Debut Rant - Creationism

I thought I'd start with a classic rant about creationism. Although an old rant, creationism, ahem, Intelligent Design has been receiving some publicity of late. I found this creationism site created by a Dr Richard Kent. Although Dr Kent is a medical doctor, allegedly, he is not a real doctor, particularly in the field of science. Dr Kent has chosen to list flawed arguments in order to convince us why a collection of mainly Judeo-Christian myths is the best source of explaining ours and the Earth's existence.

Now normally I would expect this sort of thing from the States (red) or even parts of our beloved Oz (namely, QLD), though it does pain me to admit it. It's a shame to see this lunacy in the UK. Dr Kent's arguments are mainly of the form: name a random piece of fact/fiction, draw erroneous conclusion, ergo Bible is right. Let's look at a few examples:

The Great Barrier Reef, Australia

is 4,200 years old.

This is consistent with a flood 4,400 years ago, as the Bible says.

Um, NO, Dr Kent. There are parts of the Great Barrier Reef up to 60, 000 years old.

Magnetic field of the Earth

The Earth's Magnetic field is getting weaker. This means that:

	The Earth cannot be millions of years old.
	Carbon dating does not work.

I've never read anything ever suggesting that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening although it is changing orientation, which it has done so for millennia. Scientists don't use the Carbon dating to measure the Earth's age. Strangely enough, they only use Carbon dating to measure the age of things which contain Carbon i.e. organic matter like plants and animals.

Space Dust

	If the Universe is billions of years old, there should not be any space dust.
	In 1955, scientists predicted that Moon dust might be several miles deep.
	Huge landing pads were put on the spacecraft for the moon landing so that it would not sink into the dust.
	In fact it was found that the dust on the Moon was about ½ inch deep only, suggesting a young Moon.
	Dust actually gathers at the rate of 2.7 inches per million years.

So by your calculations, the moon is 135 000 years old. But you're saying the Universe is only 6000 years old. Hmm, should've done the maths Dr Kent.

The remaining arguments consist largely of quotes from lunatic scientistis such as Fred Hoyle and blatant misunderstandings of phyiscal principles and laws such as the butchering of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I just realised, Dr Kent acknowledges my old mate, Kent Hovind (he calls himself a "doctor" too but he's lost all proof of ever receiving a doctorate). I can't believe this guy receives air-time in the States.