You base this on what?
"What exactly is the creationist position then"
There are two more-or-less cores to the creationist position:
(1) Multiple roots to the phylogenic tree (a polyphyletic tree instead of a monophyletic tree)
(2) A massive flood wiped out most life several thousand years ago
A summary of some of the points of evidence is here.
(2) A massive flood wiped out most life several thousand years ago
A summary of some of the points of evidence is here.
Your link leads to this statement (among others):
The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me not to conclude that these events must be one and the same.How does this statement reconcile archaeological sites in the western US which have pretty much continuous occupation during the 4,000-5,000 years ago time period during which most sources claim the flood occurred?
No time for flood and recovery, with global migration of plants, animals, and people. No evidence in DNA of descent from only eight individuals.
Some direct quotes from your source:
For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then on the order of 20100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest forms of life.
Statisticians, physicists, etc. have been pointing out and explaining constantly that you can't apply statistics retroactively like this, and biologists have been pointing out and explaining constantly that chemical processes are not equivalent to random assembly. Apparently, when a scientist tried to point out these tried and true annoying facts again (which creationists love to ignore), the response of the writer is
Why could this physicist not grasp such trivial logic? I strongly believe it was because of his tenacious commitment to atheism that he was willing to be dishonest in his science.
Better get some better sources than the Institute for Creation Research if you want to get an understanding of how science works - these people clearly have no idea what they're talking about.