Is Young Earth Creationism a Valid theory of origin ?
I am surprised that in todays modern society denominated by science and technology people still cling on to the ignorance of the past that is young earth creationism.
The belief that everything in the book of Genesis (and the whole entire bible) is true and actually happened. Creationists believe that a god created earth 6000 years ago in six literal (24-hour) days. They believe in the story of Adam and eve, how Adam was made from dust and Eve made from Adams rib.
Creationist believe that 4000 years ago there was global flood that lasted a year told as Noah’s ark. Creationist Deny any scientific evidence that contradict with there beliefs.
So my question is: Should people still be taking the book of genesis literally even though it’s completely illogical, has no evidence at all, the myth it’s self has been proven impossible on multiple occasions and there is overwhelming scientific evidence contradicting it.
Yes it is
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No it's not.
Side Score: 36
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is. If you believe the Bible then you have to believe in a young earth. I'll show you why here: 1. God made all the earth in 6 days. It says it right in Genesis. Not only that, but the terms "Morning" and "Evening" are used. Which proves that they were legit days. 2. Ever looked at the genealogies. There's a lot of names aren't there! Enough to span several million years... Not so much. 3. Carbon dating is often used to argue the earth is old. Well, what if the earth was created with already an amount of 14c in it. Nobody really knows... 4. If you're an evolutionist, then this one's for you! Earth had to be placed at just the right distance from the sun, right? Coincidence... maybe. But since Earth had to be at that distance, Earth also had to be just the right mass to keep it in orbit. Also, since Earth had to be that mass, gravity had to be just the right strength. Strong enough to hold us down, and weak enough to not crush us. Now we're getting somewhere! Oh, and yeah, that planet with the perfect conditions happens to be the planet with sufficient water, and the right gasses in the atmosphere. All this (and like a million times more) had to come together perfectly with no second chances! Side: Yes it is
3
points
1 & 2 - Yep, the bible says young earth - so an old earth proves you should not believe the bible - not the other way around. 3 Carbon dating is only one method of radioactive dating used for dating thing thousands of years old. It is not use to determine the age of the earth is billions of years old. Lots more evidence points to an old earth than carbon dating. (Abstracted from here) Distant starlight When you look at an object a mile away, the light has been traveling for five microseconds. When you look at the Sun, you are seeing light that has been in transit for 8.3 minutes. When astronomers look at the closest star to Earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago from our perspective. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over ten billion years ago. Light we are receiving from these fields has been traveling for ten billion years, and the universe must have, therefore, existed long enough for that transit time to take place. Helioseismology The composition of the Sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the Sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of pressure waves in the sun), the age of the Sun can be inferred. Using this method, an Italian team came up with an age of 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years. Lunar retreat South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the Moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it does today." The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the Earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the Moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. Radioactive decay Radioactive decay is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the Earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years. Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand radiometric dating and just not believe it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods. Length of the prehistoric day Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each. Because the rate of change of the rotation of the Earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about 370 million years ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral). Naica megacrystals The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is the home of some of the largest gypsum crystals on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceed 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory, these crystals are older than one million years. Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds Nitrogen is the most common impurity in natural diamonds, sometimes by as much as 1% by mass. Recently formed diamonds, however, have very little nitrogen content. A major way synthetic diamonds are distinguished from natural ones is on the basis of nitrogen permeation. It takes long periods and high pressures for the nitrogen atoms to be squeezed into the diamond lattice. Research on the kinetics of the nitrogen aggregation at the University of Reading have suggested that a certain type of diamond, Ia diamonds, spend 200-2000 million years in the upper mantle. Petrified wood The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time. Gerald E. Teachout from the South Dakota Department of Game has written that "the mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking millions of years". It is true that in the laboratory petrification can be achieved in a matter of months, but petrification is far slower in natural conditions. Relativistic jets A relativistic jet is a jet of plasma that is ejected from some quasars and galaxy centers that have powerful magnetic fields. It is conjectured that the jets are driven by the twisting of magnetic fields