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

[Skwim]

"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.

,​

 

[Jumi]

1. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed

Birds are still here, so they're partially right. They're just completely ignorant of real biology.

2. Biological systems are too complex to have evolved

From the people who think things can be condensed into one rulebook and interpreted in a simplistic way.

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

No proof for their claims. I guess they don't even think what it would mean.

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

What does that even mean.

5. Stars and planets could have never formed from dust

And atoms could never have formed crystals... amirite?

6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution

So they selectively believe scientific theories and extend them to things that scientists don't.

7. The Flood caused the ice age

Where is that in the Bible, exactly?

8. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work

And they have got proof of it not working?

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

So they believe we can change God's signatures. How mistaken they are.

10. The Grand Canyon was formed by receding flood waters

I wonder if a modern day geologist would agree... I think not.

 

[Estro Felino]

I wonder if a modern day geologist would agree... I think not.

Kurt Wise is a modern day geologist and agrees

He is also a very sad man who ignores the science he learnt and instead adapts it to suit Genesis.

Honestly...I admire people with such a great faith, they live in a status of ancestral purity (The innocence William Blake spoke of)

His surname sounds like a cruel game of destiny...though...

 

[Jumi]

Kurt Wise is a modern day geologist and agrees

A geologist who believes the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Altfish]

Kurt Wise is a modern day geologist and agrees

He is also a very sad man who ignores the science he learnt and instead adapts it to suit Genesis.

 

[Cacotopia]

Here is a wonderful film that you can learn how to check backgrounds of the so called creationist scientists

 

[Cacotopia]

Searched google scholar for Kurt Wise


Your search - kurt wise - didn't match any user profiles.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.
Try your query on all of Scholar.

SO we know anything this chump says isn't credible, since he never even bothered to write a single dissertation on anything

 

[Woberts]

And atoms could never have formed crystals... amirite?

U rite.
I'm a fan of #3. Wow, that's ignorant.

 

[Jumi]

U rite.

thxm8

I'm a fan of #3. Wow, that's ignorant.

This was actually the first time I remember hearing that one, it's like straight out of Monty Python sketches. I can imagine them making pictures with Einstein riding on a beam of light trying to catch up to another one.

I once stumbled on a guy explaining that light ages and changes color. He also had this idea that laws of physics also became more stable when they became adults... so I guess there's always a new level of crazy out there.

 

[exchemist]

thxm8


This was actually the first time I remember hearing that one, it's like straight out of Monty Python sketches. I can imagine them making pictures with Einstein riding on a beam of light trying to catch up to another one.

I once stumbled on a guy explaining that light ages and changes color. He also had this idea that laws of physics also became more stable when they became adults... so I guess there's always a new level of crazy out there.

Oh yes, this is the "tired light" hypothesis, to account for the cosmological red shift.

It's been abundantly discredited of course, but it was not totally wacky at the time it was originally proposed (1929): Tired light - Wikipedia

Also it remains the case that we only have empirical evidence that the laws of physics, or at least some of the fundamental the constants they contain, are in fact constants in space and time and not variable in some way. I read only recently a controversy over some cosmological work suggesting the fine structure constant might have varied.

Really it is just Ockham's Razor that says we take them as constant until we have evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jumi]

Oh yes, this is the "tired light" hypothesis, to account for the cosmological red shift.

It's been abundantly discredited of course, but it was not totally wacky at the time it was originally proposed (1929): Tired light - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
Well that's new to me... I guess some just people prefer old discredited theories to modern ones.

Really it is just Ockham's Razor that says we take them as constant until we have evidence to the contrary.

Agreed.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh yes, this is the "tired light" hypothesis, to account for the cosmological red shift.

It's been abundantly discredited of course, but it was not totally wacky at the time it was originally proposed (1929): Tired light - Wikipedia

Also it remains the case that we only have empirical evidence that the laws of physics, or at least some of the fundamental the constants they contain, are in fact constants in space and time and not variable in some way. I read only recently a controversy over some cosmological work suggesting the fine structure constant might have varied.

Really it is just Ockham's Razor that says we take them as constant until we have evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, that possible variance in the fine structure constant was on the order of 1 part in 1000 over the last 13 billion years. Hardly enough to significantly change the speed of light.

 

[exchemist]

Yeah, that possible variance in the fine structure constant was on the order of 1 part in 1000 over the last 13 billion years. Hardly enough to significantly change the speed of light.

That was just my example of a recent instance in which the constancy of constants has been challenged, other than by a crank.

Nothing to do with "tired light", or the other ideas espoused by Jumi's crank.

 

[Audie]

Kurt Wise is a modern day geologist and agrees


Honestly...I admire people with such a great faith, they live in a status of ancestral purity (The innocence William Blake spoke of)

His surname sounds like a cruel game of destiny...though...

Ah yes, Dr. K Wise.

The guy who says that even if all the evidence in the universe were to
turn against yec, he would still be a yec because that is what the bible seems to say.

Total intellectual dishonesty.

What a thing for you to admire.

 

[Audie]

A geologist who believes the earth is 6000 years old.

Not svp that his only evidence of that is what he thinks the bible seems to say.

So his status as a geologist is irrelevant, in that he has not datum point one
to back his belief.

We'd all be fascinated if he could actually come up with some scientific data.

Id not want someone of such profound intellectual dishonesty to be
on my side of anything.

 

[Jumi]

Not svp that his only evidence of that is what he thinks the bible seems to say.

So his status as a geologist is irrelevant, in that he has not datum point one
to back his belief.

We'd all be fascinated if he could actually come up with some scientific data.

Id not want someone of such profound intellectual dishonesty to be
on my side of anything.

I agree with you. Only way a geologist can believe 6000 year old earth is either non-scientific reasons or incompetence.

I'd love to see how he makes sense of geology in my country that was caused by the ice age.

 

[Audie]

I agree with you. Only way a geologist can believe 6000 year old earth is either non-scientific reasons or incompetence.

I'd love to see how he makes sense of geology in my country that was caused by the ice age.

That is not an ice age thing, as such.
I forget the name of that formation, but they are pretty common.

Tho the large and wonderfully round rock, not so much.

I was in BC Canada, one time, watching an Indian with a long
pole and a hook snagging salmon from such a place, tho
of course, it was full of water.

 

[exchemist]

That is not an ice age thing, as such.
I forget the name of that formation, but they are pretty common.

Tho the large and wonderfully round rock, not so much.

I was in BC Canada, one time, watching an Indian with a long
pole and a hook snagging salmon from such a place, tho
of course, it was full of water.

Is this what is sometimes called a "giant's kettle"? : Giant's kettle - Wikipedia

Formed by the action of flowing water causing stones inside to move round and erode a pit in the rock.

 

[Stevicus]

A geologist who believes the earth is 6000 years old.

Mother Earth still looks young for her age. I've heard that she still gets carded when going into bars. She's still quite beautiful. A lot of people get fooled about her actual age.

 

[LuisDantas]

Really it is just Ockham's Razor that says we take them as constant until we have evidence to the contrary.

While that is true, it is certainly noteworthy that some people go to such extremes to try and keep grasping at straws for no good reason.