"Then perhaps you ought to go back and read what I wrote."
Well, first you wrote this:
"Heaven does not equate to sky."
Then you wrote this:
"So in your vast knowledge of such you will be aware that the Bible talks of more than one heaven, the one where God dwells is the abode of spirits, not physical beings, and hence is equally not in a physical place."
Contrary to what you believe, the Bible is a compendium of a lot of different writings by a lot of different people, many of whom contradict each other, but various scriptures focus on the singular heaven and the very word for heaven in various languages corresponds exactly to that of the word for sky, even today. Now, you might argue that this was just a way to "sell" the religion to unbelievers (one of the nice ways, if you consider the catalogue of atrocities performed in the name of the religion), but for many people the correspondence was firmly established. Even today, the notion that God is located "up above" as we hear all the time in badly written popular music lyrics is still reflected in practices of worship and related behaviour.
Still, I'm not really that interested in reading what a bunch of people tens of hundreds of years ago (or somewhat less, given the translations that most people are reading) have to say on various matters related to the structure of the universe given the scientific knowledge actually available at the time but unknown to or ignored by such people, and given what we've learned, thanks to scientific advances, in the last few hundred years.
"You might want to consider that ToE postulates a series of random events resulting in your mind."
And why not? And would it not be interesting to know how the mind works, what the structure is, whether other organisms have similar structure in the brain, how that structure might have come about? Rather than to say that it has been "divinely designed" or whatever under-the-carpet nonsense that "creationism reloaded" might suggest. Would it also not be interesting to understand why people suffer from various disorders in brain function and how those disorders come about? Or would you rather suggest that the otherwise benevolent creator deliberately inflicts such things on people for whatever perverse reason conveniently invented by the clique of believers to project whatever arbitrary and frequently cruel "morality" they subscribe to?
"So demonstrate Evolution. That should help you understand how it happens."
There's a huge body of scientific work constantly documenting evolution. On the other side of the "debate" are people pushing their pretend science, putting on the white lab coat and mimicking their favourite stereotype of actual scientists.
"The fundementalists are the mainstream Christians."
Hardly, unless the Pope's masses are filmed against a green screen.
"As for flaws in Evolution, it has one massive flaw. There is no mechanism by which new information can be introduced to the genome."
This is just the usual quote-mining going on, combined with the classic creationist's misuse of the laws of thermodynamics. Look up MC Hawking if you promise not to get upset by the rude words.
"Errors destroy information and mutations are errors."
Yet another misrepresentation of the science, but then skimming off and misrepresenting the results of other people's hard work is what creationism is all about.
"The only thing that increases information is intelligent input."
Turtles all the way down again, or maybe up into heaven.
"If you really apply science to Evolution you will see that Evolution just cannot happen."
On the basis of what you consider to be science or on the basis of actual science? Yet more material showing why creationists should leave science and the science curriculum to the scientists.