in an accretion disk (the plate-like cloud of matter) found encircling many celestial objects. In super-massive bodies, immensely strong magnetic fields force plasma from the accretion disk into a jet that shoots away perpendicular to the face of the disk. In some cases, these columns of plasma have been found to extend far enough to refute the idea of a young universe. For example, the quasar PKS 1127-145 has a relativistic jet exceeding one million light years in length. Because the speed of light cannot be exceeded, this column must be over one million years old. Moreover, these jets are generally billions of light years from Earth, meaning they were at least a million years old several billion years ago due, again, to the speed of light. Seabed plankton layering Fossils of dead plankton that layer on the ocean floor is used to gauge temperatures from the past, based on the chemical changes of Crenarchaeota, a primitive phylum of microbe. Much like ice layering and dendrochronology, researchers drill through the ocean floor to extract samples which indicate annual temperature fluctuations in the plankton fossils, or "chemical rings" as it were. A 2004 pioneering expedition to the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole collected samples dating back to over 56 million years of temperature dating. Sedimentary varves Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter, as the water freezes and calms, fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated twenty million years worth of sedimentary layers. The creationist response is that, instead of once per year, these varves formed many hundreds of times per year. There is, however, much evidence against accelerated formation of varves. Pollen in varves is much more concentrated in the upper part of the dark layer, which is thought to represent spring. This is what would be expected if varves formed only once per year because pollen is much more common at this time. In Lake Suigetsu, Japan, there is a seasonal die-off of diatoms (calcareous algae) that will form layers in the bottom of the lake along with the sedimentary varves. If the 29 thousand varves in the lake formed more than once per year, there should be several sediment layers for every layer of deceased algae. However, for every one white layer of algae in Lake Suigetsu, there is only one varve. The varve thickness in the Green River formation correlates with both the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21 thousand year orbital cycle of the earth. Amino acid racemization [N]aturally occurring amino acid molecules usually possess a carbon centre with four different groups joining it; a hydrogen atom, the amino group, the acid group (hence the name of the class of molecule) and a side chain, which is what distinguishes amino acids. In three dimensional space, such a molecular topology can occupy one of two configurations. Convention labels these as D or L, which are referred to as stereoisomers and are essentially mirror images of each other. The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal. With only one exception [glycine], naturally occurring amino acids used in polypeptide synthesis are in the L form. Over time this will decay to a more balanced state in a process called racemization, where the ratio between L and D stereoisomers will be equal (a racemic mixture). Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can show an estimated age of the sample. This is measured fairly unambiguously by the fact that different stereoisomers rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions (it is this interaction that determines the D and L labels) and so a ratio can be determined by contrasting an unknown sample with a pure D or L sample and a racemic mixture. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to several million years old. While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable. Such conditions would destroy all traces of the amino acids rather than just leave a racemic mixture of the molecules behind. Continental drift Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years. Cosmogenic nuclide dating The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground. By measuring the build-up of these nuclides on terrestrial surfaces, the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred. This technique can be used to date objects over millions of years old. Erosion Many places on Earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The Grand Canyon, for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water. Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood - but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar, rather than the more solid stone that it's made of. In the case of the Yakima River in Washington State between Ellensburg and Yakima, the river meanders with many oxbows typical of a slow-moving river on a plain, yet it is set within a deep canyon with visible layers of erosion. The only possible explanation is that the pre-existing river maintained its original bed as slow tectonic forces caused the surrounding land to rise underneath and around it. Geomagnetic reversals A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and generally take thousands of years. This fact is obviously inconsistent with the notion of a young Earth; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the Earth at least 8.5 million years old. (If the earth was only 10,000 years old, that would mean a magnetic reversal would have occurred every 58.5 years on average.) Iron-manganese nodule growth Beryllium-10 (10Be) produced by cosmic rays shows that iron-manganese nodule growth is one of the slowest geological phenomena. It takes several million years to form one centimeter (and some are the size of potatoes). Cosmic ray produced 10Be is produced by the interactions of protons and neutrons with nitrogen and oxygen. It then reaches the earth via snow or rain. Since it is reactive, it gets absorbed by detritus material, within a timespan of about 300 years- very short compared to its half-life. Thusly, 10Be is excellent for use in dating marine sediment. Coral Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years. Fission track dating Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique that can be used to determine the age of crystalline materials that contain uranium. As uranium decays, it sends out atomic fragments, which leave scars or "fission tracks" in crystalline structures. Because decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate, the number of fission tracks correlates to the age of the object. This method is generally held to be accurate, as it shows a high degree of concordance with other methods such as potassium-argon dating. Ice layering Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing. Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection. Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists. Lack of DNA in fossils Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C, it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels. Permafrost The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the global flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood. Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of Alaska, the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over 225,000 years to reach present depth. Weathering rinds Weathering rinds are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. The weathering is caused by the oxidation of magnesium and iron rich minerals, and the thickness of this layer correlates with the age of a sample. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern United States are believed to have taken over 300,000 years to form. Dendrochronology Dendrochronology is a method of scientific dating which is based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings. The rings are the result of changes in the tree's growth speed over the year (since trees grow faster in the summer and slower in the winter). The age of a tree can be found by counting the rings and is the only method on this list that can date events precisely to a single year. Now, any date derived from one individual tree is not in itself contradictory to the recent creation doctrine, since even the longest lived types of tree do not live longer than 5,000 years or so. However, it is possible to extend the chronology back over many different trees. This is done by taking the matching up living tree rings with dead tree rings, which go on longer than the living rings. Because the thickness of tree rings varies with the climate, a sequence of thick ring, thin ring, thin ring, thick ring, thick ring, thick ring, thin ring, thick ring is strong evidence that the corresponding rings formed at the same time. By observing and analyzing the rings of many different trees from the same area, including fossil trees, the tree ring chronology has been pushed back in some areas as far as 11,000 years. Human Y-chromosomal ancestry The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one person alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has out-competed the other strains and is now - not taking into account smaller and less drastic mutations - the only one left. Because the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome is mutation, measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can tell you when this man lived. The most recent calculations put this common ancestor as having lived 340,000 years ago. Oxidizable carbon ratio dating Oxidizable carbon ratio dating is a method for determining the absolute age of charcoal samples with relative accuracy. This dating method works by measuring the ratio of oxidizable carbon to organic carbon. When the sample is freshly burned, there will be no oxidizable carbon because it has been removed by the combustion process. Over time this will change and the amount of organic carbon will decrease to be replaced by oxidizable carbon at a linear rate. By measuring the ratio of these two allotropes, one can determine ages of over 20,000 years ago with a standard error under 3%. Rock varnish Rock varnish is a coating that will form on exposed surface rocks. The varnish is formed as airborne dust accumulates on rock surfaces. This process is extremely slow; between 4 µm and 40 µm of material forms on the rock every thousand years, and instances of 40 µm of accumulation are very rare. Because the rate of accumulation is generally constant, measuring the depth of the varnish can provide dates for objects up to 250,000 years old. Thermoluminescence dating Thermoluminescence dating is a method for determining the age of objects containing crystalline minerals, such as ceramics or lava. These materials contain electrons that have been released from their atoms by ambient radiation, but have become trapped by imperfections in the mineral's structure. When one of these minerals is heated, the trapped electrons are discharged and produce light, and that light can be measured and compared with the level of surrounding radiation to establish the amount of time that has passed since the material was last heated (and its trapped electrons were last released). Side: No it's not.
2
points
1
point
Pertaining to number 4: The earth is within a VERY large range that could have worked to sustain life. We are talking millions and millions of miles here. The Earth's mass could also have been substantially different to stay in orbit, hence the rest of our solar system. The Earth's gravity could have been very different, and would have led to different forms of life that adapted to the different gravity. Life also could have possibly adapted to different forms of atmosphere. In reality, the Earth did not need to be as "perfect" as you are claiming in order to support life. We are finding plenty of evidence around the world of life forms that exist and thrive without oxygen, without sunlight, and in generally extreme conditions. On top of that, without exploring other worlds, we do not yet know what the full spectrum of conditions is that could sustain life. Side: No it's not.
