Arguing with the ostriches

Arguing with Creationist, is actually one of my passions, it has been for years. I was asked yesterday to refute their vacuous arguments about why Evolution does not work and is a lie.  The problem is that if I present a good argument they won't listen to it.  The good part is that they can't rely on proof, because their arguments are not based in science, but in word play and dogma, so I don't need to provide proof either, just good arguments.  Still it is a little frustrating because when I set to create a counter argument to their assertions, I asked them to prove their God and they refused.  So the entire argument is just a bit of mental masterbation for me.  I love to masterbate though so here goes.  All my arguments are start with a dash, — .

—first comes the meaningless preamble about how this is something that The Man doesn't want you to know and as such it is about to be deleted, so read quick, because The Man is trying to kill the truth.

 scoffers will immediately dismiss the source, but some who would like to discuss this would maybe like to dispute the information presented. If the source is absolute bunk then the brilliant minds here should be able to dismiss these 'theories' outright no? 

I would like to do it this way if you don't mind, Pick a number and then discuss only that number in your reply. Please title each of your responses with the number so readers can follow. 

I will post mine first.........as a reply to another thread with BH. It was brought up that evolution is only theory but supported by Science and that no Creation can be supported as such....so lets see. 

Please lets keep it civil, (ME INCLUDED) 

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates. 

— except he did not say a little stronger. He said more adapted to the present environment.  Environments change, the most adaptable is therefore most likely to survive.  Survival of the fittest, not strongest, not larger, nor faster. Example a faster deer on an island with no predators is not the most fit deer.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong 

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small. 

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. (note the set up like in a joke) One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment.  

—Automatic assumption that the wing developed for flight, also that it started as a stub, which is extremely unlikely.  This is called a Straw Man Argument, because they are asserting a preposterous argument that is easy to make fun of and can easily be explained as incorrect.

The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless?

—See, it is preposterous to think a half wing that goes out to an elbow only.  Of course if we were to chose a different, more plausible mechanism to get a wing then that would be different.  How many animals are there with only two limbs?  I can't think of one.  How many have two sets of limbs?  I can think of hundreds.  When you look at the bones of a bird wing you see all the bones that you can see in a human arm, or a turtle's arm, so it is easier to say that the animal that is the bird's ancestor had four fully formed limbs.

 The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. 

— watch the lie:

According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. 

— there two misleading statements about evolutionary theory.  Let someone that does not believe in a theory show the proof of the theory and you will get a whole lot of false statements.  Natural selection is a process which the most successfully adapted organism passes its genes on to the next generation more often than less successfully adapted animals.  Natural selection does not place any judgement on the animals or their adaptions.

Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense. 

—Wow, what a silly a little argument, this statement flows form the idea that animals can direct their changes, which they can't, but the write knows this too.  They also know that is is a false statement.  

— Here is a more likely pathway for the development of wings.  I think I will use living animals as an example of parallel evolution, that means evolving to do the same thing as another animal but in a different way.  There was once a rodent that lived in a tree called 'the archetypical rodent'.  We could more specifically call it the ancestor of all tree living rodents.  These rodents spent most of their time in upper branches of trees, because the 'proto cat' could catch and eat them on the ground and on branches that it could climb.  In the dense forest this rodent could jump between branches of neighbouring trees, but in the park lands (refers to lands that have trees dispersed through the landscape) and where there were large spaces between trees, the rodent had to climb down and run to the next tree and hope it did not get eaten on the way.  Some rodents tried leaping between the trees, it was a faster, safer option.  The rodents that were the best jumpers contributed to the next generation more often than poor jumpers.  Poor jumpers became lunch.  After several thousand generations the good jumpers dominated the forest, but there was still a lot of variation, some had powerful muscles that allowed them to jump harder and others were lighter and needed less thrust to go further.  Some had a weird mutation that gave them loose skin that slowed their descent by just a little bit and meant they could jump a little bit further.  The bigger rodents could not get to the end of the thin branches, but the thick branches were easy, afternoon millions of years and generations you might call them Black Squirrels or something like that.  The smaller lighter rodents might after the same amount of time become Red Squirrels or something like that.  The rodents with the skin could not compete successfully in the thick forest with the other rodents, but where the trees were farther apart they had a slight advantage.  There was still a lot of variation in these rodents.  Sometimes the skin flap disappeared and some times it was bigger.  The ones with the bigger skin flap jumped and opened their arms and became like a parachute and drifted further, the ones that had shorter fur on their flaps were more aerodynamic than the heavy furred rodents and could actually start to glide and could jump much farther than the others.  After several thousand generations the mutations began to add up, some were not suited for the rodents to live and others helped them live and jump further and further.  Some where in this there was a divergence and one of the animals continued to evolve into better gliders and these rodents became after millions of years, Flying Squirrels, or something like that.  Quite similar to the Flying Snake and the Flying Frog, all of which don't fly but glide.  The other divergence after millions of mutations which involved the elongation of the rodent's hands and the skin flap therein to expand, the flap to thin, stronger pectoral muscles, the bones to thin, and the hair to thin on the skin flaps.  After millions of generations of mutations we might something that could fly, but without feathers, something like a bat.

