‘Evidence #2′
I would first ask you to define ‘higher-order’ because the term seems entirely ambiguous and liable to misinterpretation, I presume you mean in terms of brain power and intelligence. Consider monkeys, some species use tools like twigs to extract grubs from a log, others are able to identify a dozen or so species of medicinal plants and supplement their diet with them for their appropriate ailment. These abilities stretch beyond simply evolving speed for running or strength for fighting, they are undoubtedly adaptations that stem from the mind. If a species is able to find food when the fruit bearing trees may be barren and if they are able to recover from illnesses faster and so curb the number of weakened animals that are liable to be picked off by predators then the species will be more successful. That is survival of the fittest right there and it is involving the brain. Developing the sort of intelligence that humans possess is simply the next logical step, albeit one that is extraordinarily lucky and timely to gain.

‘Evidence #3′
Firstly matter did not result simply from nothing, it resulted from energy, as for where the energy came from… well religion hardly offers a better view on it simply by saying that some intelligent, omnipotent being created it from nowhere shortly after assumedly creating themselves. I don’t think you have any justification for saying that these things are an impossibility, just because you don’t understand them or because they are not fully understood by our species yet. Just because the how and why of something has yet to be elegantly explored and discovered does not make it simply impossible. Tell someone two hundred years ago that men will land on the moon and you’ll be able to fly anywhere in the world in a matter of hours… would they have thought either of those feats possible?

‘Evidence #4′
To begin with you seem to have a rather condescending take on them believing they used to exist, that is what science does, it formulates an opinion based on what it has at hand, on what is most logical, until someone comes up with something better at a later point when they have more information and tools. This is not something to be ridiculed, it is a more sensible solution to simply presenting something as fact and then never changing or updating it when you have better information to hand, ie. what religion does. As for them being unrevealing, inconsistent and non conclusive, that is merely your uninformed opinion on the matter which you ironically seem to be stating as if fact, when that is precisely what you are having a go at the ‘evolutionists’ for doing.

‘Evidence #5/6′
I’m not sure the source of your ‘facts’ is at all reliable here…

‘Evidence #7′
Can it now? Care to present some reasons why? Simply stating your opinion without a logical explanation or information to support you claim is not ‘evidence.’ Natural selection is easily observable within a social setting, the males of a species fighting or displaying to attract a female. The female chooses the strongest male in order to get the strongest genes and so produce better offspring. Fairly simple concept.

‘Evidence #8′
When you use terms like ‘universal flood’ what exactly do you mean? A quick search on the term would reveal it to be relating to Noah’s Ark and if that is the case, and that is your argument then really your understanding of anything I have said here is going to be minimal at best…

You are seriously suggesting that an entirely inconsistent and illogical story is a better explanation than… evolution, right? Well evolution isn’t the reason for fossilisation, you now seem to have entirely strayed from the original point of your argument. Sedimentary rock is layered because it builds up slowly, it does not evolve, it is simply deposited over the eons by water flow and the like. Animals get buried under it and if the chemistry, pressure, heat etc are just right then they will become fossilised. Therefore older animals will be lower down in the rock through some fairly basic logic but your explanation is a big flood made some mud build up and everything got jumbled around inside it for a bit? Yes, I see your point, that is a far better explanation, tell me: was this before or after the big boat showed up and delivered all the animals to safety? Seriously…

The reason we see an object is because of the light that reflects from it, which is also why we perceive the colour of objects, a red object is reflecting mostly red light. So if the bulb were able to absorb 100% of light then it would only render itself invisible, since no light would reflect from it to our eyes.

However light would still be falling on things around it from elsewhere, assuming there was a source of light that is. In this case invisible does not mean that you would see straight through it, you would see the shape of it on whatever was behind, assuming that it was visible. Basically the bulb would appear as a black silhouette against the wall.

It would only render the room dark if it were able to not simply absorb but actually direct all light towards it. Also at this point I feel I should clarify on Mahesh’s comment further up the page, a black hole is rendered as such because of the gravitational effect, light falls into it and literally can’t escape, so we see no reflection from it. This is a different situation to a material that simply absorbs light. Were it possible to create a bulb that had this gravitational influence on light, such as to direct it towards itself then it would theoretically black out the room. It would of course also effect other things via its gravitational pull and the idea of making some kind of ’selective gravity’ that would only effect light, I am sure, would be quite impossible.

I am guessing here but I also suspect that the direction the photons are travelling in would come into play as well. For example, light travelling towards a black hole is easier to capture than light moving parallel to it, which will bend towards it under its influence but may still escape. In this instance light might not be so efficiently directed towards the hypothetical ‘BlackHoleBulb’ and would instead fall onto surfaces around it and still render them visible.

Now all of that was purely speculative and much of it quite possibly inaccurate but there is a far more practical and potentially realistic solution to this situation. You simply coat the surfaces that you wish to be rendered ‘invisible’ or more appropriately ‘unseen’ in a material that will absorb all light that hits them.

Take for example two objects in a room at night, one is black, one is white. The white one will be much easier to see because it reflects more of the light that hits it, the black object will be much harder to make out because it is absorbing more of the light. Therefore scale the light up to that of daytime and scale up the absorption of the black material with it and the same will be true.

There is an interesting article on such a material here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090630082647.htm

To apply this sort of material to your situation in order to be able to make part of a room dark, like the area surrounding a stage in order to enhance the performance you could possibly have the absorbing material in an on/off state. Obviously this could be a physical switch whereby the material flips round like a panel or quite simply rolls down like a blind. It could potentially be possible to have a more sophisticated electrically activated approach also, so the substance is active when under power, although I don’t know if that would work. Electronic paper uses a charge to activate in this way, so I suppose were the black ‘ink’ replaced with this material it could perhaps work. Or more likely the other way round, the material is the canvas and the ink white.

Also do not forget that if you are absorbing light then the energy needs to go somewhere and so the surface would most likely need to convert the light into electricity and would probably heat up like a black car in the sun does, only far more so. I have a sneaking suspicion that just like how something can never be 100% energy efficient or a metal 100% pure a substance could probably not absorb 100% of the light that hits it.

In any case absorbing 100% of light and creating an ultra black surface isn’t really necessary in terms of human sight since the eyes have limited potential anyway. The difference between 100% absorption over something light 80% would probably only be noticeable by a highly sensitive camera or detector.

Don’t quote me on anything here, as it is more than likely that at least some of this is completely wrong…

Shameer,
Lets assume that “DarkB” absorbs all the light . This phenomena of absorbing light would make “DarkB” invisible (or dark if thats what you want to believe). This WILL NOT make the surrounding areas dark.  If you want total absence of EM radiations, stop the SOURCE of EM radiations. Let me explain you with an example. 

Imagine a square with water taps on the 4 corners.  The water is flowing in all directions. You place a very efficient sponge  in the center of the square to absorb the water. The sponge is so good that it absorbs all the water.  The center would always be dry but most of the square would always be wet. You can make the square dry by stopping the SOURCE.

To start with, Dark is not absence of light. Dark is absorption of light. Dark is not Black. Dark is invisible. Dark(darkness) is always a destination and not a source. Destination of light.