"If you're an evolutionist, then this one's for you! Earth had to be placed at just the right distance from the sun, right? Coincidence... maybe. But since Earth had to be at that distance, Earth also had to be just the right mass to keep it in orbit. Also, since Earth had to be that mass, gravity had to be just the right strength. Strong enough to hold us down, and weak enough to not crush us. Now we're getting somewhere! Oh, and yeah, that planet with the perfect conditions happens to be the planet with sufficient water, and the right gasses in the atmosphere. All this (and like a million times more) had to come together perfectly with no second chances!" This sounds a lot like the fine tuning argument for the existence of god. The way you present the argument is with the presuppostition is that the god that created earth with this exact specifications, life sustaining specifications, is the biblical christian god. Which, in your mind, and please correct me if I am wrong, is the proof of a young earth. Side: No it's not.
|
If you are using the term "theory" in a scientific sense then no, creationism (young or old) does not meet the criteria for a theory. Creationism is not science because it is not falsifiable, that is it cannot be tested. I hesitate to use the word theory when discussing cultural creation stories as mythology is a better word for those instances. Side: No it's not.
2
points
"Theory" has a specific meaning in sciences. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ http://ncse.com/evolution/education/ http://www.livescience.com/ If you have a scientific theory that hasn't been derived from tests I would guess you are using the word theory too loosely given the context. Can you provide an example of a theory in science that has yet to be backed by observations and tests? Side: Yes it is
2
points
The fossil record debunks this without even needing to touch on the subject of evolution. Simply put, there is a complete absence of hominid skeletons in the strata that the overwhelming majority of fossilized species are found in; if young earth creationism were true, humans would have lived side by side with all known fossilized creatures and we'd expect to find many examples within the same strata where we find the oldest known fossils (estimated 3 billion years). Even ignoring specifics regarding the fossils themselves, consider the amount of activity (seismic, weather, and otherwise) required to bury various fossils in the strata they are found in. Given millions/billions of years for this to happen, no problem. But sufficient activity to bury the oldest known fossils as deep as they are inside 6000 years? That would reflect a level of said activities around 500,000 times what we are able to observe and measure, both now and historically. 500,000 times as many earthquakes. 500,000 times as many hurricanes. I can't imagine most life as we know it today would be able to survive such conditions- we're talking far, far worse than the calamities described in Revelations, even. Of course, there's always the possibility that a #trollgod intentionally placed fake fossils throughout the earths crust to misguide us. Side: No it's not.
Hmm... 500,000 times? I know of a pretty impressive global flood that wiped out the entire earth once. As for life surviving it. There's the ark... but it wasn't just a boat protecting them. It was a God even more impressive than all the weather related tragedies ever combined! Side: Yes it is
2
points
Science that contradicts the flood by Greg Moore, a creationist that believes in an old earth. (from here) "[T]he global-Flood model contradicts a vast body of geological and geophysical data. Scientists find no evidence of recent tectonics, volcanism or erosion on a scale nearly as great as the global Flood model requires. There are also too many organisms in the fossil record to assert they came from a single generation of living creatures that were killed by the Flood-the earth simply could not support that many organisms." "In fact, if the Flood was as catastrophic as young-earth creationists maintain, it is doubtful anything would have survived. The young-earth model would require vertical land erosion of more than 700 feet per day and tectonic uplift of more than 200 vertical feet per day. Anything more than just one foot of erosion or tectonic uplift is sufficient to destroy most modern cities." "The opossum, for example, shows little change over millions of years. The Cretaceous opossum of 70 million years ago-which most young-earth creationists would classify as pre-Flood because the fossils are found in strata they classify as Flood deposits-is very much like the opossum of today. Such continuous series of similar fossils tells us no divergence has occurred. This indicates the opossum and other species experienced fairly uniform conditions before and after the Flood." "They assume the aquatic creatures, being aquatic, would not be endangered by global floodwaters. They reason some organisms were able to adjust to the change in salinity caused by the mixing of fresh and salt water, while others survived in pockets or layers of fresh and saltwater. However, if the Flood was a global event, the floodwaters would have been brackish, which would have killed most of the amphibians, freshwater fish and many of the ocean species because each type is adapted to live within a particular salinity range. Organisms on the ocean floor would not have been able to survive the tremendous increase in water pressure. It is also doubtful pockets of fresh and saltwater would have persisted for eleven months given the violent geological processes they say accompanied the Flood." "Most plants would have been buried by hundreds of feet of sediment. Few of the plants and seeds that floated on the surface would have survived submergence in water, particularly salt water, for many months. Those that did survive would be unlikely to grow since most plants require very particular soil conditions-conditions unlikely to exist based on the catastrophic global-Flood model." "[W]e would expect to find evidence of a major radiation from Ararat. However, there is no fossil evidence to support such a mass migration. In fact, many animals, such as the Australian endemic families, have no fossil record outside of their current realm." "Another problem for the young-earth model is explaining what animals ate on this long journey. Some herbivores have specialized diets. Were these plants flourishing all along their migratory routes? And, with only a breeding pair of each species available, how would there have been enough new deaths to meet the food requirements of the carnivores?" "If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the other animals aboard the ark?" "[T]he Bible does not state the Flood changed the earth. