Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

Thanks for your response. I'll reply though it looks as if my opponent is dropping out. 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast Since I am not an expert, I relied on the expert testimony of Dr. Humphreys, who is qualified. His 1972 Ph.D. in physics was awarded with a dissertation on cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon"nucleon interactions. Most of his career was with the U.S. Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. His long-time interest in creationism has led to many publications. His cv is online at http://creation.com.... The term "evolutionist" applies to those who promote cosmic evolution as well as those who promote an evolutionary paradigm in other sciences. 2. Comets disintegrate too quickly 3. Not enough mud on the sea floor 4. Not enough sodium in the sea 5. The earth"s magnetic field is decaying too fast 6. Many strata are too tightly bent 7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages" 8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years 9. Helium in the wrong places 10. Not enough stone age skeletons 11. Agriculture is too recent 12. History is too short There was no response concerning these 11 examples of evidence for creationism. I would like to add one more piece of evidence: the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State on May 18, 1980. Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity to study transient geologic processes which produced, within a few months, changes which geologists might otherwise assume required many thousands of years. (Steven A. Austin, Ph.D., Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism, http://www.icr.org...). This is a key point of creationism: that much evidence has been mis-interpreted and needs to be re-evaluated in light of knowledge from historical sources of catastrophic events. Dr. Steven A. Austin is a field research geologist with a Ph.D. from Penn State University in sedimentary geology. There are many other creation scientists, fully credentialed and experienced in their fields. Here is a list with links for further information: http://creation.com.... Since the response brought up Linnaeus' Systema Naturae, let me say something about the history of science here. Carolus Linnaeus (1707"1778) introduced the Linnaean taxonomy, which is the basis for the biological taxonomy still used today. In that sense his work is not out of date. Linnaeus was looking to classify organisms into different kinds, as he was convinced on biblical and observational grounds that organisms differ in kind. However, many of the species (Latin for kinds) that he described were different in degree but not in kind, as he realised later in life. This led biologists to a search for a way to separate organisms by degree and kind. But this effort was set aside after Charles Darwin argued that organisms were only different in degree, not in kind. Creationists in the 20th century picked up the search for different kinds of organisms. Regarding the "scientific consensus": the best response is by author Michael Crichton who gave the Caltech Michelin Lecture on January 17, 2003 (available here: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...). Two quotes: "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." "Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." Creationists do challenge those who think science is settled. All those whose minds are not closed should consider the claims of creationists seriously.