Creationism (con) Evolution (Pro)

Earth's slowing rotation.Not addressed.Lunar recessionOk.....so you just posted the argument again. I gave you a video and links in my sources explained how the arrangement of the continents effected the rotation and recession of the moon. All ignored. Since my response was ignored here is some more refutations of this argumenthttp://www.talkorigins.org...http://www.talkorigins.org... Lunar recession actually disproves Young earth creationismGeologist Ken Eriksson studied these South African rocks and found that they had tidal deposits that showed at one time in the past the moon orbited 25% closer to earth than today [1]. The distance from the earth to the moon is 384,403 kilometers. In order for Ken Erikssons findings to be consistent with YECism the moon would need to be receding at about 15 kilometers a year. Yet its only 3.8 cm a year.if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth,From the how good are those YEC arguments"It may surprise you to learn that Charles Darwin's second son, George Darwin, regarded by many as the father of geophysics, studied the Moon's tidal effects in great detail. He came up with the idea that the Moon broke away from the earth due to rapid rotation (the fission theory), and estimated that at least 56 million years would be required for the Moon to have reached its present distance. George Darwin regarded his view of the Moon's origin as nothing more than a good guess, and he considered his time estimate to be nothing more than a lower limit. In the nineteenth century such a calculation of the earth's age was a reasonable scientific exercise. Today, in the light of what we now know, it's an exercise in futility. Too bad "scientific" creationists don't keep up with these little details. For more insight into the problem"Human growth First, Every living thing doesn't get fossilizedSecond, Population growth would not be constant in history. Depending on the environment, human actions,ect population growth would become faster, slower, wouldn't grow at all or even drop. The quote you gave doesn't dispute this. Since at the end it claims it only measured it from 2 humansThird, The environment can only support so many people. You can only get so much food out of an area of land. This restricts population growth. Forth, accepting that the population increase was 0.5 percent per year as claimed in your original post. Lets start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E.The population after N years is given by P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. [2]The reason why we have a spike in population growth is due primarily to advances in agricultural technology and that extrapolating this growth rate indefinitely into the past is completely unjustified.Ice age Oh yes I remember that part of Genesis, about the ice age,all the volcanic ash,hot water,lava, the blockage of sunlight and the snow. The only way you can get enough water to flood the entire planet would be to melt all of the polar caps and pray for enough rain to leave the atmosphere relatively devoid of any appreciable moisture, a difficult thing to do since the moisture referenced in this article is apparently falling from the sky while it is being returned to the sky. Typical rainfall originates above the immediate ground layer, where moisture from a rainfall can be trapped. The upper atmosphere, where the moisture needs to be in order to circulate on a scale sufficient to bring it back to the poles, is typically left in a much more arid state than before the rainfall. Even the notion that a planet entirely covered with water would result in much more evaporation (and thus the formation of more clouds and rain) cannot explain the fact that the polar regions would need to be relatively warm for the basic premise to be true, meaning that rainfall would be exactly that, and not snowfall. The Bible nowhere refers to an ice age after the Flood. All scientific evidence points to an ice age much longer ago than the Flood.[3] visit here for a article of 101 evidences for a young age earth. i cant post here because of the character limit. I might mention a few later.Please don't. They've been refuted[4] Almost all my arguments and my rebuttals were ignoredVote Pro Sources[1]http://web.archive.org... [2]http://www.talkorigins.org...[3]http://evolutionwiki.org...[4]http://rationalwiki.org...(rebuttal)