Here are more examples of operational science evidence that fit the creation model and not evolution: conservation of angular momentum and planetary rotation, short-lived comets, missing meteorites in fossil layers, mutations decrease genetic information, Niagara Falls erosion rate and the Sahara desert still expanding.
wollery said:
Eh?????
How the flipping heck do any of those support creationism? 
Well of course he doesn't give the arguments. Because there are no good ones. I've come across some of the bad ones.
The Law of Angular Momentum declares that radial motion as produced in an exploding bomb or the so-called Big Bang explosion cannot change into orbital or circular motion or condense into lumps in space without an outside force. What is the outside force that gave us condensing, spinning planets and revolving galaxies? Physics and chemistry have no answer.
--- Dr Jolly F Griggs, from
www.creationism.org
Chemistry, no. Chemistry wouldn't. That's not what chemists do. When he says that physics has no answer, though, it is clear that this incredibly arrogant, lazy, and ignorant man has never bothered to ask a physicist for an answer, or to look in a textbook on cosmology, or to learn any physics. The answer, let me give you a hint, begins with the letter "G" and is not "God".
Obviously, the Big Bang has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. But people who both deny real science and are ignorant of it (the two go together, of course --- you can't deny science if you know anything about it) constantly pretend that there is a relationship, though they can't explain what it is.
Each time a comet orbits the sun a prodigious amount of mass is lost. Comets are small, averaging perhaps a kilometer in diameter.
They cannot sustain many orbits before they disintegrate and disappear. Short period comets last for about 10,000 years. Multitudes of short-period comets in the heavens are witnesses that the solar system is young.
--- same source
Short period comets can indeed only survive about five hundred passes around the sun. The comet with the shortest period is Enke's comet, with a period of only 3.3 years, from which we deduce that the Universe was created around the fourth century A.D. Or that Enke's comet hasn't always been in the same orbit: you decide.
Mutations (rare and random changes in complex living systems) do not provide new traits to be selected.
--- same source.
A mutation is by definition a new piece of genetic information. Anyone ignorant of what a mutation is should not presume to lecture others on evolution.
I haven't seen the gibble about the Sahara, but I think I can guess --- fundamentalists only have a few basic stupid mistakes to play with. I think this is a re-run of the mistake about the comet. So I'm guessing that the argument goes like this: "If we assume (for no reason) that the Sahara desert has been growing in area at a continous rate since the beginning of the world (which is known by scientists to be false) then we could use it to date the age of the world. In the same way, applying the same reasoning to the height of my niece, I find that the world was created in 1999.
How the slow erosion of Niagra Falls indicates a young earth is entirely beyond me. As I said, an argument which is concealed can't be refuted. Can anyone dig up this argument so we can see where it's rotten?
The "missing meteorites" is a new one on me. He's going to claim that there aren't enough of them given their current rate of deposition, and he will, of course, be wrong. The error will presumably lie in the idea that meteorites are indestructible. Nonetheless, as I say, I haven't seen this one, I'm just guessing. Perhaps you could ask the "Bad Astronomy" chap, he might know.