— evolution is about incremental changes, some of which work, some of which don't and most of them don't matter one bit.  The combination of traits that survives to the next generation is determined by the environmental pressures at the time.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong 

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution.

— scientist do not claim this, they claim common origin.  The number of extant species is more dependent on the number of habitats and time after the most recent extinction period.  A diverse number of habitats and time to fill them.

 This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. 

—Yes, your statement was devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof, because you made it; scientists did not.

Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture.

— the above paragraph is using the word petrified as a synonym for fossil; they are very different.  Fossils are made when bones are immersed in water and covered with sediment right away.  The bone material is replaced with minerals and there is not biological material left and it happens quite quickly. Petrified things are turned to stone rather slowly and the entire body is preserved.  It is an important distinction.

—Humans are Great Apes.  They share many of the traits of apes.  They have no tail just like Chimpanzees and their cousins Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangoutangs and a few others.  They are different from monkeys as monkeys all have tails.  There are many other similarities and differences between Apes and Monkeys, just like there are many differences and similarities between cats and dogs.  

—The idea that there is an agenda and that there is a conspiracy, is the antithesis of Science, which is an incremental study of the natural world to learn about how it works.  It is more like a small community of ideas, where each group is trying to show that their best idea fits the evidence in the world, but it is competing with other groups that have other ideas that counter them.  It is only when the ideas are refined to to the point that the opposing sides agree that the argument is accepted, whereas the above suggests that it is a faceless monolith that sets down what is, because it says so, but then what can you expect from someone whose set of beliefs is derived from a similar monolith?

— the above argument is partially correct, in that the scientists look at all the fossils that they have, they then line them up, if you can call a tree a line, based on how the bones show changes and also based on radio metric dating.  Btw, this is rarely Carbon 14 dating, because C14 dating is only accurate to a little over a hundred thousand years and some of the specimens are millions of years old.

 This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. 

— not true, a few of the camps in the community of scientists are very interested in elephants, some in giraffes, cats, dogs, penguins, birds and a whole lot in Dinosaurs.  Actually more people are interested in dinosaurs than anything else.  The text books center on humans, because that is us, and we humans are interested in where we come from, oh and we are interested in dinosaurs too, that is why there is a big focus on human fossils, but even more focus on dinosaurs.

These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution. 

— but putting a group of fossils together that shows incremental changes through time does.  Showing how snake fossils from millions of years ago had more leg bones than they do now, why does a snake have a pelvis anyways when it has no legs?  Here is another idea, what if you got a bunch of different scientists to group all the animals alive based on how their disciplines would group them, most recently by DNA sequencing differences and how come all the different disciplines closely match each others orders?

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong 

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. 

— yes they did, but a century ago scientist thought manned winged flight was out of their reach.

The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell.

— no they didn't!  This theory is call abiogenesis, it is not evolution; it is a different theory altogether.  Also, the above is not what abiogenesis theorizes either.  The science experiments, there were two different ones, placed a solution of nitrogen, carbon, sulfur and a few other elements together in saline solution.  The first set of experiments got a electric shock and the second set were frozen and put into deep freeze for fifty years.  Both experiments resulted in amino acids forming, the building blocks of life.  From amino acids to protein chains to a living cell is literally billions of years off.  Lots of time.

