"The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories"

[Audie]

Science doesn't rule out God a priori. Instead, science requires that hypotheses be testable and falsifiable and claims about God are notoriously untestable and can not be falsified. It is believers that exclude God from science, not scientists.



What "faith assumptions" are you talking about?

Next time, it will still be a priori.

"Assumption" is a magic word, it invalidates anything a creationist
aims it at.

Adding in the word "faith" as in "faith assumption" actually
multiplies the power of the word by the power of e.! *

*equivocation

 

[arthurchappell]

"One of the most challenging tasks for the modern day creationist to is reconcile the belief in a 6,000 year old Earth with the ever-growing mountain of scientific evidence pointing to a vastly different conclusion---namely a universe that's 13.5 billion years old and an Earth that formed 4.5 billion years ago. So, given these astoundingly dramatic discrepancies, biblical literalists and 'young Earth creationists' have had no choice but to get pretty darned imaginative when brushing science aside. Here are 10 arguments creationists have made to counter scientific theories.


1. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed

​

2. Biological systems are too complex to have evolved

3. We can see light from distant galaxies because the speed of light is not constant

​

4. All hominid fossils are either fully human or fully ape

​

5. Stars and planets could have never formed from dust

6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution

7. The Flood caused the ice age

​

8. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work

9. DNA is God's signature on all living things

10. The Grand Canyon was formed by receding flood waters

source

​

I found it interesting that the majority of these claims (I don't agree that all deserve top-ten status) don't have a thing to do with evolution---claims typical among creationists.

Clicking on the source link will bring you to a brief description of each claim, with further links (underlined) to relevant sites.

,​

Some are easier or at least quicker to reply to than others. 1/. Flintstones, meet the Flintstones.... 7/. Why doesn't the Bible talk about how cold it is and where all those glaciers have come from?

 

[Audie]

Some are easier or at least quicker to reply to than others. 1/. Flintstones, meet the Flintstones.... 7/. Why doesn't the Bible talk about how cold it is and where all those glaciers have come from?

Some threads are dead

 

[whirlingmerc]

Some are easier or at least quicker to reply to than others. 1/. Flintstones, meet the Flintstones.... 7/. Why doesn't the Bible talk about how cold it is and where all those glaciers have come from?

Perhaps it does... after the flood the oceans could be warn in a cooling planet and that would make for a strong slow generator with cold climate and warm north sea... it might also explain why so many mammoths were in siberia and the north coast of the USSR by the arctic ocean.. only could be if the sea was warmer protected against the closer climate

 

[arthurchappell]

Mammoths that were elephants that evolved fur coats before or after the ark, to avoid the cold in the 6,000 years since the Flood? Are there glaciers in the Old Testament?

 

[Polymath257]

Today the speed of light is a constant distance per time however what a second is is not constant... that very much depends on gravity and if the universe is of finite extent and we are near the center, time is slowest near the center and fastest at edge We have to compensate for speed of light at a satellite vs speed on earth at sea level... (and I assume you know light in a material slows by the inverse of the index of refraction)

First, the speed of light vacuum* is what is constant. And yes, it is the same near a black hole or in any gravitational well. But it has to be measured *locally* and not from far away. For significant relative slowing effects, the local curvature has to be very large, so your claim that time is fastest 'at the edge' and slowest 'at the center' is irrelevant. It is also quite wrong. First of all, there *is no edge* and *no center*. Even if the universe is of 'finite extent', in which case it is positively curved and spatially a hyper-sphere.

Refraction is a property of light moving in a non-vacuum, so that is also irrelevant.

 

[Salvador]

​

.......Here are 10 arguments creationists have made to counter scientific theories.

.......9. DNA is God's signature on all living things.

,.​

There is actually a mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding, as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s)with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

“There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"

"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.906.4671&rep=rep1&type=pdf

"The first information system emerged on the earth as primordial version of the genetic code and genetic texts. The natural appearance of arithmetic power in such a linguistic milieu is theoretically possible and practical for producing information systems of extremely high efficiency. In this case, the arithmetic symbols should be incorporated into an alphabet, i.e. the genetic code. A number is the fundamental arithmetic symbol produced by the system of numeration. If the system of numeration were detected inside the genetic code, it would be natural to expect that its purpose is arithmetic calculation e.g., for the sake of control, safety, and precise alteration of the genetic texts. The nucleons of amino acids and the bases of nucleic acids seem most suitable for embodiments of digits. These assumptions were used for the analyzing the genetic code.