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the volcanism, mountain uplift and continent formation embedded in the young-earth model. Nor is there any indication the post-Flood world was unstable. If that were the case, surely Noah would have expressed concern about the post-Flood conditions and God would have given Noah special instructions on how he was to survive. Instead, the Bible tells us Noah and his family immediately began farming and planted a vineyard-impossible if the conditions were as harsh as young-earth creationists suggest." "[N]owhere does Bible state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities. Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim." "Flood geology bears all the signs of an idea that has not been carefully thought through." (further references within article) Side: No it's not.
1
point
1
point
Only a #trollgod would design his flood in such a way as to deposit sediment and bury specific species in varying layers so as to appear as if it is the result of thousands of years of seismic/volcanic and weather activity, rather than as is generally expected of large scale floods. Nevermind the fact that while there is some evidence to suggest large-scale flooding in that region such that it would appear to cover the peoples entire world (meaning everything they could possibly see during the flooding), but none that suggest a worldwide phenomenon of that scale. It's like taking your son to the North Pole, showing him that there is no workshop there, and then threatening to beat him if he refuses to believe in Santa Clause despite that. Would you respect that parent? Side: No it's not.
2
points
The validity of the theory has been weakened by current accepted knowledge of our earths history. The six thousand year thing is based on the interpretation of what constitutes a day. IMO its a small issue that is used to discredit the Christian religion. The tactic is itself a weak point upon which to discredit a religion. In the grand scheme of events, this point of contention is minuscule and unimportant to the belief in the Christian God. Side: No it's not.
The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming. There is perhaps no greater attack upon science and rational thought than the doctrine of a recent creation of the planet Earth and/or the universe. Only up to 16 thousand species could fit on the Ark ( no including food and water), so according to Bill Nyes maths that’s about 11 new species showing up a day to account for the 8.7 million species of today. The ark is also completely impossible to build out of wood and the best shipwrights around the world tried to make one half it’s size and they failed, the ship sunk and everyone died because a boat that big can not ben made from wood. Also god created the Earth,light Plants before he created the sun and galaxies, Thats impossible. There would be space without earth but no earth without space and pants rely on the sun, same goes for then. whoever wrote this bible did not even know why the sun rises and sets, they say cuz god when we know its because we orbit around the sun. Also How was he counting days when the sun was created on day 4 ? Days are measured by the sun rising and setting The first descended from Adam and eve all lived for random age like 300 years, 930 years, 800 years, 110 years ect How did they die ? Not like they are being consistent if it's from old age, humans cant even live that long it's impossible We shouldn’t be trusting a book written over 2 thousand years ago by a bunch of unknown Jewish authors in extinct languages with no evidence what so ever and a tone of contradictions over modern scientific evidence and research Creationist Deny any scientific evidence that contradict with there beliefs. I don’t understand how people book of genesis literally even though it’s completely illogical, has no evidence at all, the myth it’s self has been proven impossible on multiple occasions and there is overwhelming scientific evidence contradicting it. I have so many questions for you creationists Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the cantre of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong. Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago? If all civilisations resulted from Adam and Eve, and oral traditions about the god that created them were passed down from generation to generation, why are there so many other creation stories in the world? Why didn’t all civilisations keep their ‘true’ religion? The standard creationist explanation for the distribution of fossils in geological strata, with most primitive life forms in the lower strata, and mammals and humans in the upper strata, is that clever mankind was smart enough to climb to higher ground to escape the rising flood waters. How do you explain the fact that thousands of persons drowned in the recent Central America floods, in an area contiguous to higher ground? How do you explain the position of the fossils in the geologic layers, with small fossils below large fossils, which is contrary to hydraulic sorting in which large objects settle deeper than small objects? How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age? This is one of hundreds of dating methods If creationism is scientifically valid, then why is it necessary to emphasize that the sectarian religious dogma of the Book of Genesis is the ultimate scientific authority? I could go on Side: No it's not.
