The foremost and most recent one is the helium leak rate.
Oh, you are a
fun one aren't you? Here's an intellectual excercise:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are two theories of evolution -- yours and mine. We'll call yours
Newflyerolution and we'll call mine
RAZDolution.
We'll assume for the sake of argument that your "helium leak rate" is a valid observation, and it totally disproves
Newflyerolution (or at least so you claim). The problem is that it does not disprove
RAZDolution, because
RAZDolution doesn't depend on the "helium" problem to study biology (I leave that to the physicists, chemists and others that deal with this issue). What is
RAZDolution? The theory that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - explains what we see in life that exists today. Life can be a little as 100 years old and
RAZDolution is still valid. Now we can compare
RAZDolution with standard evolution as taught in universities and as studied by scientists and find that it is a good match.
What this demonstrates is that your
understanding of evolution is invalid, not that evolution is invalid.
What I find hilarious is that in
Message 19 you replied that "no one is 'bobble headed' ... " and then you go on and post a series of
PRATTs from creationist websites that you
accept without question as being true ... when they turn out to be known falsehoods from creationist sites, well know as being
PRATTs (see example #2 on the list of 4 they give).
For instance search this site for "helium":
Index to Creationist Claims
and find the following listed:
quote:
CE: Astronomy and Cosmology
CE000: Earth
....• CE001. There is not enough helium in the atmosphere for an old earth.
And then from the link to
Claim CE001:
quote:
Claim CE001:
The radioactive decay of several elements produces helium, which migrates to the atmosphere. There is too little helium in the atmosphere to account for the amount that would have been produced in 4.5 billion years. Escape of helium into space is not sufficient to account for the lack.
You can read the article to see why this is not a problem. Notice that they do not talk about evolution or biology.
™ Version 4.2