I guess that's why not one single person has refutted anything that I have linked to.
It's easy to throw out links, and make tens of claims, but refuting them takes time and effort. Nonetheless, over the years they've all been refuted, and it wouldn't take much effort on your part to find those refutations. Start at
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
If you want to discuss something, write it up and we'll discuss it.
Overall, your links are both just lists of unsupported claims, distortions and -- yes -- outright lies.
E.g.:
quote:
It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds.
This is a distortion because there was no formal training in geology in those days, and therefore nobody had the formal training to be a "professional scientific geologist" (such a Lyell; see
Sir Charles Lyell). Of course, lack of formal training or professional accreditation should not be taken as evidence that a person does not know what he/she is talking about. After all, the author of that passage is Henry Morris, a hydraulic engineer and not a "professional scientific geologist"! If we believe that passage, we must accept that the author of the article is not competent to write the article!!
But he also lies, in leaving out such well known and highly qualified geologists such as
Hugh Miller, who wrote in 1857:
quote:
No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the older geologic systems, -- Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary.
And
Adam SedgwickWoodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge and President of the Geological Society of London and, for many years, a major proponent of the diluvial (Noah's flood) theory of deposition, who addressed the Geological Society thusly in 1831:
quote:
Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. ... We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood ...
More, and discussion, at
A Flood Geologist Recants
Your other link,
ICR | The Institute for Creation Research\, is refuted at
Sea-floor Spreading and the Age of the Earth, and catastrophic plate tectonics as discussed here at great length in
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (for TC and Sylas) and
Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading. The basic problems with CPT is that there's really no evidence for it, it requires assuming wildly unrealistic values for the physical properties of molten rock, and it would release enought heat to destroy life on Earth several times over. Lots of references in the links above.