I have a friend who is a creationist. Lately, she has been trying to convince me that the theory of evolution is full of inconsistencies. She sent me this link to an article: http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=8&c=27" [Broken] She thinks that that article really proves that the theory of evolution can’t be correct. I didn’t believe that, but I agreed to read it. Now, after reading that article, I did some google search (I am no biologist, so I had to find other biologists’ responses to such claims as were made in the article.) and found out that almost all of the claims made in that article have been refuted by evolutionists. So I read some more and found out some more. Now what I would request from you guys is that you read that article (it’s a small article; you’ll probably need 2-3 minutes to read it) from the link I provided earlier; and then check out if the counter arguments I found out are correct or not. And I would also be much obliged if you could suggest something more. This is what I’m going to write to her in response to that article: Firstly, a common misconception among the creationists is that the theory of evolution is the same as abiogenesis. But the origin of life is not a part of the evolutionary theory and hence, not relevant to it. Evolution deals with how life has developed. It begins with the premise that life already exists. The theory doesn’t make any claims about how life started. So yes, life could have developed through abiogenesis or by aliens or God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However you think life began, evolutionary theory and its explanations apply once life appears and begins to reproduce. Evolution is about how life evolves, not how life began. Secondly, I think I need to describe what Pasteur actually did (and what he didn’t) in his experiments. The following two paragraphs are (taken from this page: http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/21169.aspx") describes what he DID: What Pasteur’s experiment DID NOT do was to test whether simple pre-cellular life could have emerged from a huge amount of organic chemicals over a billion years. Thirdly, the validity of the theory of evolution doesn’t depend on man’s ability to create living cells. So I think man’s inability to do so is irrelevant as far as the theory is concerned. The claims about the Miller-Urey experiment have also been refuted. Since the first experiment by Stanley Miller, Miller himself, and others have experimented with different atmospheric compositions. It has been seen that organic molecules formed under different conditions. And the claim that early earth had significant amount of oxygen has been refuted as well. The amount of oxygen we find in the atmosphere today is the result of photosynthesis; and the source of oxygen is photosynthetic plants. Before such plants emerged, the atmosphere contained little oxygen. Moreover, it is considered possible that life emerged away from the atmosphere around what are known as hydrothermal vents in deep sea. If that is true, then how much oxygen the atmosphere of early earth had is irrelevant anyway. Finally, I really need help from you guys because I couldn’t find anything to counter the following (at least nothing that a non-biologist would understand easily). Can you guys suggest anything? There's something else I found out: The site my friend mentioned – dr. dino – made me curious and I googled to see who this Dr. Dino guy (whose website it is) actually is. His real name is Kent Hovind. I have found out some interesting stuff about him. Currently he is serving a ten year sentence in prison. He has been found guilty of 58 federal counts, which include 12 tax offenses. I have also read that he believes mathematics to be a religion (exact quote: “Hey, everything in the world is religious, ultimately. Mathematics is a religion.”). His academic credentials are dubious at best. Even some creationists have criticized his views on creationism. Now I can't really use that as an argument against the article, because the article itself is not written by Hovind. But the fact that it was published in his website makes it a little less credible I think. Anyway, thanks in advance. I'd be really grateful if you guys can help me out here.