Per osteng's request, I have started a thread where he can post the scientific basis for creationism. Of course anyone is welcome to help/challenge his or anyone elses scientific discussion of creationism. And remember, this is not a discussion of how evolution is wrong but of how creationism is right.
As drmarcs says. . . Ok lets have fun!

-Kisov

OK, that's fairly limiting by not talking about how evolution is wrong, but I'll try to stay within the guidelines.

First off, I'm not going to argue that creationism is a fact, just a valid scientific theory, and not some fairy tale.

Secondly, just a warning, I ain't no scientist. All of my views are purely from a layman. So, apologies ahead of time if I don't sound scientific enough.

Thirdly, I will avoid use of the Bible and show that creationism can stand without any reference to any religious text.

Let me start of by defining what I mean by creationism. It's the theory that the entire universe was created by a supernatual, intelligent being that exists outside of this universe. Living things did not macro-evolve (evolution of life from simple organisms to complex organisms through the mechanism of time). All things were originally created close to what they are now (all changes are explained through micro-evolution). Mankind was also created at the very beginning and did not evolve from the primates. Creationism takes for a fact that micro-evolution exists (eg necks growing longer), but does not believe in living things evolving completely new functionalities (eg wingless to wings, eyeless to having eyes). Creationism also believes that the entire universe is young (some claim 10,000 years old, but most certainly less than 1 million years old).

otseng, I'm a "layman" also when it comes to this stuff, so bear with me.

Maybe it's too simplistic to say just look at a chimp - how can we NOT be mutated from them or a species similar? Their bone structure is so similar to ours it's amazing. And what about the whole opposable thumb thing unique to only primates (meaning humans also)? Reproduction is also very similar. Don't ask me how or why I know this, but apes and humans are the only species known to pleasure themselves sexually. These things tend to have me believe we are genetic offshoots of similar ancestors.

My next curiosity is to get a good explanation of carbon dating. I don't know much about this. A teacher or two tried to educate me on it but it went in one ear & out the other. What I do remember is that such techniques are the reason we believe life is as old as it is. Do you or anyone (Kisov?) have any place I can get information on this? I'd like to know more. I find it hard to believe that a society as complex as the Mayans or Egyptians from 5,000 years ago only arose from begginings 10,000 years ago. I think their advancements were the results of a much slower change in their brain structure than can happen in only 5,000 years.

I still tend to favor the idea that maybe a higher force did do some creation but I think that was as far back as the "Big Bang" (uh-oh another theory) and there has been no other "creation" after that.

This, I will not get into, since it would be what's wrong with macro-evolution. (Perhaps after I post my closing arguments in this thread, we can debate macro-evolution )


As for the age of the earth/universe, that's a good place to start. So I'll start off by presenting evidence of a young world.

There are phenomenons in outer space that indicate a young universe. In 1933, an astronomer, Fritz Zwicky, observed individual velocities of galaxies within the Coma cluster and noted that they were moving so fast relative to each other that the cluster would have dissipated a long time ago. In 1960, Vera Rubin observed rotational rates of galaxies to be spinning to fast for the galaxy to hold together for a long period of time. And there are many other such anonomolies such discovered.

These findings indicate a young universe.

Comets have relatively short life spans (thousands of years) since they are only a few kilometers across and a significant portion of it is shed by solar radiation each time it gets close to the sun. We have no evidence of comets being created. Thus, the universe is young.

The magnetic strength of the earth has been measured to be decreasing by around 5% per century. Given that rate, if the earth was older than 20,000 years old, the original strength of the field would have been enough to melt the earth.

otseng-

Can you recommend any websites that I may visit to verify some of your information? I'm interested in learning more about your assertions. I had never heard some of the things you said, particularly about the earth losing magnetic strength.

Thanks in advance for your help.

The earliest written records we have of mankind is 4000-5000 years ago. From the records, mankind possessed a lot of skills 4000-5000 years ago, agriculture, stone buildings, basic astronomy, woodworking, etc. Before that, there are no written records of mankind ever existing. Anything beyond this is pure conjecture.

Here are some of the major creationism websites:

http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.originsguidepost.com/
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/



Here is info on earth's magnetic strength:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3317.asp

The sun produces solar radiation that pushes small particles (<.1 micron) away from the sun. If the solar system was billions of years old, the solar system would have no such particles. Yet, we have such particles orbiting the sun. Thus, the solar system is young.

More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Yet, look at any topological map of the oceans. You don't see huge deposits of sediment at the mouth of the major rivers. You see only small such deposits. Therefore, the earth cannot be very old.