The compressed, life-size, and split representation of the Escherichia coli and Euplotes octocarinatus code versions were considered simultaneously. An exact equilibration of the nucleon sums of the amino acid standard blocks and/or side chains was found repeatedly within specified sets of the genetic code. Moreover, the digital notations of the balanced sums acquired, in decimal representation, the unique form 111, 222, …, 999. This form is a consequence of the criterion of divisibility by 037. The criterion could simplify some computing mechanism of a cell if any and facilitate its computational procedure.

Reference: Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209
"Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4703000662

"Numerous arithmetical regularities of nucleon numbers of canonical amino acids for quite different systematizations of the genetic code, which are dominantly based on decimal number 037, indicate the hidden existence of a more universal ordering principle. Mathematical analysis of number 037 reveals that it is a unique decimal number from which an infinite set of self-similar numbers can be derived with the nested numerical, geometrical, and arithmetical properties, thus enabling the nested coding and computing in the (bio)systems by geometry and resonance. The omnipresent fractal structural and dynamical organization, as well as the intertwining of quantum and classical realm in the physical and biological systems could be just the consequence of such coding and computing."

Reference: NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing
http://Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Properties

 

[exchemist]

You are equivocating hidden assumptions with the scientific method. The science you speak of combines the assumptions of secular naturalism (which rules God out a priori) with the scientific method and other science methodologies

Dealing off the bottom of the deck? acting like the faith assumptions of naturalism are intrinsic or inherent to science? hmmm? they are not.

Methodological naturalism is intrinsic to science. This is not the same as physicalism - the view that the physical world, as amenable to scientific observation, is all there is. "Secular naturalism" seems to be a term you have invented, so it is not clear what is meant by that. .

Science is the search for natural explanations of nature and as such is not concerned with concepts such as God. But that does not mean it tries to rule out the existence of God. Science is agnostic on such metaphysical questions.

 

[Audie]

Perhaps it does... after the flood the oceans could be warn in a cooling planet and that would make for a strong slow generator with cold climate and warm north sea... it might also explain why so many mammoths were in siberia and the north coast of the USSR by the arctic ocean.. only could be if the sea was warmer protected against the closer climate

There was no flood.

 

[Sapiens]

Kurt Wise is a modern day geologist and agrees

Kurt Wise is not a modern geologist, he is an atavistic apologist. As Dawkins noted:

Kurt Wise doesn't need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless... We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism's most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

 

[Audie]

Kurt Wise is not a modern geologist, he is an atavistic apologist. As Dawkins noted:

Kurt Wise doesn't need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless... We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism's most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

Love to see someone ring up Dr K Wise!

In his own words, unfiltered by no Dawkins-

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. [
-creation.com
Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith

Dr. Wise there has given a wonderfully distilled
description of intellectual dishonesty.

Of course, creationists praise him for his honesty-

And the editor rushes in to make a note that blind faith is not blind faith.

 

[Sapiens]

Perhaps it does... after the flood the oceans could be warn in a cooling planet and that would make for a strong slow generator with cold climate and warm north sea... it might also explain why so many mammoths were in siberia and the north coast of the USSR by the arctic ocean.. only could be if the sea was warmer protected against the closer climate

You're making it up as you go.

It has long been known that nuclear fission below the crust is the source of more than half of Earth's heat, there is no case to be made for a "cooling planet." - Strike One.

Similarly we know both ocean temperature and general ice thickness of massive glaciers by using mass spectroscopy to analyze the isotopic chemistry of fossilized marine animal shells in carbonate deposits. - Strike Two.

