Creationism is a viable theory

Con states, "You bring up the DNA argument to stretch it across the young earth creationism model, and to prove to me that evolutionary theory isn’t plausible." I do not understand what Con means by this. I am providing evidence of God as the Creator of a living organisms. I provided the magnetic field decay evidence to support the "young-Earth" position. This is not a god-of-the-gaps argument since by definition such an argument would entail a claim based on what we do not understand, however my argument is entirely based on what we observe and understand about the function of genomes.Con states, "DNA complexity doesn’t relate to trusting the biblical account of creation." Con should have noticed that I never made an argument based on mere complexity, rather my argument was based on the universal information found in specified genetic code which demonstrates its having been created by an intelligent mind. While it is true that this does not prove the veracity of the biblical account of creation, it is however consistent with it which is why I argued from this line of evidence. Con should not argue about "proof" as the only field in which we can have true proof is pure mathematics. Beyond this, the scientific method is the next best evidence for a given claim. But since we are dealing with historical events, we cannot even ultimately rely on the scientific method. The best we can do is provide evidence which is consistent with a model. While evidence may support a model, a model can certainly be invalidated even by a single piece of evidence. Therefore I can certainly never "prove" that the biblical account is 100% true, but I can demonstrate evidence which is consistent with it and which invalidates other hypotheses such as evolution.Con states, "Most biologists agree that this is compelling proof that we all evolved from a single ancestor some 3.9 Billion years ago." Whether most biologists agree on an issue or not is irrelevant to the veracity of any given claim. Indeed homology of any kind is extremely poor evidence of either evolution or creation. One can just as easily and validly say that a common design utilizing common structures demonstrates a common Designer. While it may be consistent with both models, it fails as conclusive evidence.Con states, "You must agree that, thanks to the research on DNA, we have discovered that we are 98% genetically similar to chimpanzees; astonishing proof for evolutionary theory." No I mustn't. The claim of 98% genetic similarity is a gross overestimation based on carefully selected segments of the human and chimp genomes, those which would obviously be similar. When an analysis of the entire genomes is performed, a closer estimate is ~70% continuity (http://www.icr.org...). Con states, "Famously, Stanley Miller showed that way back in 1953. He built an environment and atmosphere like how it would have been 3.9 Billion years ago and then added sparks for lightning, and found that a primordial soup formed – containing all the ingredients and amino acids necessary for life – without a god." Clearly Con has not investigated the findings of Miller and Urrey. Firstly the "early environment" simulated in the experiment is totally arbitrary as their is no way to ultimately know what the atmosphere would have been like. If oxygen were present, amino acids would be oxidized, and yet in very "early" rocks we find evidence of oxygen in the atmosphere (http://geology.gsapubs.org...). Secondly, If there is no O2, then there is no O3, and if there is no O3, then by consequence, there is no ozone layer to guard the amino acids from solar radiation, and despite the common claim that entropy does not pertain to abiogenesis, without a mechanism to utilize the energy coming from the sun, the amino acids would be broken down and you would consequently not get the first living cell. Thirdly, there are huge problems in getting polynucleotides to form; the polymerization problem (http://www.arn.org...). Fourthly, most all enzymes are designed to work only with right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids, yet in lab experiments, a racemate mixture is produced. Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral, this is known as the chirality problem (http://creation.com...). Finally, cross-reactions would be inevitable in realistic, natural settings. These reactions would hinder the production of more complex amino acids (http://creation.com...). Con states, "I’ll say that while neither I nor you can prove exactly how life started, I’m more than confident that I disapprove the rest of Young Earth Creationism. Can you say the same about evolutionary theory?" Con indeed has not disproven in any way young-Earth creationism. He has merely asserted things which I have refuted. Yes, I can disprove the theory of evolution simply by pointing out the lack of a demonstrable mechanism for the creation of novel genetic information conducive to the claim of molecules-to-man evolution (http://creation.com...). Without a viable mechanism for evolutionary change, any interpretations of fossils, homology, etc. in support of evolution are negligible.Con begins his critique of my case for a young Earth based on magnetic field decay by making ad hominem attacks against Dr. Humphreys, the scientist who's research and findings I utilized as my source. While such claims do not negate the veracity of Dr. Humphreys claims, it should be understood that Humphreys model is the only model which is supported by the data and is consistent with current observations. The dynamo models have all failed to demonstrate how the magnetic field can not only sustain itself for billions of years, but actually be recharged via field reversals. Dr. Humphreys demonstrates how field reversals would in fact deplete the magnetic field's energy exponentially as opposed to recharging it. Dr. Humphreys model is based on the known physics of magnetohydrodynamics.Con provides a few quotes which are meant to challenge Humphreys model. While I saw no real challenge, in terms of actual evidence. Tim Thompson makes only one real evidential claim against Humphreys model in saying that the field oscillations during the Flood and the resultant fluctuations are an invented scenario. Indeed Humphreys model is based upon the findings of field reversal data recorded in Earth's rocks and is certainly consistent with known geophysics (https://www.google.com...). As for Joe Meert, he states, "Note that there are no ‘wild fluctuations’ observed in the archeomagnetic database using 500 year averages and that today’s field is actually stronger than it has been in the past." Both Meert and Thompson seem to be quibbling about the observed field data rather than the model itself which is highly supported by known geophysics and which has made bold predictions which have subsequently been supported by observation (http://www.creationresearch.org...). We certainly see evidence of rapid field reversals in the field data of palaeomagnetism(http://creation.com...).