Theory of Creationism has its Share of Holes

Link to article reproduced below.

Theory of Creationism has its Share of Holes - Bob Henderson

Creationists question Darwin's theory of evolution. How sound is the theory of creationism? My King James version of the Bible presents at least two versions of the creation story. One, a straightforward tale of God's creation of the heavens and the earth and all creatures therein including man, male and female.

Then there is the story of Adam and Eve. The genealogy of Adam follows with a story of creation not very different from the first version. The genealogy begins with Adam's son Seth. There is no reference to either Cain or Abel.

Adam and succeeding generations of men lived at least beyond 700 years. Then comes Noah and the flood. All but Noah and his family died in the flood. The flood dried up in the 601st year (Gen. 8:13).

Adam, it says in the Bible, lived to be 930 years old. But Adam would have died in the flood at the age of 600 or so along with most of the men listed in his genealogy.

I wonder how creationists will handle these facts?

Darwin's theory seems by contrast to be quite sound.

I take all challenges to the authority of the Bible seriously, because if I'm wrong in trusting the Bible, I want to know. In fact, I take any challenge to anything I believe seriously for the same reason. If I'm wrong, I want to know so that I can stop being wrong. The only other thing that I'm going to say here (before I comment on the letter) is that I don't intend to make a case for Creationism or Intelligent Design or even try to say anything about the debate at all. My only intention is to point out that we should respect each other in these debates and present each other's positions accurately. No harm there, right?
As far as this letter goes, I only want to reproduce what Genesis 8:13 actually says.
By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering of the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. (NIV)
Um, 'Noah's six hundred and first year'? So, you mean, we're talking about Noah's birthdays and not about how old Adam was? Unless I completely misunderstand Genesis, Noah came some time AFTER Adam.
To be fair, I will reproduce the KJV translation below.

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked , and, behold, the face of the ground was dry .

Now, it is clear from previous chapters that this is not referring to the age of the earth or even the age of Adam. Genesis 5:32 reads:

And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (KJV)

After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth. (NIV)

In Chapter 6:3 we find this (clearly backtracking from where ch. 5 left off, which is clear by vs. 10 - "Noah had 3 sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth."):

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

And Genesis 7:11 --

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

So, it is clear from the context and what preceded Gen. 8:13 that it in no way contradicts anything. Anyone who sees this as a contradiction is simply taking things out of context and forcing them to fit a particular agenda (something that even some Christians have been guilty of, I'll admit). To see this as a contradiction, you have to be pretty sloppy in your research--which isn't a crime, just (very) bad scholarship.
So, to everybody who is engaged in any part of this debate: please, please, please don't make stuff up. It makes you look stupid and confuses the issue.
Peace.