Creationism evidence list. -Debunk it yourself!

I came across a list of creationism evidence on a non- english website. The list isn't in english, so I'll just try to translate it. My own quotes are in [ ]. The stupidest ones are bolded:
1. information destroying mutations observed often
2. truly useful mutations basically never observed
3. shrunk organs
4. heriditary diseases
5. natural selection proven [What the hell? I thought this was creationism evidence.]
6. [Can't translate this one]
7. The earth's magnetic field is weakening.
8. fast magnetic field changes in the past have preserved in magnetic rock
9. "extra" C14
10. helium in zirkons [not sure if this is correct translation]
11. lead in zirkons
12. The spin of galaxies "too" fast
13. comets break apart "too" fast
14. continents and sediments exist despite fast erosion
15. sediments in ocean floor "too" thin
16. The salt levels in ocean are "too" low
17. the evolutionist's inability to defend their theory and critisize creationism openly and constructively
18. the creation story in the bible (historically recorded proof)
19. different nationalities have different creation stories
20. Po-halos
21. [can't translate]
22. Recorded history only about 5000 years
23. Haldanen dilemma
24. Pioneer-anomaly (creationist White Hole -cosmology exlains, evolutionist Big Bang cosmology doesn't)
25. dark matter and energy "too" little
26. clusters of bright stars in the center of the galaxy
27. the center is surrounded by a gas cloud
28. very hot x-ray radiating gas in the center
29. moon moving away
30. the complexity of the knee
31. the beauty of a peacock's tail (sexual selection doesn't explain)
32. [can't translate]
33. the second law of thermodynamics
34. Dembski's mathematical proof
35. Laonastes aenigmamus, Neoglyphea neocaledonicaksi, Latimeria chalumnae, etc.
36. the preservation of a mammoth's dna
37. red blood cells found in tyrannosaurus' bones
38. the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune
39. heterophyid trematode -parasite worms
40. Kingston peak -formation
41. Heiko's sun paradox
42. Mercury (quick birth, properties)
43. ATP
44. B-cells
The list itself is here: http://tjt2.tripod.com/evkreatodisteet.html
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
- Login to post comments
Good translating Larty, I'll give you a hand with the tough ones:
lajiutuminen = speciation
osapopulaatioihin = part population
fissiourat = fisson grooves
LOL! DG's field!
proteiinien laskostuminen = Protein folding.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com
Sheesh, a lot of those don't even have anything to do with evolution. I only skimmed it but the one about only 5000 years of recorded history is completely irrelevant to evolution, except that it shows that humans didn't start recording their history until about 5000 years ago.
For the utterly vast majority of these, there is simply no link whatsoever to any possible argument against evolution in any way, shape, or form. In this regard, the worst was:
43. ATP
Really, that's an argument? Not last time I checked. ATP stands for Adenosine Triphosphate, a molecule which uderlies the bulk of the energy carrier system of all of biological life, and is one of the most ubiquitous entities in cellular life. However, try as I might, I cannot see how this:
Constitutes an Argument against evolution.
A great deal of others simply demonstrated ignorance if not being total non sequiturs. The argument from "the second law of thermodynamics" can be refuted by knowing three very simple equation, S=h/T, ∆S(universe)=∆Ssystem+∆S(surrounding), and -∆G=-H+T∆S. Dembski's argument can be refuted by anyone who knows the Shannon equations, the ones that simply list complex structures that the authors express personal incredulity over, like B-cells, are obviously nonsense. The word "C14" itself does not constitute an argument, some of the claims, such as c-decay, are simply lies, and the rest are largely incoherent.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What language is that in?
Its Suomi which they speak in Fnland. Its a very different looking language though isn't it? My wife is from Sweden which has many similarities to Finland.
Thats cute.
http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp
LOL too funny. it's from the retard behe.
It's pretty strange. This was supposed to be proof for creationism. Not proof against evolution. Most of the "proof" here is aimed to debunk evolution and I see very little proof for creationism.
Most of these are pretty puzzling, and I can't comment on. Some are Kent Hovind level retarded.
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Yes but the language is completely different. Finnish isn't even indo-european.
Eloise: are you from Finland?
44 PRATTs so what?
PRATT = points refuted a thousand times.
nah, my neighbour, Erke, is a Fin, great bloke; and plus I love languages, it's my hobby.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com