Not all the "species" known today were taken onto the ark. Just one of every kind. ex. Horse kind, Dog kind, Cat kind etc... "Impossible"! Do you really want to use that word with God? He's pretty good at the impossible! Days are still days... In space, there's still a day. It just isn't measured by the earth's movement. God, being omniscient, knew just how long a day was. Umm, yeah, not everyone lives to the same age. Whence you get into the hundreds, it's really a gamble on how much longer you can make it without a fatal accident. Humans could live that long. Before the flood, the earth's climate was much more pleasant, and diseases did not have enough time to spread throughout the world. If a book is God's word, you can believe it after 2,000,000 years. If the world was around that long. Same to the evolutionists. Proven impossible? Like I said. God's specialty! Me too. You still want to be using the wheel? Come on! It's soooooo old-fashioned! Some children today are taught to be Christian, but plenty rebel! Have you actually seen this fossil record? People noticed a generality, and got excited about disproving the Bible, and the story got exaggerated. I assume you're talking of carbon dating. What if the world was created with some 14c (I believe that's the correct element) already in it? Because it is a part of God's word to us. We respect it as a part of His message, His letter written directly to us. Hey, I know you probably won't change your beliefs because of this argument. But please understand. Christians are thinking. We are not brainless "trolls" If you truly want to find God's truth, you will. Side: Yes it is
1
point
I am a Christian and yes, I do believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth. However, I do not believe that Earth was created in just 6,000 years. Honestly, it is just as possible that God began the universe with a "Big Bang." Some discredit the Big Bang Theory because they believe the theory itself discredits religion and specifically the philosophy of Christianity. This doesn't have to be. "In the beginning, there was light." Those first six words from the Bible could very well connect with the theory of the big bang which happened billions of years ago. Side: No it's not.
God took 3 days to create the earth yet Created over 80 billion galaxies in a day referred to as stars because to the people who wrote the bible they were nothing more then dots in the sky. How was god even counting the days when the the sun and the moon used to measure days was not created till day 4 ? How could god separate light from dark when darkness is the absent of light ? The people who wrote the bible did not even know why the sun rises and sets, they thought night time was evil. How can you fit creationism into science? Just because you don't know something does not mean you should attribute it to god as science has much better explanations backed by evidence and research. Have you read the book of genesis ? Do you think that man was from dust and woman from a rib ? Side: No it's not.
If you ask me, evolution is a thing, not a debate Evolution is what makes life possible, it allows organisms to adapt to the environment as it changes, its responsible for huge diversity and complicity of live on earth. Which not only provides organises with source of food and healthy competition, it also gives us some truly awesome stuff to marvel at. And even tho Evolution makes living thing different from one another, it also shows us how we are all the same. All live, every single thing that’s alive on earth today, can claim the same shared heritage. Having descended from the very first microorganism, when life originated on this planet 3.8 million years ago. There are people who will say that this is all random ( which it isn't ) and that this clumsy process could not be responsible for the majestic beauty of our world. And to them people I say well at least we can agree that our world is beautiful. There are 2 kinds of people in the world, the people who are excited about the power and beauty of evolution and those who don’t understand. Side: No it's not.
1
point
|
