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

[whirlingmerc]

"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.

,​

no one claims the Grand canyon was made by receding flood waters. There is substantial evidence it may be from a glacier lake that overflowed the Kaibab upwarp

 

[whirlingmerc]

"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.

,​

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)

But how God made and how God sustained the universe need not be the same

 

[whirlingmerc]

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

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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)

But how God made and how God sustained the universe need not be the same

At any level of gravity one would find almost anywhere in the universe the speed of light is a constant for practical purposes. It only shows significantly within a star that is about to form a black hole. In fact anywhere gravity can only slow light, and YEC's need fast light which does not exist. You are grasping at nonexistent straws.

 

[Skwim]

no one claims the Grand canyon was made by receding flood waters. There is substantial evidence it may be from a glacier lake that overflowed the Kaibab upwarp

.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

no one claims the Grand canyon was made by receding flood waters. There is substantial evidence it may be from a glacier lake that overflowed the Kaibab upwarp

That may have been just one small part of its formation. The whole thing took millions of years and that is easily demonstrated.

 

[Skwim]

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,

But we're not near the center of the universe.

time is slowest near the center and fastest at edge

"Edge" what edge? Obviously you've never heard of the balloon analogy.

.

 

[whirlingmerc]

At any level of gravity one would find almost anywhere in the universe the speed of light is a constant for practical purposes. It only shows significantly within a star that is about to form a black hole. In fact anywhere gravity can only slow light, and YEC's need fast light which does not exist. You are grasping at nonexistent straws.

distance/time is constant but
time is not a constant

andt has the speed of light always been the same? and how do you know

 

[Altfish]

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.

Science does not rule god out. It rules the supernatural out...i.e. miracles. It explains everything through science and will not accept the 'god did it' hypothesis, instead it says, "We don't know but are looking into it"
Ken Ham is dangerous because he tries to stop children thinking and questioning.

 

[ecco]

no one claims the Grand canyon was made by receding flood waters. There is substantial evidence it may be from a glacier lake that overflowed the Kaibab upwarp

Huh? What substantial evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

distance/time is constant but
time is not a constant

andt has the speed of light always been the same? and how do you know

Changing the speed of light would also change other physical constants that are dependent upon the speed of light and that would leave evidence. A lack of such evidence tells us that the speed of light has not changed.

 

[Audie]

no one claims the Grand canyon was made by receding flood waters. There is substantial evidence it may be from a glacier lake that overflowed the Kaibab upwarp

The claim that is was made by "noahs flood" is common as dirt.

 

[Audie]

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.

Lots of loaded words there!
And you are just saying things that sound as if they mean something, but
actually do not.

Science does not "rule out god" as you claim. And certainly
not "a priori".No more than Batboy
or Atlantis are "ruled out". They, along with god, can make their
presence known any time they want a vote. Meanwhile, not so much.

It seems you do not know what your vocab means.

• A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).[3]
• A posteriori knowledgeor justification depends on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.

 

[Audie]

Science does not rule god out. It rules the supernatural out...i.e. miracles. It explains everything through science and will not accept the 'god did it' hypothesis, instead it says, "We don't know but are looking into it"
Ken Ham is dangerous because he tries to stop children thinking and questioning.

Ruled out, or not ruled in? Supernatural is welcome any time it wishes
to show up.
So is Nessie.

Just, you know, the fisheries managers at Loch Ness are not going
to count in how many fish they think a breeding population of Nessies
would be eating. Or how many Jesus might make out of a handfull, should he show up.

 

[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)

But how God made and how God sustained the universe need not be the same

Except that isn't how it actually works in the real world. The compensation for the difference in gravity between a satellite and sea level is on the order of one part in a million. To get the age of the Earth to be less than 10,000 years, it would take a time dilation factor of over 1 million. That, in turn requires a gravitational field far larger than what appears in the center of our sun and is, in fact, only found close to the event horizon of black holes.

And, in fact, because of dilation effects, time is slower at the edge and fastest at the center (although for the observable universe, the difference is small).

 

[Polymath257]

distance/time is constant but
time is not a constant

andt has the speed of light always been the same? and how do you know

There are several lines of evidence for this. One that is very nice, because it only involves direct measurements, is the reflection of light off nearby gas clouds from the Supernova in the Small Magellanic cloud in 1987. We know the distance to the star that exploded (168,000 light years), and we can measure the angular separation of the cloud from the star. That tells us how far away the cloud is from the star. We saw the reflection of the supernova in the cloud after the time expected from the known speed of light. So, at least in the last 168,000 years, the speed of light hasn't changed.

But we can go further. The relevant dimensionless constant is known as the fine structure constant, which relates the speed of light and the charge on an electron. We know that this constant hasn't changed by more than 1 part in a thousand as far back as we can measure (billions of light years). So, the speed of light is constant to within that amount for the last few billion years.

These are quite enough to dispense with a 10,000 year old universe.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Seeing the dinosaurs bones dates back to some 65 million years ago, That in it's self proves the earth is alot older than any 6000 yrs old, as people are being taught.

But you are saying that there were Celestial Men, or whatever, 65 million years ago, right?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

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.

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

What "faith assumptions" are you talking about?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There are several lines of evidence for this. One that is very nice, because it only involves direct measurements, is the reflection of light off nearby gas clouds from the Supernova in the Small Magellanic cloud in 1987. We know the distance to the star that exploded (168,000 light years), and we can measure the angular separation of the cloud from the star. That tells us how far away the cloud is from the star. We saw the reflection of the supernova in the cloud after the time expected from the known speed of light. So, at least in the last 168,000 years, the speed of light hasn't changed.

They were also able to measure the decay rate of 56Co, and it was in good agreement with the decay rate of 56Co here on Earth. This confirms that decay rates were the same ~170,000 years ago.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990MNRAS.245..570V

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

no one claims the Grand canyon was made by receding flood waters. There is substantial evidence it may be from a glacier lake that overflowed the Kaibab upwarp

The geologic history of the Grand Canyon is pretty complex and it can't be explained by a single event. You also have uplift of the entire plateau which incised pre-existing meanders, as one other mechanism. There is no doubt that there may have been periods of flooding within the canyon, but there have also been long periods of erosion from ice cleaving, chemical weather, wind erosion, and seasonal erosion from rainfall.