Scientific Evidence For Creation!!! Wow!, page 1

Originally posted by the_sentinal
according to this web site there is scientific evidence for creation dispelling the theory of evolution

What do you find convincing? Or is this just being presented as an 'interesting website'?

Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column

This is incredibly wrong. The geologic column was created before Darwin, and by people who were more or less creationists.

having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth

While its rare to find the entire column preserved in a single site, there are, infact, instances of it.

This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils

There are no polystrate fossils, that is, individual fossils that cross multiple era boundaries or that exist in rock formed from sediment thought to have been formed out millions of years.

"[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation

No bible, no biblical creationism. A person not already beleiving the bible isn't going to, on their own, come up with the crazy account in genesis by looking at the fossil record, nor are they going to think that everything was formed all at once.

Thats a bunch of errors/lies in the very first (and, presumably, 'best') arguement that that site has.

IOW, that site is a bunch of crap.

.....other places on this site talk about finding human fossiles in the same layers of earth as dinosaurs

This has not happened. Also, while I agree that it'd wreck the theories about the course of evolution, why would it refute evolution, in a scientific manner? I agree, it'd be stunning enough to really make ya question things in a very different light, but technically it'd be about the pattern of evolution, not that evolution happens.

zaphod
There is evidence that it happens every few thousand years, and we're in the end cycle of the switch now.

FWIW, no one's been able to get a real pattern or cycle out of it, we can't tell when the field will change next, only that we expect it to change. It doesn't 'cycle', it just switches back and forth (so there wouldn't be a 'end of a cycle' anyways).

Just being a jerk about it and nitpicking.

VK
The citations do, in fact, check out on cursory examination

Sure, but most of the citations are from creationists. I think woodmoreapp belongs to one of those groups that requires its members affirm a beleif in creationism in the first place too no? But I may be wrong.

The Sentinel
i dont think that picking just one point out of ten to dissprove his theory is an honest approach

Oky doky.

Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying [...]These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young

The magnetic field flucuates in strenght, as demonstrated by the evidence from ocean floor spreading. It didn't start out as a super strong field that has been slowly decaying over time.

It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood

There is no evidence for a global flood, and if anything the geoglical evidence shows that it didn't happen and the physical evidence shows that its abusrd to even think it coudl've happened.

However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9

This is irrelevant, as human population growth isn't constant through time, and there have been major periods of loss and bottle-necking.

To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

To begin with, the evolution of living organisms through a mechanism of natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the geo-physics of rock formation. Here is a good detail of Gentry's argument, the webpage above doesn't do it justice or represent it properly. There is also a refuation of gentry's arguement there too:
www.talkorigins.org...

such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock

None of these examples have ever been shown to be true, out of place artifacts are very often just artifacts that someone claims to have found in a particular location, never in any verifiable way. As far as man-tracks, in most cases its an example of naive misidentification, and in others, outright fraud, as at paluxy.

At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years

Except that the earth also looses atmospheric helium.

Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

So what? A more likely explanation is that the age is real.

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296

Again, so what? No one is claiming that there was a mass of unbonded atoms that in one step became a fully functioning and advanced cell. Just because something is complex doesn't mean its designed. This, again also, is a poor representation of the ID agrument, IDists don't say that something is complex, therefore its designed. The chances of the individual atoms that make up a wad of spit having that exact formation are astronomically high, its irrelevant.

The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe

Again so what? And the human brain doesn't have an immpossibly complex structure that couldn't have been formed by natural selection, neverminding that there are clear antecedent represenatives of the human brain, showing that a brain can become more complex. This is yet another poor and falicious representation of something like an ID arguement.

So, to conclude, that page is crap. It gets the implications of the data wrong. It gets the veracity of the data completely wrong. It represents scientific theories completely wrong (it doesn't even distinguish between how living organisms change, and how lava cools!). And it doesn't even get the creationists arguments correct!

It doesn't understand nature. It doesn't understand the arguements it is trying to 'refute'. It doesn't even understand the arguments that it thinks support it.

IOW. Crap.

What did you find most convincing from it?