 The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. 

—wow, that is amazing!  So in the time that it took you to write that line you expect higher life forms?  Amazing.  The period of heavy  bombardment, also known as the Archeon Era, lasted approximately 500-700 million years, the Cambrian Explosion happened about 540 million years ago all subtracted from the age of the Earth, 4.5 billion years, gives us about 3 billion years to get from amino acids to a complex cell.  I suggest, that we don't expect scientist to to the same overnight.  Amino acids are left handed, not proteins, the proteins are made of left handed amino acids.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong 

— this paragraph is poorly written and is confusing because of it.  And thus, since it isn't saying anything concrete, it can't be disproved, because once it is disproved the meaning can be changed.

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. 

— this is a lesson on sex cells.  Although interesting new research I have heard that the last point might not be true.  New ovas can be made in the ovaries after birth.  Interesting fact though, the above statement is false, call me pedantic, but the Y chromosome makes male babies in mammals and the X chromosome makes females in mammals.  I say that because it is not true for all animals.  To be clear, the egg always has an X chromosome and a sperm has either a X or a Y and the zygote (fertilized egg) has either XX, female, or XY, male.  Again only for mammals.  There are some fish that are all female and one changes to male to reproduce.  Some ants, females are diploid (as are mammals) and males are haploid (half the chromosomes).

Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring.

— so for example, a large dose of radiation, which is an environmental factor can't change the chromosome in the egg?  What about a stray neutrino, which can sometimes pass through a mile of lead with out interacting with it, but could interact with a chromosome in an egg, if it were to defy the odds and hit it?  X-rays?  Gamma rays? Toxins?  Other than these I think you are correct, but what about the Male Gametes?

 Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons. 

—What part of evolutionary theory says that animals can make changes in their DNA?  None.  Your argument is sunk. And of course females are part of Evolution are you nuts?  Females bear the children, they select the mates, they select from all the genes out there get into the next generation.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong 

 — really? So cancer, which is a replication error cannot occur.  Interesting.

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. 

— this claim is patently false.  There is no error checking just like if you have two copies of an exam locked away in a vault and one gets changed, how will you know which essay is the correct one?  If there was error checking then every human would be the same, the same height, the same hair colour the same everything, because differences would be deleted.  Since that is not the case, you must be wrong.  Need I bring up cancer again? What about moles and the rest?

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong 

—if this statement proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, then why is it number 6?  Not the only one?

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos.

— I love it when people are stupid enough to misquote something that can be checked (please count the number of times the word "isolated" is used) : Second law of thermodynamics: An isolated physical system, if not already in its own internal state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. In an isolated physical system, there is a tendency towards spatial homogeneity. In particular, when an isolated physical system reaches its own internal state of thermodynamic equilibrium, its temperature is spatially uniform. When work is done on or by a thermodynamic system, a certain amount of that energy is lost to inefficiency, related to the difference between the energy level of the input and the output. This loss is described by the notion of entropy, which is often used to express the law. Some of the loss is due to friction when work is done, and some of it may be due to the relaxation of the system towards spatial homogeneity. The law says that these two mechanisms occur always and inevitably. The law implies that perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

— so in other words chaos becomes uniform.  Isolated systems cool over time, isolated systems can not heat up from a cool state.  The universe is cooling.  The earth is cooling, unless something is added to the earth, which would mean it is not an isolated system.

 Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory. 

— I counted "isolated" three times in the definition.  Secondly, thermodynamics, is about energy and the efficiency there of.  The sun shines on a plant, the plant collects some of the energy and some of it creates heat and some makes sugar.  The cow eats the grass and takes the energy stored therein, but some of the energy is stored at fat, but most of it is bleed off as heat.  The human eats the cow and gets energy, but must of it is bled off as heat.  Therefore someone was quoting a proof that they knew nothing about and should just go home.

