Could I once again demolish his evolutionary arguments with clear creationist logic. He attacks by stating "creationists routinely distort scientific data or invent their own, to suit their fixed beliefs".

He, of course, doesn't give any examples so it is difficult to make any reply. However, in acknowledging our fixed beliefs, he pays us a compliment, unlike evolutionists we don't have to change our beliefs – the word of God cannot be disproved.

We look at the same scientific data as the evolutionist but use a consistent biblical model of interpretation.

The letter goes on making reference to the last Ice Age and the land bridge, informing us that no erosion took place during this time.

Since there was no erosion, then there was no deposition for that period but, of course, one of the main evolutionary assumptions on which their arguments and dating methods are based is constant rates of deposition, decay, etc.

If we observe that none took place at times, then why assume something different during the time fossils were being formed? I could get into the inconsistency of dating methods but that's another story.

The point is made that most fossils are mineralised shells, bones or teeth. Not all are. The T Rex bones examined around 1990 by Mary Schweitzen contained haemoglobin allegedly 65 million years old! Her boss instructed her to disprove it! Did somebody say something about distorting scientific fact? What about the allegedly 380 million year-old gogo fish (Materpiscis Attenborough named after David Attenborough) described by scientists who examined it as a "three dimensional, perfect specimen" and "soft tissues including muscle and nerve structures and umbilical cord attached to offspring".

Here is a specimen and offspring fossilised in the very act of giving birth and evolutionists try to tell us this creature was covered slowly by silt at a constant rate over long periods of time and that at a time when animals had only supposedly evolved to the egg-laying stage. And he thinks creationists are hilarious. I could comment further on shells, bones and teeth but in passing, will only mention the "one bone wonders" of Piltdown man, Nebraska man and partial skeletons of lucy etc.

Scientists, with the help of artists' impressions, managed to create a drawing of men or women from the evidence of one pig's tooth or a few pieces of bone, sometimes from more than one skeleton, found at different locations. Did somebody say something about distorting scientific data?

He then quotes several encylcopediae to challenge me but the figures quoted show differing rates of population growth over the last few thousand years – not the constant rates on which evolutionary theory is based. Shoots himself in the foot again. Must be painful being an evolutionist.

He concludes his reasoning in mockery with the statement: "None of this matters, though. Creationists know the answers. Evidence which contradicts their beliefs is simply wrong, dreamed up by hostile atheistic scientists." I will leave him with the last word, and on behalf of creationists, thank him for the compliment.

David Wright,
Dungannon