You must take a look at this. That weblogger I criticized for his flawed understanding of science has replied in his comment thread, and Oh. My. Gob. He defends young-earth creationism with the ancient, long-discredited moon dust, thermodynamics, helium, and magnetic fields arguments. It's like a creationist who has been frozen in a glacier since the 1960s, only to emerge blinking into the light and parrot his long-dead religious dogma again.

He does bring up a new argument, but I think I'll pass this one on to Coturnix—he should have fun with it. He thinks circadian rhythms indict evolution.

Finally, let's look at circadian rhythms and the age of the earth. Investigation of nearly all of the earth's living organisms including microorganisms, plants, animals and humans) reveal the existence of circadian rhythms or biological clocks Numerous scientific studies have clearly deomnstrated that these circadian rhythms are not only widely present in all life forms, but are resistant to any and all external changes in the environment. Studies have shown that these biological rhythms are also endogenous or built-in genetically. How did these 24 hour rhythms get there in the first place? Obviously, they had to have been programmed initially into all biological life forms by the Creator (Jesus Christ) himself.

Uh, wow. I'm itching to mention that circadian rhythms vary in different organisms, few have a 24 hour clock, and that there are lots of mutations and known natural variants that change the clock's timing…but like I said, Coturnix would use this guy as a light warmup.

I've got to mention this one, though: I've encountered it in a prior encounter with a creationist. It's the leap second argument.

Life as we know it, under no circumtances, could function very long with any significant deviation from a 24 hour day. In conjunction with the gradual deceleration of the earth's rotation namely 1.9 seconds every 100 years, then just one million theoretical years ago, an earth day would last about 18.7 hours; two million theoretical years ago, the day would have lasted 13.4 hours; and only four million theoretical years ago, an earth day would last a mere 2.8 hours. Living creatures could not possibly adapt or survive in any of these abbreviated environments.

The rate of the earth's rotation is slowing down, but not at anything like 1.9 seconds per century; it's closer to a millisecond per century. The predicted changes in day length are actually in close agreement with measurements of daily growth patterns in fossils from hundreds of millions of years ago. The only way you can get such grossly wrong estimates of ancient day lengths is by misunderstanding leap seconds.

Leap seconds are added now and then to bring the measurements of clocks into alignment with actual time; it's an artifact of consistent, predictable error in the measuring devices. The last time I heard a creationist triumphantly claim that the atomic clocks proved that the earth was slowing down at such a pace that it would have had to have been whirling at an impossibly rapid speed mere millions of years ago, I had to trump him by bringing up leap years.

Did you know we have to add an extra day to the year every four years? That means the year was 25 days shorter a century ago. In the 17th century, years must have been only 265 days long. Why, in the 6th century, a year would have been only one day long! Clearly, the world couldn't have existed in 1AD, so so much for the Jesus myth. Although, quite interestingly, the time of the calendrical singularity when the year would have been 0 days long coincides somewhat closely with Mohammed and the birth of Islam.

I trust everyone sees the obvious logical error in my calculations. It's the same one this bryanm fellow is making.