Evidence from the Hubble telescope shows that Saturns rings are disintegrating. Also gravitational forces are pulling the ring particles toward Saturn. However, the rings of Saturn are very distinct and well-structured. This shows that the rings were recently formed.

Wow, otseng, lots of information, thanks. It will be a bit before I comment in that respect, I'm still digesting all of it.

In the meantime, I have a question. Why has the western world chosen to more widely accept evolution over creationism? Why did we first embrace Darwin and now men like Stephen Hawking? I can't even name a "famous" creationist.

Well, one reason is that humanists have sucessfully taken creationism out of schools. Thus there is widespread ignorance of creationism.

OK, I've given some evidence of a young world. There are actually much more, but I'm going to move on to another area.

Creationism also has, I believe, the best theory to explain the following things:
- How did we get such huge oil/coal deposits? How were they formed?
- Why were animals (dinosaurs, etc) and plants larger in the past?
- Why did those large animals and plants die out?
- Why does Africa seem to 'fit' into the Americas?
- What caused the formation of the ocean canyons?
- Why are rock stratas parallel to each other?
- Where did all the soil come from to form all these stratas?

I believe that the more simple the explanation, the more plausible it is. And there is one simple creationism solution to all the questions I posed above.

But, before I give the creationism answer, ask youself, how would you answer these questions?

I've been asked to consolodate my postings more, so I'll be putting together my answer into a single post for later.

I'll now present the creationism solution to all the questions I posed above - a worldwide cataclysmic flood.

Prior to the flood, the environment of the earth was much different than now. A water canopy surrounded the entire earth. Sorta like the canopy surrounding Venus. This water canopy caused a tropical climate throughout most of the earth. The atmospheric pressure was also much greater. The canopy also protected the earth from cosmic radiation. These three factors contributed to why plants and animals grew so big in the past.

Prior to the flood, the oceans did not exist. However, smaller seas did exist. There also existed a large body of water under the crust. The worldwide flood was triggered by a gigantic earthquake that tore open the crust. The pressure of the crust on the subterranean water caused the water to gush out of the earth and into the sky. The water carried huge amount of soil into the sky and destroyed the water canopy. All the subterraneon water and canopy water fell on the earth and covered the entire world with water and dirt.

The crack that formed in the crust is seen in the huge rift in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/mggd.gif

Notice that it is right between the Americans and Europe/Africa. As the crack formed, water carried up soil along the crack, also the two continents "slid" away from each other on the subterranan water. As the all the subterranean water came above the surface, the continents slowed down and settled on the rock underneath. The momentum of the moving continents as it was eventually stopping caused the formation of the Rockies and Andes and other mountain ranges.

Rapid burial of the abundance of animals and plants caused the formation of all the coal and oil. It also caused the formation of all the rock stratas and fossils.

As the mountain ranges formed and soil deposits were being laid down, water eventually receded into the oceans that we have now.

Large animals and plants could not survice the post-flood earth since the environment was not conducive for large living things.

There are actually more details to the theory than I gave above. But it gives the general idea.

I don't even know where to start with this one, seeing how it's so close to the prior debate on craetion vs. evolution. It's also hard for me to think that youreally believe all that #### you've been spouting, I really don't see how any of that points to creationism as a valid theory...The easiest thing for me to say is people used to believe in Zeus and other gods to explain things that they couldn't and creationism is the same thing you can't explain it so you say some guy/girl/being snapped it's fingers and poof we were here. We have proof that we (homo sapien sapiens) were not here in the beginning and that we did evolve to whom we are now just like we have proof of when the agricultural revolution took place...and besides that saying that they had basic astronomy skills is a bit off, they had what they thought to be basic skills but they were completely wrong...you saying that thus we are young is false, we 'may' have theories that suggest this but we also have facts that say we are older i e carbon dating a proven scientific process...we embrace Darwin for his groundbreaking concepts that we have later "proven" to be correct in some aspects we don't give fame to creationists because it's a theory backed by some f'n book that was written long ago, and as I remarked earlier people don't believe in Zeus anymore. that's enough for now so I will await your response..

I will admit that the flood theory is hard to swallow. But, it's not hard to swallow because it doesn't make sense. It's hard to swallow cause it's so different from evolution theories.

As per rules of this thread, please do not bring up the evolutionary theories. That was imposed upon me and I ask others respect that request. However, I'm more than willing to go into debating evolutionary theories in a separate thread.

As for debating the theory, give me your arguments. Find the flaws in the theory I presented. Just because the theory is radical and you think it's on the level of mythology, that doesn't make the theory not valid. So, present your arguments against the theory I presented and we can go from there.

