's say they lighten things up.

OK, missing link. Old terminology, no longer used by scientists. All forms are transitional forms because evolution is an ongoing process. More fossils are found all the time and more pieces of the jigsaw are filled in. It's a fortuitous set of circumstances in which a body is fossilised, and preserved, and found, but nevertheless the pieces keep coming in. I've documented a series of transitional fossils for whales elsewhere in this forum, if Russ hasn't decided to delete it yet. There's a good number of them for hominids as well. The problem is that a creationist can always look at two transitionals and say " where's the one in between." When one is found, they want what's in between it and the others. Infinite regression. Presumably you also look at homo erectus and say it's an ape, and at a neanderthal and say it's a human, yes? Or how else would you classify those?

For your examples about how dating is wrong, be it radioisotope dating or dating of rock formations, can you please give links or some other kind of verifiable evidence? You've made quite a number of assertions but I see no proof for them here. I've seen similar claims on creationist websites and when they actually do give enough verifiable detail, they've turned out to have the facts wrong.

If Dr. Gary Parker is an ex evolutionist, presumably he is a creationist. I don't doubt that he is caricaturing other "evolutionists" he knew. BTW I don't like the term "evolutionist." It's only creationists who tend to use it because attaching "-ist" to it makes it sound like a religious dogma itself. I repeat, I feel no "need" to "believe." I make my decisions based on the evidence, which does not require me to claim that conspiracies exist amongst scientists or that most of what they tell us is wrong, or that the physical evidence which I've seen and touched myself is all hoaxes. I know a few scientists. They are intelligent people who themselves are not hoaxers, and frankly it's impossible for them to do what they do and be completely fooled somehow. I don't think Russ wants to look up Glenn Morton http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm but maybe you will. He was a creationist petroleum engineer who saw the Bible as literal fact, and had great difficulty reconciling this with what he observed in his day-to-day work. He's found some interesting ways of joining the two together in his mind, but it required leaving young-earthism behind.

I'm not entirely sure where others stand on this issue here because they haven't clarified by saying how old they think the earth is. Do you think it's about 6000 years old? And if so, maybe you can address some points about the supposed Biblical flood?