Woolly mammoths were the most widely distributed large Pleistocene mammals, Their range included much more than Siberia, that is just where there is ice dating back to the Pleistocene ... Mammoths were found in most all of Europe from Portugal in the southwest across Central and Eastern Europe, Mongolia, Northern China, South Korea, Vietnam and Japan up to Northeastern Siberia and then all the way to the American Midwest and Eastern Canada, from the shelf regions of the Arctic Ocean and Northwestern Europe to the bottom of the Adriatic Sea and to the mountains of Crimea. - Strike Three, Yer Out!

 

[whirlingmerc]

You're making it up as you go.

It has long been known that nuclear fission below the crust is the source of more than half of Earth's heat, there is no case to be made for a "cooling planet." - Strike One.

Similarly we know both ocean temperature and general ice thickness of massive glaciers by using mass spectroscopy to analyze the isotopic chemistry of fossilized marine animal shells in carbonate deposits. - Strike Two.

Woolly mammoths were the most widely distributed large Pleistocene mammals, Their range included much more than Siberia, that is just where there is ice dating back to the Pleistocene ... Mammoths were found in most all of Europe from Portugal in the southwest across Central and Eastern Europe, Mongolia, Northern China, South Korea, Vietnam and Japan up to Northeastern Siberia and then all the way to the American Midwest and Eastern Canada, from the shelf regions of the Arctic Ocean and Northwestern Europe to the bottom of the Adriatic Sea and to the mountains of Crimea. - Strike Three, Yer Out!

If during the flood there was a high degree of vulcanism with rapid movement of continents there would be warmer oceans and in the post flood world could cool afterwards

Most geologist do believe in the breaking up of continents but a rapid movement of say India ramming into Asia is a better explanation of the Himalayas than a very very minutely slow movement

 

[Sapiens]

You are making it up as you go.

There is a rather exact record of the speed of continental drift inscribed in the magnetic striping of the sea bottom.

You need to learn to differentiate between wishful thinking and highly unlikely "ifs" dictated by your failed attempts to square reality with the actual evidence and the more highly "probably" dictated by an educated view that is not rooted in presupositional thinking that your Bible effectively serves double-duty as a science text.

 

[Audie]

You are making it up as you go.

There is a rather exact record of the speed of continental drift inscribed in the magnetic striping of the sea bottom.

You need to learn to differentiate between wishful thinking and highly unlikely "ifs" dictated by your failed attempts to square reality with the actual evidence and the more highly "probably" dictated by an educated view that is not rooted in presupositional thinking that your Bible effectively serves double-duty as a science text.

Kinda needs to know the difference between educated and
uneducated, too.

 

[ecco]

If during the flood there was a high degree of vulcanism with rapid movement of continents ...

...there would have been storms so violent that not even the most modern military and civilian vessels could have remained afloat. Definitely not a 450 foot boat with no propulsion.

 

[whirlingmerc]

...there would have been storms so violent that not even the most modern military and civilian vessels could have remained afloat. Definitely not a 450 foot boat with no propulsion.

You don't need propulsion if the only goal is staying afloat
but God had it rest on a mountain central to 3 continents which would be ideal for animals to spread out from

 

[whirlingmerc]

Next time, it will still be a priori.

"Assumption" is a magic word, it invalidates anything a creationist
aims it at.

Adding in the word "faith" as in "faith assumption" actually
multiplies the power of the word by the power of e.! *

*equivocation

Secular scientists have many faith assumptions about their speculations
It's like dealing off the bottom of the deck

 

[Subduction Zone]

Secular scientists have many faith assumptions about their speculations
It's like dealing off the bottom of the deck

And yet you can't seem to name any.

 

[Audie]

Secular scientists have many faith assumptions about their speculations
It's like dealing off the bottom of the deck

A lot of adjectives, attitude, and metaphor but no information.

You cannot identify any "assumption"-have not, anyway,
still less could you identify one that would in the slightest
affect the validity of the work.

And, of course, you are also playing that weary old
equivocation fallacy game, as if all possible shades
of "faith: were the same.

As in, the Stargate people had faith that by taking poison
they could get to the flying saucer that was following a comet.

We all have faith that the sun provide light for yet another
day tomorrow.

It is not the same thing. Why do you pretend it is?