Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

Thanks for the response. I'll use more of Dr. Humphreys' article in this response. 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for over fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. 2. Comets disintegrate too quickly Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. There has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists" problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. 3. Not enough mud on the sea floor Since you asked, here are Dr. Humphreys' references: Gordeyev, V. V. et al., "The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world"s rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams," Dockl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980) 150. Hay, W. W., et al., "Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction," Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 (10 December 1988) 14,933-14,940. Maybeck, M., "Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans," Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215. Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, "Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979) 767. Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, "The sea"s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists," in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991). 4. Not enough sodium in the sea The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean. 5. The earth"s magnetic field is decaying too fast Your quotation didn't come through very well. Regarding fluctuations: reversals and fluctuations of the earth's magnetic field would not have halted the loss of energy. Using data from the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) Dr. Humphreys showed that from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of the field steadily lost 235"5 billion megajoules of energy, while the non-dipole part gained only 129"8 billion megajoules. 6. Many strata are too tightly bent Since these formations were deeply buried and solidified for (allegedly) hundreds of millions of years before they were bent, the likelihood of hairpin bending without cracking is low. Science works with probability, not against it. 7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages" This was uncontested. 8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years I agree this is a complex matter that doesn't fit well in a short debate by non-experts, so as you have, I'll give references. From Humphreys: Gentry, R. V., "Radioactive halos," Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) 347-362. Gentry, R. V. et al., "Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification," Science 194 (15 Oct. 1976) 315-318. Gentry, R. V., "Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective," Science 184 (5 Apr. 1974) 62-66. Additional reference: Snelling, A.A., Radiohalos in granites: evidence for accelerated nuclear decay, in: Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005. pp. 101"207. 9. Helium in the wrong places A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years. (Gentry, R. V. et al., "Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management," Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (Oct. 1982) 1129-1130) 10. Not enough stone age skeletons 11. Agriculture is too recent 12. History is too short These were uncontested. The debate question is about evidence for creationism, which asserts that the earth and the life on it were recently created. So these are relevant points. The Creation Research Society (CRS) is the oldest of several groups of creation scientists around the world. As with all creationists, they do not receive government or state university funding, but their work is done by credentialed researchers as part of an international effort to develop the creation paradigm. Creationists build their case on a wide array of evidence. The case for creationism begins with ancient records of the human beings who were far closer to the beginning that we are. Science does not work in a cultural vacuum. It is incumbent on scientists to be aware of all sources of knowledge.