[shunyadragon]

I thought I would present the more of the issues where 'Creation Science' fails as a science I included in another question. It also relates to the statement by jpapadpapa the 'Creation Science' has 'common sense' on it's side. These concepts do not fit the common sense of science.

(1) The idea of a young earth and a young static universe is contrary to the basics of physics and astronomy. The vast size of the universe and the need of time, for the speed of light, to explain the vast distance between galaxies and stars we can see and we cannot see all of them. The observations of change in the expanding universe, constantly changing galaxies and stars with time, and the big bang are essential to the principles of modern physics began with Einsteins theory of relativity. If 'Creation Science' sticks to this view than physics, chemistry and astronomy are based on faith and not sciences either. The static universe cannot explain things like the red shift of light of stars and the supernovas we observe taking place.

(2) The flood. One of the key anchors (or lode stone around their neck) of the arguement that the bible is a literal history. There is no evidence in the Geologic record of a world flood. There is significant evidence to local and regional catastrophic flooding events, but never involving the world. Instead there is overwhelming evidence of continuous cyclic deposites of different kinds of rocks extending millions of years in the past all over te world. There are limestone formations hundreds of feet thick with associated coral reefs that can only be deposited very slowly over a very very long time in warm tropical and subtropical environments. The cyclic deposites include sandstone, shale limestone and coal and show evidence of vast river systems in each layer. One of the best examples of these cyclic layers is the coal region of appalachia where I worked as a geologist.

The common sense of not enough water for a world flood, Arc not sufficient to the task, or the nature of what happens in a world flood.

(3) The short history view cannot explain sea floor spreading we observe now and the continuous evidence that his sea floor has been spreading for millions of years in a neat concise and continuous record without a pause or break under all the oceans of the world. The movement of this ocean crust over the Hawaii hot spot shows a continuous pattern of islands and the slow progressive erosion of each island into the oldest which are seamounts below the surface of the sea. The hot spot is now off the east side of the biggest island showing the continuing movement of the ocean crust west. A new island is beginning to form to the east.

Nothing in the logic or the common sense of 'Creation Science' can come close to explaning this.

There is not any evidence or basis for these concepts in modern science, in fact they run contrary to the basic nature of all science.