— the laws of thermodynamics are about Physics, not Biology, and thus does not apply to it.  Your arguments are grasping at straws.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong 

— I am know going to decree that all gods are Hot Pink.  If your god is not Hot Pink, then it does not exist.  

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. 

— true, but this is not the only reason, what's more it is not proof that evolution is false.

Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. 

—why?  What if an isolated population suffered a severing of a chromosome, would that really affect the fertility of the individual? Or the group?  More of a problem would be if the genes did not pair up correctly, if a height gene was mismatched with a hair colour gene, that would be bad, but if the genes could still be matched, it would not matter. The problem with having monkey human sex is that the genes are mismatched and potential progeny would be aborted.  Horses are different species than donkeys, they have a different number of chromosomes, 64 and 62 respectfully, and yet mules are born from them.

If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom. 

—this argument proves that creationist going to a bible college receive less knowledge and wisdom than those that attend a secular school.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong 

—This is cosmology.  Who wrote this argument?  Kent Hovind?

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. 

— Cosmology and Evolution are not related.  Totally different disciplines.  Lucky for you I know cosmology too.  Stars create matter.  Hydrogen is fused together in the triple alpha reaction to produce Helium and energy.  The Helium and Hydrogen later fuse to make Lithium and so on until carbon and oxygen are attained.  Denser stars than our own create denser materials, and when they explode they create very dense metals.  Type 1a supernovas are special, because they blow up completely.  Our solar system is a fourth or fifth generation star meaning we have a lot of heavy minerals.

— the best you can hope for is a stalemate with the argument about where the Big Bang came from, countered by where did god come from, but neither invalidates Evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong 

—really?

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

— walk outside, walk down the street.  There you have just explored about as much of Mars as the robots have in ten years.  The signs of flowing water on the surface were seen by a satellite and not the rovers.  The rovers are not equipped with anything that could do the slightest bit of xeno-archaeology.  Fourth, if life on Mars started at the same time as it did on Earth, then right around the Cambrian Explosion, Mars' core solidified and it lost its magnetic field and atmosphere, so, you want proof from a couple of robots that have taken a walk down the street twice, looking for fossils of single celled organisms with no appropriate tools.  Really?

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong 

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone. 

— go look up the Drake Equation.  Also look up the inverse square law: the further from an energy source you go, the less of that energy you can discern, equal to the inverse of the square.  For example, if we went closer to the Sun, say half way, we would not get twice the light, but we would be getting two squared as much light, or four times.  If we went twice as far from the sun we would not get half the light, we would get a quarter the light.  To our closest celestial neighbours, the sun is barely visible.

— If we had a radio telescope the size of the moon, we would have a chance to pick up a radio signal from Alpha Centauri, assuming there was something to listen to and they had not quickly switched to cable transmission, like we in North America have just done.  If life is further away it is even less likely.  Twice as far means a quarter the chance to pick it up.  And then our telescope would have to be pointing the right direction.

Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Evolution is False and Impossible 

— so then after definitively proving that evolution is wrong he? She? Tries to add to the discussion with a number 12, skipping 11.  Must mean he repost this argument and number eleven was too laughable even to them.

Now as a side note, I would like to present this article for discussion also, lets call it # 12 shall we? This one I need to look into as I do not quite follow this as I should even though I took Introductory Geology. I am really having trouble with any scientific explanation for this one. 

— excellent, they took an introductory course in Geology and this makes him an expert.  Next time you take a course in one of the sciences, try listening and stop talking to your buddies and saying the teacher is teaching garbage…. Okay that is not fair, but maybe you should have asked your teacher a question or two.

I know I posted more than I should but most will not follow the link, maybe this way they will actually READ it before responding. 

— really, you are telling your audience that they should not trust you because you are withholding information, just like you were accusing scientists above.

Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead 

—finally!

A story about two friends from day one. 

— why is this written like a parable, like a story out of the bible?  Can't you present your facts strait up?  

Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars. 

— right a family of radioactive isotopes.  Uranium decays into into one element which decays into another, which decays into another and so on until it decays into a stable element.  For Uranium238 there are thirteen steps before it decays into a stable element, Lead206.  Some stages decay faster than others, radon222 has a half life of 3.8 days, Uranium238 4.5 billion years.

