OK, there are some rules of conduct you need to know about. In general, you need to be prepared to produce a citation from a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed and widely accepted journal of the scientific field that the paper you are quoting is relevant to. If you produce quotes from creationist web sites, you're going to find that everyone here who has the opposing viewpoint will quickly stop talking to you, and the reason is because the data from those sites directly contradicts the data from papers, and published in journals, like the ones I'm talking about above.
To the extent science can be said to "be done," or "advance," from the point of view of both the scientific, and the inclusive human, community, it is done in those journals. They're not some private cabal; they contain the sum of the knowledge of the sciences we have accumulated so far, along with a relatively much smaller number of books dating backward from the beginning of the Enlightenment (late seventeeth century or so- because, you see, before that they didn't have scientific journals, so we have things like Newton's Principia Mathematica). In fact, since the beginning of the twentieth century, essentially no major scientific discovery has been made that was not documented in such a journal, and most of them were announced to the world in such a journal.
Today, as far as the scientific community is concerned, if you wish to make an addition to the progress of science, you MUST publish your findings in such a journal, so that they can be examined, criticized, and ultimately accepted or rejected by that community, acting as individuals. Every accepted theory of science has gone through this process; in fact, as each scientist is educated, theoretically (and more or less really, depending on the level of skill and intelligence of the budding scientist) they examine each of these ideas at least once for themselves before accepting them.
I'm going to await your acceptance of the above before going on; I warn you, first of all, that there is a reason why scientists believe what they do and it can be found in those journals, second, that no one here is interested in conspiracy theories about all teh evul sciensetis, third, that science is not just composed of some random stories about how things happened, but instead a body of knowledge formed by the detailed examination of every statement made and comparison to observable facts that everyone agrees on. Any statement that disagrees with an observable fact is discarded; special statements that make verifiable predictions are called "theories."
If on that basis you are interested in having a rational conversation, you will be the first I (and no doubt many who have been here longer than I) have seen. And I have seen plenty (and those others no doubt plenty more).