Creationism also upholds many of the laws of science and doesn't violate things we take as a fact.

The law of biogenesis. This law says two things: (1) living things always come from living things; and (2) living things produce only more living things like themselves.

Laws of genetics (Mendel's laws). These basically state that the characteristics of offsprings are a result of combinations of genes inherited from parents.

Thermodynamics. Throughout the universe, the highest point of useful energy was at the beginning. And since then, useful energy has been decreasing.

I really have read nonsense like this in the past. There is so much of it that it is no wonder that the world is in the state that it is. The position of the religionist is so preposterous that I wouldn't know quite where to start so I won't even begin. I can only suggest that you ought to begin soon to seek teachers and studies that will give you a more measurable perspective as the the real world.

I'm guessing that you are young and very unread. Probably influenced in your more impressionalbe youth by adults that never grew out of their ignorance. Kind of like J Falwell or B Graham......Genuinely ignorant people.

Sorry if you can't but there's hope for your education if you start soon.

You might begin with a study of semantics and the definitions of beginning and ending as man-made constructs.

Jaime,

Thanks for keeping an open mind. A lot of people are ignorant about what Creationism is all about (just look at the couple of opposing responses already. Instead of debating the issues scientifically or the specific things that otseng has said, they just choose to attack HIM.)


Yes, Evolutionists would say this. The Creationist's response would be we are so similar because we have a common designer.

So to me, EITHER perspective is a reasonable explanation for similarities between species.



In case you haven't found it yet:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/c...rbon_dating.asp

Yes I agree.

Evolution is the only theory being taught for the origin of life, universe, etc. Even though there is serious scientific debate from other sides, not just the Creationist side (e.g. Intelligent Design Movement).

The Evolutionists' have got control and don't want to let it slip away. I know that sounds conspirational and incredible, but why else is Evolution the ONLY theory being taught when there are other opposing SCIENTIFIC viewpoints to be heard?? Isn't that what the pursuit of science is all about? Opposing, vanguard perspectives?

Wasn't it once thought that the world was flat? Didn't some crazy mavericks come along and say otherwise?

Just present the major, different theories and let the students decide which one is the most credible to them. Nobody should have a problem with that.

Being a Biology major i think it is important to note that most scientist belive that there is a clear case for evolution to be the dominate theory over creation...but yet most believe that there is too much "chance" involved for there not to be creation involved to some degree.

Evolution and (not or) creation.

Wow, that's a lot of stuff to look over!

Here is a concise list of evidence for a young Earth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

There is also a link on the above page to other evidences for a young Earth.

The people who write for the above website are scientists who hold Masters, PhDs in their field of study.

That's interesting. If this is true, then this is the first time I've ever heard of such a thing.

From what I've read, the a priori adherence to materialism which led to the theory and popularity of Evolution would totally nix what you have just stated.

Materialism - nature and the rule of, is all there is.

Obviously you don't have any valid arguments against the case for creationism cause all your arguments are ad hominem.

That's OK, I'm used to it. Evolutionists, like you, just like to rant and rave, and yet can't even engage in a logical debate. If the creationism theory is so preposterous as you claim, then simply give your rebuttal to the creationism theory instead of attacking my level of education and age.

There are many things mentioned by osteng that I could debate, but for the sake of my sanity I will just pick one for now. I would like to discuss the statement that osteng brings up about the world being very young. . . 10,000 years or so. Well, one big challenge I have for that is the fact. . . remember I used the word "fact" . . .of half-life dating. I know that a couple of you have brought this up and I would like to elaborate. Carbon-14 dating dates items back to about 15,000 years accurately; that is why so many people have heard of this type of dating, because it is the dating that is used for most old human-made items, it is good for dating anything that is carbon based. . . aka, anything that used to be living. Wood, bones, etc.; all fall into that category. Elements all decompose at a set rate or half-life, so it is quite easy to determine the age of an item by how much of the daughter isotope (which is the isotope that replaces the original decomposed carbon) is left. So lets say that 15,000 years falls into creationism's view of how old the earth is. For testing that is much older than 15,000 years there is U-235. This element has the capability of tracing the year of origin for an item back 713 million years! Now, why exactly would it be necessary to date items with this method, if everything on this earth is only 10,000 years old. The half-lives of the elements is a scientific constant, so unless their is a big humanist conspiracy, then items tested to be older than 10,000 must ACTUALLY be that old. And, therefore, the earth that these items are on must be even older.

