I've read on another post that all of the ICR's paper's have been thoughly refuted here as fanciful nonsence. I've read one of their papers and was facinated by it's implications. After reading that none of the creationist scientists have any credibility such as Kent Hovind, I'm interested to see what the holes and nonsence is in this particular paper of theirs is.
Of course, if you'll notice at the end, after I wrote it, I discovered that TalkOrigins already covered this one inside and out, so my work was probably for naught.