What are they going to do? Find God and do an interview? If anything is going to disprove evolution, it's the research of evolution itself.

How about report on an actual theory that suggests evolution might be bul****. I mean they are suppose to be experts on it. So tell me why? And this has nothing to do with god. The site that I used happens to be a creationist site. And I posted it for the mathe,antics of it. So why bring up god? It's a theory that has nothing to do with him..

They seem so credible. I definitely have to learn more about them.

I would like to add I think if you are a "multiverseian" scientifically you can't dismiss the YEC's claim the the Earth or the universe is only 10,000 years old. It could very well be that this universe could had spun off from another universe 10,000 years ago -- if you believe in that sort of thing.

Does it matter? ****!!

Creation research sounds like researching creation to me. Disproving evolution isn't inherently creationist, but that site is so that's why I brought it up. Regardless, if evolution is to be disproved, I think it might be more likely for it to be disproved by people who understand and research evolution, not by (painfully obviously biased) organizations that make laughably false statements like

That's before we even get into the false analogy of the 200 part system that they mention. These people are not experts (in evolution). They're either charlatans, reactionaries, incredibly naive, or stupid. Be a little skeptical of the sources you use, especially when they're "skeptical" sources, since many have taken up the term when they should be calling themselves "denialist."

You say those are insane claims. Do you have a source to back it up?

Well I guess creationists believe the world is up to 10,000 years old. I think that is the outside figure. My source is Wikipedia. I guess that article is written by someone who cites source material that mentions what Creationist believe.

Natural selection does not select for "good" or "bad" genes. The way they present it is very misleading and suggests that they don't understand the theory that they're criticizing (typical of anti-scientific groups).

The other one is simply an assumption that can be disproved with a quick Google search if we're going to ignore massive archives of fossil records like our source has. Here's an example off of the top of my head that I remember from grade school
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth

I don't want to explain what a false analogy is to you to disprove the 200 parts to a system "rationalization" they've got going on in there. Here's a link
False analogy - RationalWiki

You wouldn't happen to have anything from a good source that calls evolution into question? And trust me, the initial source you used is not a good one.

does anything matter????

Most definitely.