These "observable results" make many invalid assumptions. One of them being uniformity.
I've long tried to figure out why creationists keep accusing scientists of "uniformity". Science does *not* presume "uniformity" in the way that creationists mean it, and haven't for well over 100 years. Geologists, for example, are well aware of such non-uniform occurrences as floods, earthquakes, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, and so on. True "uniformitarians" haven't existed for ages. Science assumes that the basic conditions found on earth have always been the same. That is what I am referring to. These conditions affect the decay rate of C14, the age of species, all sorts of things.
Another biggy is that the geological column is correct.
Are you somehow asserting that it's *not* "correct"? That the geologic column doesn't actually exist or something? Or that it's somehow a fake? If so, who piled up all those rock layers to fool us? Oh no. I agree there are millions of dead things piled up in rock layers. However, where the column is incorrect is in the ages that it assigns to the forming of these strata. It assumes millions of years between layers. This is where it is incorrect, as well as in missing layers where there shouldn't be, objects from one age found in another, etc.,
These "branches of knowledge" invalidate themselves in many cases
Examples, please. Punctuate equillibrium, Catastrophism, and evolution over millions and billions of years via natural selection. Scientists observe features that one or the other of the evolutionary theories does not explain, so they come up with something like Panspermia or the like to explain what evolution can't explain.
and "scientists" go back to the drawing board to try to come up with a better theory that will explain the impossible.
Which "impossible" things do you think scientists are trying to explain? I know a few who are trying to explain impossible things like vapor canopies and global floods, but they're hardly representative... How something can come out of nothing. How impersonal matter can form personal beings. How one kind of life can become something completely different. How irreducably complex life can spring forth from cooling magma. How that "missing link" that everyone keeps looking for found a wife to mate with (some partial ape had to mate with a human at some point in time according to evolution, unless everyone just "Evolved" at once).
Evolution says in the beginning nothing exploded.
Um, no, it doesn't. Would you kindly tell us where you "learned" this? From the big bang theory. It is usually put forth in two forms, either there was NOTHING, or there was matter which they "scientifically" proclaim always existed. I could go on an endless string of "where did that come from" with any evolutionist and eventually we are going to get to a theory where the evolutionist is accepting by faith that something came from nothing.
You sort of left out a few steps...Consider it the Reader's Digest condensed version of the big bang.
( a figure that crawfishes all the time),
"All the time", eh? Please inform us of the last time the accepted age of the Earth was modified by over 10%.
I was discussing the big bang, not earth age. The age for the universe has varied considerably over recent years. Ages older than 4.6 billion are discarded because they don't meet with "conventional wisdom.
Of course, there are many many evidences of a young earth. To give you one such evidence, consider human population increase. The population of the earth is said to double roughly every 35 years or so. If you extrapolate backwards the number of years that evolutionists claim for human evolution, then you have an impossibly overcrowded earth. If you extrapolate back to where young-earth creationists place the flood, you have a very believable figure. That is just ONE argument for a young earth. Other young earth evidence can be found
here and elsewhere.
and whalah- one day, we had man- all by chance, all contrary to the rules of reason.
Evolution is not "chance". Again, you might want to learn more about it before you attempt to dispute it. Baloney! Unless you are theistic evolutionist, which has major problems in itself, you believe that all are here by chance! You have not proved otherwise.
Evolution NEVER states that "chance" is the driving force.
YOU need to learn a bit about evolution before you go critiquing it, because your ingorance of the basic theory is absolutely astounding.
And your YEC evidence has been refuted so many thousands of times on this board that I will actually be amazed if Ichneumon takes the time to respond to such things.