Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

To keep matters as brief as I possibly can, I'll just focus on the meat of your comment. 1) This is a creationist claim which is often brought up. Spiral arms can develop whenever and this is vindicated by computer simulations. Source: (. https://books.google.com.au...). 2) We have new comets appearing all the time from the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt - that is why these comets which are appearing are so young, so this creationist claim is rendered frivolous unfortunately. Now whilst it is true we don't have direct observational evidence of the phenomena I would also like to point out that we do not have to directly observe a phenomena to observe its effects or know what takes place. We can use gravitational lensing to detect the effects of dark matter for instance, we haven"t observed Pluto"s entire orbit, we have a large amount of evidence which supprots the current model of the Big Bang theory etc. It also helps that the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belt offer explanations which don't contradict almost every field in science, as Young Earth Creationism does. 3) I"ve heard a similar claim to this before, but you seem to be offering a different take; the most often claim from creationists is that 30 million years is the most amount of time; haven"t heard of this one before, so I"m going to have to ask you to cite this claim. 4) I"m just going to point you to this letter (. http://www2.asa3.org...). This is what I"d like to call an intellectual spanking of astronomical proportions. Glen has done such a good job of this, I don"t even need to offer any further explanation; I can just let the letter speak for itself. 5) This is another creationist claim I've had to refute often unfortunately. Let's look at a journal on the matter to give better information (. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...). It is to be noted that this journal is from 2000 and currently has 629 citations. I'm afraid to say that you're 17 years behind the times on this one. As evidenced by this journal, there is something you are omitting from your argument; that is that the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates. I"m going to quote a piece from the Discussion of this journal (pg. 986) It seems increasingly likely from palaeomagnetic studies that the mantle in"uences the " eld-generation process. Analyses of both sedimentary (Laj et al. 1991; Clement 1991) and volcanic (Love 1998) recordings of the last reversals suggest geographical biasing in the reversal paths of virtual geomagnetic poles (VGPs), an e"ect that would be predicted to be absent in the presence of homogeneous boundary conditions. The interpretation of the data is not incontrovertible however (e. g. Pr"evot & Camps, 1993; Merrill & McFadden 1999). Similarly, when examining the long-term stable magnetic " eld over the last few million years, persistent features can be found in some authors" models (Gubbins & Kelly 1993; Johnson & Constable 1995), although, again, the results are refuted by other authors (McElhinney et al. 1996; Carlut & Courtillot 1998). So there you have it. 6) Did you forget your science classes mate? Strata can bend when put under immense heat and as long as the rock is bent slowly, fracturing is very unlikely. This is high school level stuff, may I ask as to why we"re even discussing this? I would have assumed that this would have been too basic and arbitrary to even bring up. (. http://www.talkorigins.org...) 7) And this is something I"ve never even heard of before. I"ll need a bit more time to actually research this. So you"ve got one point out of 12 which I haven"t heard of before, and just doing very basic searching on this point only brings up fringe Young Earth Creationist sites. Which isn"t a very good sign I might add. 8) No, that"s not how any of this works, and this claim requires extensive knowledge to debunk; which is something I don"t have in physics, chem or geology; I have a fairly rudimentary grasp of these topics, and therefore I"m forced to refer you to 2 YouTubers on this issue: (). That link is a basic summary of the issue and goes over some chem and geology. This link () is a far more in depth talk and is focused on physics. I really do not like referencing YouTube videos for obvious reasons, but these two people are much better at explaining why this is erroneous and they are far, far more competent at science than I ever will be. Therefore, whilst I don"t like the thought of referencing YouTube videos in a debate, I am forced to do so here, and these two are very good at what they do. 9) First thing's first, just because there's a lack of helium in our atmosphere, that does not mean that there is a limited amount in the universe; in fact there's an over-abundance of Helium from the radioactive decay which you are talking about. As for the lack of Helium in the atmosphere I'll have to refer you to this journal (. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...). Essentially, Helium gets ionised and in the process, due to the light weight of Helium is able to escape the atmosphere due to an increase in its velocity. 10-12) I"m combining these, because they"re all the same thing and the refutation is the same. What does the history of men, agriculture or stone age skeletons have to do with anything? Those things are all independent to the age of the Earth. Your point is therefore moot I"m sorry to say. I've also taken the liberty of looking around CRS as it's a site I've never heard of before (and I've heard of quite a number of creationist sites). Unfortunately, it's nothing short of a joke mate. I mean, really? "Human Uniqueness and Accelerated Storytelling: How Conserved Regulatory Regions in the Genome Challenge Evolution" - even the abstract is jaw-droppingly abysmal. The first sentence of that "journal" references Genesis! This is the sort of tosh that is put in a "journal" on that website? I don't even. .. When I was writing up an essay in grade 8 about Bilbies; even that would be more competent than this, because I didn't start off the essay with a completely unrelated reference to Genesis! That's like talking about avida simulation and then prefacing it with a reference to the Rig Veda. Like, just what? ! Why would anyone do that? And judging by the way the abstracts of these "journals" are written on this site, I"d be inclined to guess that the vernacular is used for the rest of the "journals. " Since when is a journal so easy to understand that even a kid in high school would be able to read it? When I was reading a journal called, "Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Cetacea," I was not under the impression that I was reading something that most 14 year olds could understand; rather unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the "journals" on that website. I am legitimately speechless that you actually gave this website as a source and expect this to fly in a debate bro. I'm really am trying not to be rude here, but why on Earth did you source this website?