Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural lawsfor example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.
Are you kidding me? Creationism is ALL ABOUT the contradiction of natural laws. God HIMSELF is not bound by natural laws. Your very doctrine is all about how God defies natural laws. This is an incredibly poor argument.
Not to mention the fact that evolution is NOT contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.
There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexitymutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are uphill (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.
There are none known, or you just don't know what they are? They exist.
Mutations are not overwhelmingly degenerative. They are overwhelmingly NEUTRAL. A small percentage are degenerative, and a small percentage are beneficial.
Gene duplication and subsequent mutation, adds new information to the gene pool. This is inescapable for any reasonable definition of "information."
Geologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.
No they aren't. How are igneous rock layers laid down between layers of sediment by the flood? How does the flood sort rock layers by accumulation of radioactive decay--i.e. sequentially more radioactive decay in the rocks the deeper you go?
Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide floodnot slow and gradual processes over billions of years. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.
How are they indicative of a worldwide flood? And how are they NOT indicative of deep time?
A worldwide flood as described in Genesis 68 is within the boundaries of known geophysicssee phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.
No it isn't You've been a bit wish-washy about whether there were mountains before the flood or not.
If there were no mountains, then the flood model is NOT within the boundaries of known geophysics, as rapid mountain growth is not consistent with known geophysics.
If there WERE mountains before the flood, there is no known mechanism to cover the entire earth with water. There is not enough water...and even if there was enough water, there is no known mechanism to flood and recede over the earth.
The flood, most certainly is NOT consistent with KNOWN geophysics. This is a false claim.
There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rockfossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
No it does not rely on circular reasoning. Ther IS a credible technique for dating igneous rock. If you date the igneous rock above a sediment layer to 1 million years, and you date igneous rock below that sediment layer to 2 million years, then you know that the sediment layer must have been deposited SOME TIME between 1 million and 2 million years ago.
See, no circular reasoning.
The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.
Wow. Bold claim. Too bad you can't back it up.
There are no transitional fossils or living formsthere is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for the missing linkironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.
*sigh* Evolutionists don't look for any missing link. We have plenty. Creationists are the ones looking for a missing link, yet they will never describe what this missing link should look like. The reason they don't describe this missing link, is for fear that we give them examples of exactly what they are looking for.
Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.
So?
Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)
So we have some highly preserved specimens, so what? Do you know WHY they have relatively short life spans? Because they decay. Do you know why they decay? Bacteria consume them. So what would happen if the conditions severely limited the access of bacteria to these tissues and blood cells? They'd last longer, right?
Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)
No it hasn't. If you'd like to discuss a particular instance, I can show you exactly why your claim is not true.
Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptionsthe technique is fatally flawedyet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.
Wrong. I have offered to teach you how scientists do not make the assumptions you claim they do...twice...you ignored me both times. I started a new topic, anyway...feel free to drop by...
http://www.christianforums.com/t7804268/
Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earths lithosphere, not slow and gradual processes over billions of years.
Accelerated nuclear decay necessary to account for a young earth would heat the entire planet to sludge that would remain to this day.
Additionally, it would cause so much radiation, that no life could exist on earth.
The creationist organization who set out to prove accelerated decay, the so-called R.A.T.E. team admitted that they could not overcome these problems.
Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
See above.
Additionally, check out my topic on uranium radiohalos:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7803853/
It shows that the nuclear decay HAD to have been consistent over the last couple hundred million years, because if it wasn't then the halos would be different diameters, since the decay rate is inversely related to alpha particle decay energy, which is what determines the halo diameter.
Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.
Creation Science Today - Scientific evidence for creation
And they are ALL flawed, because they don't take into proper account the addition or subtraction of whatever it is they are measuring.
For example, if you use the same methods with aluminum content in the ocean, the earth would be only 100 years old.
Additionally, it is quite amusing that creationists will use these uniformitarian type arguments, and then turn around and claim that we can't know that conditions were the same when arguing against old earth geochronometers.
