Quote:

I don't know, when I hear an evolutionist say that all it takes to create order is the addition of energy (from a debate) then I have to be skeptical about the idea that only creationists are confused.



This scepticism is justified. You need not only energy, but also a temperature gradient for creating order.

Quote:

Larger stars will also fuse heavier elements, all the way to iron, which is the end point of the process.



I see now the reason for your con-fusion. Iron is the element with the highest binding energy per nucleon. Thus, fusion indeed ends with iron. Synthesis of elements higher than iron is an energy consuming process.

Fusion - energy gain (elements <= iron)
Nucleosynthesis - energy loss (elements > iron)

For overcoming the electrical potential barrier, you need to accelerate ions to a high velocity for getting new elements higher than iron. The required temperatures are reached only in heavy stars at the very end of their life span: in supernovae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis

BTW, what is your problem with heavy elements at all? Neither is this disputed in any way nor has it anything to do with creationism. Fossil and earth dating have nothing to do with where heavy elements are created - in case you thought that.

Quote:

Do you know why the Big Bang was generally accepted over solid state (in part). Because if the universe was infinite, there would be no energy left.



I do not understand what you mean with "no energy left". The Big Bang is unrelated to the finiteness or infiniteness of the universe. In fact the analysis of the COBE and WMAP data gave some indications that the universe IS infinite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmap

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html

We'll know more about the infinity or finity of the universe after 2007, when the Planck space probe will be launched.

There are also several theories about the start of the universe, but none can be verified or falsified at the moment, as the Big Bang model does not cover the first 10^-43 seconds. We'll need string theory for looking into that very beginning, and this will take some more 30 years.

Until then, you're free to put everything into that first split second - God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever.

Quote:

"Creationists attribute observations of nature to the actions of supernatural forces"

"No, we attribute the things that nature cannot do on its own to God or whatever other creator."



What is the difference between the above statements? An action by God is certainly a supernatural action.

I also do not fully understand the rest of your arguments to the 'intervention' issue. As you've stated earlier, creationists believe that nature's laws, although created by God, are still not good enough to produce life. Thus life required additional supernatural events, like some god physically placing species on earth. That was the line of my arguments and, as to my knowledge, essential creationist faith. Why is this now a "strawman"?