17 Evidences Against Evolution - refuted!

At:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm#17
Kevin Martin lists "17 Evidences Against Evolution" - note evidences,
not proofs.  There's a difference, even if Duck & Run is completely
clueless as to what it is.

The sad thing is that the writer hasn't been to Answers in Genesis
lately, which site actually disowns a good many of these:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

I'll Identify these as I go.  My guess is that the rest of them are
refuted at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
I'll identify these as I go.  If there are any which are missed by
either site (and I'll be amazed if t.o. hasn't got all of them
nailed), I'll address those directly.

1. MOON DUST
Disowned at AiG and refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

2. MAGNETIC FIELD
refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html


3. FOSSIL RECORD
Disowned at AiG and refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html
and here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
Addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html

5. PROBABILITY
6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Both addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html

8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
addressed at AiG and here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html

9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
Addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201_1.html
and here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html

10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

11. DATING METHODS
Addressed here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page

12. DINOSAURS
addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_1.html

13. SUN'S DIAMETER
Addressed at AiG and here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html


14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
I've never come across this one before and believe it or not, t.o.
doesn't have a FAQ on it that I could find.

However, let's look at it: "Measurements of the sediment deposited as
a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an
earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal
overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical
account."

This is of the same nature as the Mississippi deposition or of the
Niagara Falls "retreat".  It assumes that the relevant rivers have
been in existence for Earth's entire existence - clearly nonsense
unless you a priori assume that the Earth is indeed 6,000 years old as
the Bible claims.

But look at his age as compared with those of other creationists.  Is
Earth 6,000 years old as a literal reading of the Bible suggests?  Is
it 10,000?  Is it 30,000?  When the creationists can actually agree on
a number *and* provide a solid, scientific foundation for it, then
we'll take it seriously!

15. EARTH'S ROTATION
Addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

16. WRITTEN RECORD
Are they serious about this one?
"The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists thirty-seven
ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no
earlier than 7000 B.C."

It's beneath contempt.  And why should we trust ancient civilizations
over the best modern science?

17. THE BIBLE
This one is absolutely beneath contempt.

Budikka