-Kisov

Kisov, let me defer my rebuttal of isotope dating to when the evolution debate gets started. As per your rules, I'm going to avoid debating about the evolution theory in this thread.

Perhaps go ahead and start the evolution thread and we can go ahead and debate it. It's hard to actually engage in a debate without talking about both sides.

I will conclude my arguments for creationism with introducing an area that is rapidly growing, Intelligent Design.

The Intelligent Design (ID) argument is that there is design in the universe. And designs requires a designer/creator.

ID is a huge field, but I'll introduce a sampling of findings to give you some idea of ID.

Here are some evidences of ID just in the creation of our planet:

1. The earth is positioned at just the right distance from the sun so that we receive exactly the proper amount of heat to support life. The other planets of our solar system are either too close to the sun (too hot) or else too far (too cold) to sustain life.

2. Any appreciable change in the rate of rotation of the earth would make life impossible. For example, if the earth were to rotate at one-tenth its present rate, all plant life would either be burned to a crisp during the day or frozen at night.

3. Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of the earth around the sun.

4. Temperature extremes are further moderated by the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that produce a greenhouse effect.

5. The moon revolves around the earth at a distance of about 240,000 miles causing harmless tides on the earth. If the moon were located 1/5th of this distance away, the continents would be completely submerged twice a day!

6. The thickness of the earth's crust and the depth of the oceans appear to be carefully designed. Increases in thickness or depth of only a few feet would so drastically alter the absorption of free oxygen and carbon dioxide that plant and animal life could not exist.

7. The earth's axis is tilted 23 1/2 degrees from the perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. This tilting, combined with the earth's revolution around the sun, causes our seasons, which are absolutely essential for the raising of food supplies.

8. The earth's atmosphere (ozone layer) serves as a protective shield from lethal solar ultraviolet radiation, which would otherwise destroy all life.

9. The earth's atmosphere also serves to protect the earth from approximately 20 million meteors that enter it each day at speeds of about 30 miles per second! Without this crucial protection the danger to life would be immense.

10. The earth is the perfect physical size and mass to support life, affording a careful balance between gravitational forces (essential for holding water and an atmosphere) and atmospheric pressure.

11. The two primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (20 percent). This delicate and critical ratio is essential to all life forms.

12. The earth's magnetic field provides important protection from harmful cosmic radiation.

13. The earth is uniquely blessed with a bountiful supply of water, which is the key substance of life due to its remarkable and essential physical properties.

(From "Collapse of Evolution" - Scott Huse)

For more reading on ID, see the links at Google:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Re...nt_Design/?tc=1

Creationism closing statement

I have presented here a case for Creationism as a valid scientific theory for the origins of the universe and mankind. I have also stayed within the original request to avoid showing the deficiencies of the evolutionary theory. And I have also stayed within my self-imposed limitation of not referencing any religious text.

I have presented numerous evidence that the universe is young.

I have also presented a theory to explain the following questions:
- How did we get such huge oil/coal deposits? How were they formed?
- Why were animals (dinosaurs, etc) and plants larger in the past?
- Why did those large animals and plants die out?
- Why does Africa seem to 'fit' into the Americas?
- What caused the formation of the ocean canyons?
- Why are rock stratas parallel to each other?
- Where did all the soil come from to form all these stratas?

I have presented the fact that Creationism upholds many scientific laws:
- Law of biogenesis
- Laws of genetics
- Laws of thermodynamics

I have also briefly introduced the argument of Intelligent Design.

So far, there has been NO valid counterarguments to ANYTHING I have presented. All arguments from evolutionists have been ad hominem. If Creationism is such as foolish theory, then why are there no valid arguments that anyone has brought up against Creationism?

In conclusion, Creationism is a viable scientific theory on the origins of the world and mankind. It does not need to reference any religious text nor reference any specific religion. It is a valid scientific theory that needs to be presented in the public school system and also be exposed to the general public.

No offense, otseng, but one of the things evolutionists warn us about when it comes to creationists is that they throw so much information at you and then are satisfied they are correct because they got no response. I think you need to pick one aspect of this argument if you want to start any reasonable debate. There is just too much information here and no one is willing or interested in responding to it all.

I'm perfectly willing to wait for counterarguments.

And I don't think it's my responsibility to pick which argument for evolutionists to argue against. But, if you insist, how about the flood theory, what's your counterargument against it?

OK, I can deal with floods. I would like to qualify this by stating that I haven't written off creationism, or some form of it. I believe in the science of evolution but there is merit in the idea of a higher, creating power.

As far as the flood goes, I presume you're referring to the one for which Noah built the ark. I've read some of the theories on this and can see high and low points in the arguments. One site I found that argues against some of the creationist ideas is The Flood Itself.

