Here we go again. (I was guessing about where you live - obviously. But I still think you have a problem with the scale of the Earth.)

"Evidence from lack of minerals
There's the silt on the sea floor, for instance. If the earth was millions of years old like you say, the silt on the ocean floor should be much, much thicker than it is, because of the rate it collects from rivers and such."

I think I may have mentioned the age of ocean floors. They are young, the silt is not so thick as it would be if the oceans remained as they are over the age of the Earth. But they have not. Ocean floor spreading, which is observable in action, is the responsible mechanism for this. In fact, the depth of silt can be found to increase the further from the mid-ocean ridge the ocean floor is. River silt, BTW, tends to accumulate close to the continents, because when the fresh water hits the salt, the silt flocculates and drops quite quickly. You can test this out by stirring up some soil in a jar of water, making some salt solution separately and adding it to the soil mixture.

"Evidence from the presence of earth's magnetic field
The earth's magnetic field is deteriorating rapidly, and if the earth really is billions of years old, as Evolutionists claim, then there would be no magnetic field at all by now!"

I think I have also mentioned the frequent magnetic reversals, which involve deterioration of the magnetic field as at present, followed by a restoration with the north magnetic pole at the south, and vice versa. These can be confirmed by studying the rocks in such places as the Deccan Traps where there are multiple layers laid down over many years, but are also traceable in oceanic crust. (I posted a link to a map showing this.)

"Evidence from the earth and moon
The moon and the earth must be young or they could not exist today. The moon is gradually pulling away from the earth, but it also could never have been too close to the earth (the Roche limit). The present recession rate of the moon, multiplied by millions of years, would result in the moon being extremely farther from the earth than it really is. Also, the earth's shape is round. If it were really millions of years old, and the moon were closer to it to begin with (as evolution requires), then the earth would be kind of oval--bent out of shape. But it's not!
There are tons of different problems for evolutionists in this thing....in the words of one of them:
"the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem." (Louis Slichter, evolutionary scientist)"

First comment here - an evolutionary scientist, one assumes, is a biologist not an astrophysicist. Not since the 19th century has science been something that one person could know everything about. But is appears that this person was, in fact, a geophysicist and an expert in planetary physics. So is he an evolutionist, or simply someone who doesn't follow creationism?
His work on the Earth Moon system and the problems it poses was published in 1963, and has been dealt with since. Here's a heavy duty page on the issue, a tough read (and I already know a lot of it) but worth it because it directly addresses the creationist view. (You have not mentioned Barnes, 1982 as the source of your arguments. Is he? References to his work are given at the foot of the page, along with all the other resources. )

Earth Moon link

"Evidence from agriculture
Evolution says that man split from the apes about 3 to 8 million years ago. About a hundred thousand years ago, man was unable to farm. They hunted and gathered for their food, just like their primate cousins. Then, about ten thousand years ago man learned to plant seeds and farm (the latter claim is based on archeological evidence).

So here's the bottom line of this evolutionary assumption. You're trying to tell me that man lived for ninety hundred years doing nothing but scavenging for food?! It doesn't make sense. Doesn't it seem more likely that someone would go "hey, look--food, he grow from seed! Ogga, lookie!" (pardon the play-acting)-? I mean, NINETY HUNDRED years without knowledge of farming."

Oddly, there are still definitely human groups who manage by hunting and gathering - it isn't scavenging, it's foraging, and requires sophisticated knowledge of plants, their properties and their growth, as well as animals and their behaviour. Or they manage until the civilised agricultural groups destroy their territory. In addition, there are many animals who manage quite well without farming. Foraging lifestyles are a lot more relaxed than farming - especially for the men! Farming is hard work. It would take need to make the change, perhaps from climate changes or population pressure.

"Evidence from archaeology and historical documentation
Archaeology has found lots and lots of sites and show the intelligence of these early peoples. For example, they constructed huge monuments, drew amazing cave paintings, and kept records of lunar cycles (these are the people didn't know how to farm, remember. Instead of fitting with the rather disjointed evolutionary interpretation, it fits beautifully with the Bible, that man was smart from the start."

Interesting ideas here. I don't think anyone has ever suggested early people weren't smart. That is, if by early people you mean homo sapiens, and include neanderthals. (In fact, I think a lot of modern people know quite well that they don't have the ability to survive if they had to in the conditions that early people lived in.) BTW, there are arguments about the lunar cycle records and exactly what they record - there is an alternative in some cases. Back before them, all the other versions of humans that have been found in Africa did take a long time to develop. How do you explain them?

"Another question: If evolution is true, then when did man begin to keep a record of history? Evolutionists say that it was only 5,000 years ago. Does that sound logical to you? I mean, after all, if early man could do all these wonderful things like I listed a minute ago, then don't you think it'd occur to them to write it down?"

There are a variety of sources about the reaction of people to the development of writing. For instance, the Druids in Britain are reported as refusing ot use it. The reason being that the keepers of history believed, with what has turned out to be prescience, that the art of memory of the oral tradition would be lost. It is known, from recent studies in still oral societies (poetry in the Balkans, for example) that preliterate people can learn huge amounts of material and reproduce with without error. In ancient Greece, a poet could be expected to recite the whole of the Iliad and the Odyssey from memory, plus other matter which unfortunately did not make it into the written record. We have lost these skills. (Most people in the clubs I sing at now use sheets of paper to remind them of the words and chords!) (I use a PDA some of the time!)

Sadly, the development of writing had, at first, nothing to do with recording history, but everything to do with the tax office - possibly another reason for people to dislike it.

"Again....the facts fit the Biblical account."

Again, they don't.

Penny