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed. 

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact. 

—Actually it is very important to realize that this is not the case, because it has such a short half life, it must come from within this chain.  A leads to B which leads to C, —D—E, … until it stops.  

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong. 

— really, once upon a time?  It is very unique but common, unique and common are opposites.  Yes, you have described granite very well but you are about to put your foot in your mouth, I have this feeling.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact. 

— yup, you just did it.  Scientists know how to create granite, but have no reason to create it because it is so plentiful, as you point out, it being unique and common.  This is the recipe to create granite take one large vat of molten granite rock and heat the vat so that it cools very very slowly, one degree every year until it solidifies in the center of the vat.  Rock crystals form when rock is cooled very slowly as it would if there were a lava lake under ground.  The slower the cooling, the larger the crystals.  If you whip up some molten granite and cool it quickly the crystals are microscopic.  I live near a batholith, basically a lava lake that formed near two billion years ago under the ground and cooled over many centuries.  The crystals are big and the granite is prized form the quarry there.  Name a scientist that is going to wait centuries for their granite to cool, name anyone who would do that?

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory. 

— I prefer, igneous to Creation rock.  There are granite formations that are four billion years old and there are granite formations a few million years old.  Evolutionary theory does not enter into it.  Evolution is about life, granite is geology.  But I agree, you can't have fossils in granite.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent. 

— here we go again.  Evolution does not explain rocks, it only explains living creatures, rocks are not living creatures, ergo….  Granite is the base bedrock of much of the continents, an oversimplification to be sure, but granite does not exist under the oceans.  Magma needs to cool slowly for granite to form, oceans tend to cool magma down much faster, the bedrock under oceans is therefore basalt.

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere. 

— oh, I get it.  This line of reasoning is to prove that God creates the world as it is instantly and all the polonium218 in the earth decayed and created these halos in the rock all at the same time, on the second day I think.  They are suggesting that because polonium218 halos don't occur near other Radio-halos, that they must have been created in place because granite NEVER has cracks in it.  The problem is, granite often has micro fractures in it.  I live near a lot of granite intrusions, I see them every day, they have cracks in them.  The next thing you have to realize is what radio active isotope decays into polonium218.  The answer is Radon222, which has a half life of about three days and the clincher is that Radon is a gas.  Radon can flow through micro cracks as a gas and become polonium218 in a different location

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos. 

—see above

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one. 

— so because all granite is solid and never has breaks or cracks in it, therefore it must have been created by god in one day with the polonium already in it.  God of the gaps argument, if I can't explain it, God must have done it.  So off come the gloves and it is time for me to get technical.  All I have to do to blow this out of the water is explain the gap.  And I can so this.  

— first I assume that the author is ignoring all the examples of polonium halos when uranium halos are also present, indicating that Uranium was also present.  Second radioactive decay happens whether the rock is solid or it is liquid, but the halos are only present in solid rock.  Therefore one explanation is that the rock solidified after one halo could be created and before another could be created, or since the isotope stage prior to Po218 is Radon222, the radon could rise in the still liquid rock to the solid rock. Another idea that I already used was that the radon gas could migrate through micro fractures in the rock, and just because I was interested I googled it and found an original source detailing the same thing: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm  

— it is a bit dry, but I thought I would include an actual source, just because it is really cool too.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant. 

— read the above article attached to the link.  The author eviscerated this theory by first pointing out important considerations not mentioned by the author of the above theory and then by pointedly pointing to all the uranium that is in the nearby rocks where the creationist geologist did his work, and then noted the porosity of the rock of that region.

Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead 

— the best part of this proof is that they don't mention that the counter argument has been out there for 16 years.  Lots of Christian articles point to the articles that prove Creationist ideas, but none to the rebuttal that destroys the argument.  Creationist have their heads in the sand.  Please go away. Now.

Last word I really like arguing with the creationist, because it helps me understand what they are talking about, I have to do research and I have to investigate; I have to learn and relearn material that I thought I knew before.  Arguing with Creationist, let's me keep my stick in the game.