The argument for the rain falling from the sky from a heavy canopy doesn't hold water with me (sorry, had to say it ). However, this page doesn't completely satisfy me in explaining the possible eruption of water from within the earth.

I have a question: in most creationists' opinions which happened first? This great flood or the creation of humans?

P.S. otseng, I plan on doing some homework on Intellegent Design. I had never heard of that concept before you posted on it, so I need to do some research. I'll start by checking out your link.

How is the statement otseng made

have anything to do with how creationism is a valid theory. and it's not even true with more heat or less heat we would be fine because we are thinking beings that can adapt.



Those plants are alive because they survived through all of the #### that this planet has gone through and once again how does this statement defend your case.

I guess you have a reason for posting this right...

but I love how you keep bringing up how we can't disprove you but the thing is that you haven't proven anything to me.

my counterargument to the flood theory is are you insane, how am I supposed to beleive that. I don't even see why I have to have a counterargument.

Great supporting facts for your opinions, Limpubus.

You know better than to call this forum's members insane. You don't know otseng. Call the flood argument insane and support why you think that. otseng has previously asked for actual links that provide good arguments against creationism. Give that respect. Leave the name calling to children.

Jaime, first off, thank you for your civility and open-mindedness (unlike other people here).



I cannot accept that there is enough water in a canopy either in order for the entire world to be flooded. However, a subterranean source of water is much more believable.

But, one thing important about the canopy is that it explains why life was so large in the past and now it isn't.


Creation of humans came before the flood.

Yet another question. If humans came before this flood, how many of them survived after it? Are all humans suppossed to be descendants of these suvivors?

Here is an example where the only way to answer this is from the Bible.

The Bible says 8 people survived the flood. The entire world was populated by them.

Ok, then, so are we all inbreeds? Eight people do not make for a very diverse gene pool.

Good point. This goes back to the genetic variability that I was talking about earlier in another thread.

Creationists speculate that at the beginning of life, all life forms (humans, animals, plants) were created with a HIGHLY varied gene pool. Since life was so young, there was no question of mutations and 'bad' recessive genes back then that we are so familiar with today because of inbreeding.

This, they hypothesize, is where you get the different races (of people) and the different varieties of animals within the same species (speciation or micro-evolution).

Let me also add that even if you believe in evolution, you'd have to believe that there was a first man and woman to populate the entire earth.

Inbreeding only occurs as genetic traits become more specialized and there is not variety. As Clue pointed out, this is not a problem with the original humans, whether they were created or evolved.

First of all I apologize for waiting this long to rebut ostengs response to my last post concerning the fact of isotopic dating and how that shows the earth is in fact much older than the theory of creationism dictates (I was on vacation). I think this is a pretty reasonable argument for disproving scientifically, at least that aspect, of creationism. And then osteng responds to my post with:



Am I the only one that feels that this a total cop out for actually discussing my valid point. Osteng, I never even mentioned the word "evolution", I was sticking completely with the discussion of the actual age of the earth. So let me make sure that I understand you, osteng, if anyone finds scientific evidence that creationism and the so called facts that you state are incorrect we can't say so or post facts to the contrary. . .because that somehow proves evolution and that is against the rules.

WOW, WHAT A FUN LINE OF PSEUDO DEBATE THIS IS!!!
SHAME ON YOU, osteng!

-Kisov

Shame on me?? For what?

All I said is that I'd rather "defer my rebuttal of isotope dating to when the evolution debate gets started". What shame is there in that?

Isotope dating is one of the foundational beliefs of evolution. All I'm saying is that I'd rather not talk about it here, not that I don't want to talk about it at all. In fact, I'm eager to talk about it. And I know that I'd be blasting evolution once I get into it.

Thank you osteng for all of your information. You have made me realize even more so why creationism needs to be taught in schools. Before hearing all of this, the only reason I believed in creationism was my faith. People need to know the facts behind creationism.

Thanks zuckermauschen for your comments.

A very good book for everyone to read would be [U]God, The Evidence[U]. This is a book by a non-Christian (I think) creationist who cites a wide range of information for his arguments, and presents it in a reasonable, rather than agressive, way. His information includes physical, biological, and even psychological evidence.

If anyone wants evidences from the [U]God, The Evidence[U], ask me, and I will quote the book.

One important thing about this book: it is not evidence for the Bible or Christian beliefs. It is evidence that there is some intelligence which designed universe as we see it, but that is as far as it goes.

I don't think you can be a non Christian and a Creationist at the same time.