(1) The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don't effectively change the information, or the 'meaning' in the code) or else they are informationally downhill--defects which lose/corrupt information.
(2) The rare 'beneficial' mutations to which evolutionists cling all appear to be like wingless animals, blind cave animals, and many examples of antibiotic resistance. They are downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution.
(3) The examples commonly cited as 'evolution happening today' usually involving adaptation by natural selection, are without exception instances in which the net result is a loss of information in the population---either by mutation or by way of reduced genetic variety. No new varieties are emerging!

Were Dinosaurs on the Ark?

Yes! There were, at most, only about 50 different kinds of dinosaurs that would have needed rescuing. Most of these would have been small and would have been no trouble getting onto the ark. As for the large dinosaurs, young dinosaurs were probably taken on to the ark.

Is there intelligent life on other planets?

While the Bible does not totally rule out the possibility of intelligent life on other planets, the facts seem to indicate that the universe was made especially for life on earth. Modem man has been searching in vain for some sign of intelligent life in the universe, only to "hear" silence as he aims his sophisticated equipment at the heavens. It is ironic that if he did get one coherent message he would assume that it came from an intelligent source. However, when he sees such sophisticated messages written into the fabric of creation, he assumes that chance, not God, produced it all.

What about the recent meteor that was found with evidence that maybe there was primitive life on Mars?

With all of the media hoopla over this event, you would have thought that they actually found evidence of life on Mars. The truth is, this rock contained microscopic rock formations that might be indicators of life. These formations, however, as subsequent uncovered reports have shown, are more likely the result of natural causes, not biological causes. It is also possible that the formations were made while the rock was on earth, not Mars. This rock is nothing but "Much Ado About Nothing."

Who was Cain wife?

Obviously, she was one of his sisters. The Bible teaches us that Adam and Eve had several children (Gen. 5:4), though only three are named. During this time, the genetic code would have been more pure, allowing for intermarriage between families without the negative consequences that we see today.

How do we explain that the stars that are millions of light years away if the universe is young?

This is the most difficult question for creationists. Before we give some possible answers, let us remember that the naturalist has many more difficult questions. So, just because we may not have the exact answer to this question should not cause us to abandon our position altogether. The following answer to this question was taken from the Answers In Genesis webpage.

In spite of all the Biblical and scientific evidences for a recent creation, this is a problem that must be squarely faced. There is currently no wholly satisfactory solution that is accepted by the majority of creation scientists, so a number of different proposals will be touched on here.

Faced with such an apparent conflict between the Creator's eyewitness testimony and what seems like a very reasonable deduction from observation, the first thing to point out is one that is often overlooked. Namely, that we do not actually observe an old universe---we observe certain facts, but from these we can deduce an age only if we make certain assumptions (= starting beliefs). Even though they may seem reasonable, they are nevertheless beliefs, so we should look carefully at each of these assumptions in mm, remembering that great humility is in order. We do not have access to infinite knowledge--only God Himself does. The history of science shows that what is deemed certain in one generation may be totally overthrown by new information in the next. A certain story may seem to fit all the known facts. But that turns out to be only because we didn't have access to all the facts--a totally new framework may be found that ties in not only all the previous facts, but the new ones as well. (Throughout recent history, we have frequently seen critics claim that "the Bible is wrong" in one area or the other because of what we were told was "assured knowledge," yet when new evidence came to light, the Bible was shown to be right after all.)
The assumptions that are used in deducing great age from the observation of light from very distant stars are as follows: