Thanks for writing back so soon.  I would like to comment on a
few things you mentioned.  First, when you said that creation was pure
religion and evolution is valid science, I disagree strongly.  I would
argue that neither is really worthy to be called a "scientific theory",
If you claim evolution is not science, then that is contrary to the sum of
all scientific knowledge, in the profesional journals.It is contrary to
several Federal court decisions because no one was there to witness creation,
and no one was there to witness evolution.  If you claim evolution is not
science, then that is contrary to the sum of all scientific knowledge, in the
profesional journals.It is contrary to several Federal court decisions.
The events before human writing are determined by observations of the
physical evidence.]
All of the evidence that we have for either view exists now, and now is\not
 billions (evolution) or thousands (creation) of years ago...it is now.  

[The physical evidence exists now concerning past events.
The physical evidence all refutes the flood story.
The fossil record shows an evolutionary sequence.
The Bible has trees before sun moon and stars.]
No modern species are found in formations earlier than the Tertiary.
Explain their origin.There is vast physical evidence for past physical
events, in the earth and in the sky. All we can observe is evidence for
past events.
Genesis has birds as the first land animals, before creeping things.]
 
However, it is possible to assemble the evidence together and make a
caricature of a certain view, and support it scientifically.
 
[There is only one rational way to put the physical evidence together, 
the scientific evolutionary way]

My sole desire is to show that the evolutionary
evidences are almost univerally without merit. 

[The professional geologists and paleontologists supprt evooution in their
professional journals.
You would have to refute almost all of science to do that.
They have arranged the physical  evidence to tell a single consistent story of 
past earth history. Animals and plants without ancestors is mythology.]

Throughout the past couple decades, creationism (particularly the
scientists) has been strongly ridiculed by scientists. 
 
[That is because it is totally false and the creationists have produce
nothing but bad evidence.]

I have been to the talkorigins archive probably a hundred times, and most of
their arguments have little relevance, or is just plain scientifically
inaccurate.  For example, it was almost humorous to see their list of
so-called transitional forms.  Every one of the examples I saw was in no
way "transitional", as they title them to be.

[Define transitional. It is a species having characteristics of two other
groups,but  not an ancestor of either. Evolution is a change in the frequency
of alleles in a population]

Anyway, where should we start?  Would the following format be
okay? ---I write some sort of evidence for creation or against evolution,
you can rebut that, then I can rebut yours, and then you'll have the
final closing statement on the matter, along with you or me bringing up
the next topic.
Before we get into talking about all the evidences, I just wanted
to say that the main reason I am writing to you is not so that I can
point a finger and say "Haha!!  I'm right and you're wrong!"  That would
be dumb.

[That is all you have done so far.
There is no creation support other than the Bible.
Accident is not one of the laws or forces of nature.
There is apparently nothing in control of nature other than forces and laws.
Trained scientists apply these models and facts of science very efficiently.
Evolution covers two different concepts. One is changes in structure,
 function and adaptation. The second concept is from the viewpoint of the
 underlying genetic changes and population dynamics that produce these changes]

  The only reason I am writing is because I want to demonstrate
that the creation/Biblical view is indeed adequate, and I think that if
you realize that, it will make the biggest difference in your life.  

[Your goal is to convert me to your religion. I have studied these claims for
50 years and have never seen where it had any  scientific success.]

I cannot even emphasize how my life just transformed the moment I handed it
over to Jesus Christ.  I promise you, there is absolutely no thing in
life that offers more than the gift (totally free) he has offered us (if
we choose to receive it).  If you would like to hear more about that,
just ask...seriously.

[ I see no evidence anything in your life has prepared you to judge the 
validity of evolution or any other science]

        If that's okay, how about if we start with the overall mechanism
for biological evolution?  Mutations.  In 1985, geneticist Michael Denton
wrote a book called "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".  Denton is not a
creationist...as a matter of fact, he would probably be angry if someone
referred to him as one.  In this book (which I have not read, but have
read an interview with him about the book),  his primary focus is
supposedly the assertion that organisms are improved by random mutations.
 This struggling mechanism for evolution has caused great speculation,
including the establishment of "Haldane's Dilemma", an un-solved genetic
problem that Haldane came up with about 40 some years ago.  Why are
mutations not a good basis for evolution?  First of all, they are very
rare. 
[Give statistics for how rare mutations are. Give sources from professional 
literature.]

Second of all, over 99% of all mutations are harmful. 
 
[ Give a professional journal source for this claim.]
 
 This "over 99%" value should actually be 100%, because we know of basically no
beneficial mutations that have ever been observed (some evolutionists
(but few) like to refer to sickle-cell-anemia as being beneficial,
because it causes an immunity to malaria.  However, this "disease" not
only causes horrible symptoms and other problems in life, but it causes
the offspring to have serious problems, including a 1 out of 4 death
rate. 

[It would not have spread if it had not been more useful than harmful.
All life originated in pre-Cambrian prokaryote bacteria. This had a small
genome. 
All later genes are mutations of this original genome.]

 If you want to call this mutation beneficial, feel free, but it
does not have much of a basis). 

[It is beneficial if more survive than would die without the mutation]

 When I think of a mutation, I guess a
good way I can illustrate it is this:  Our lives our books being typed,
and mutations are simply typographical errors.  How in the world could we
start with a tiny organism, and have it randomly evolve into such complex
beings as us from "beneficial" mutations that we only know of to be
harmful?

[Your model is not valid for  of biology]

If you don't like this format, or would like to talk about
something else, just feel free to mention so.  Well, it is late, and I'm
pretty tired, so good night!

[Your format is quite fine. 
I see no indication of any significant understanding by  you  of any of this
material.]
           
[There is much more evidence I can present. 
I will see what your claims have to support them. 
So far, you have presented no physical evidence to refute evolution or
defend Genesis.]
END**************************************************************************