Now who's resorting to petty insults? Please, point me to the vigorously peer-reviewed articles supporting young-earth-creationism. I'm all ears on this one, and I can't wait to see what you turn up.
Oh I’ve submitted articles here many many times refutting the nonsense proposed by Christian haters- but alas- the articles submitted are completely ignored, and the folks simply devolve into petty childish insulting such as yopu’ve done repeatedly.
Did it occur to you that maybe this says something about the level of scientific acumen in the submission, or are all the scientists "Christian haters", part of a massive conspiracy to destroy religion? Perhaps you're just not as good at science as you think. That's okay - we're all good at different things. Learning your strengths and weaknesses is part of finding your place in the world.
The debate is still ongoing and both sides have points- the fact that you prefere one point doesn’t solidify the point as concrete.
Science as whole knows better. There are thousands of scientific articles supporting evolution, and the theory, while being corrected in places here and there (like a gardener prunes a tree), still stands tall (the tree hasn't been chopped down, despite the ardent political attempts to do so). Like I said, contribute to the body of scientific work, or remain marginal. Your special religious ideas don't get affirmative action where scientific analysis is concerned.
In your mind it might- but oh well, that’s your close-minded biased problem.
Right - I'm 'close-minded' in the regard that I demand science conform to a cumulative body of knowledge and data. I'm certainly not so open-minded my brain falls out. Are you open minded? Are you willing to entertain theories that contradict the first seven chapters of Genesis? You can't just cry "bias" in science - you actually have to do hard work to back your point up.
"Close-minded" is an insult, by the way (just like "liar"). 
I don't mind at all, but I'm just pointing out that you might want to jump off the high-horse where "childish insults" are concerned.
Formulations that work on paper yet lack experiential factual data are fien and dandy but far from actual fact.
Science agrees. That's what peer review is for. Evolution survives because it rigorously survives the required consistency between different analyses.
Do you still want to defend GourmetDan's insight into the geocentric universe, or are you letting that one go?