5 out 51 Reasons for Creationism

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Do you believe God created this star system a few thousand years ago?

Yes
1
6%
No
17
94%
 
Total votes: 18

liberative
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:10 am

5 out 51 Reasons for Creationism

Post #1

Post by liberative »

Debating Christianity People,

I have found 51 scientific reasons that support creationism (some have more than one sub-reason). These reasons I discuss in “CreationismOreCredible� on my website at http://liberative.tripod.com (11 pages long – about 2 hours of reading). My 51 reasons include: * Adaptations v/s Evolution (micro not macro) * Elemental Accumulations (young earth) * Thermodynamics (entropy) * Probability v/s Improbability (staggering) * Spontaneous Generation of Life (against Pasteur) * Comparative Anatomy/Homology (invalid) * Vestigial Organs (none such) * Irreducible Complexity (such as cells) * Peppered Moths (adaptation) * Gecko Lizards (amazing suction) * Gardening Ants (symbiotic with acacia) * Mimicry (chameleons and the Hawaiian angler fish) * Flight (4 paths not a family tree) * Echolocation (irreducible) * Eyes (4 totally different kinds) * Meteoric Dust (young moon) * The Solar System (against physical “law�) * The Big Bang (universal thermodynamics) * Stars and Galaxies (astrophysics) * Fossils (formation, flood) * Too Many Fossils (no transitional) * Dating Methods (unreliable) * Paraconformity/Geologic Table (species not in series) * Petrified Plants (chopped wood in the USA’s national “forest�) * Oil and Coal (quickly formable) * Permanence of Kinds (not evolving) * Fossil Horses (not a sequence) * The Archaeopteryx (not transitional) * Reptiles to Mammals? (big differences) * Amphibians to Reptiles? (poisonous changes) * Mammals to Whales? (landlocked impasse) * Apes to Humans? (incompatible DNA) * Prehistoric Forgeries (evolution unmasked) * Population Sequencing (8 people 5000 years ago, like Noah’s family) * Living Fossils (Coelacanth, contemporary dinosaurs) * DNA Evidence (intelligent design) AND * The Anthropic Principle (fit for survival)

To give you an example of my writing, the following are 5 reasons. I hope you will get my document yourself, read it, consider it, and share it with people who should be enlightened that GOD CREATED THIS STAR SYSTEM NOT LONG AGO!

Vigilance and Justice,
Love & Peace – Pipe!
a.k.a. Kenneth Wood

PROBABILITY V/S IMPROBABILITY
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with that theory’s loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even one single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He did his computations based on a theoretical a world in which the earth’s entire surface – all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust – would be available. He then had amino acids bind at a rate 1 ½ trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination it would take 10, to the 262nd power, years. (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeroes.) To get a single cell – the single smallest living cell known to mankind – which is called the Mycoplasma Hominis H39, it would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then zeroes after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write this number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell! According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and an expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. Sir Fred Hoyle, the British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine (November 12th 1981), as saying “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.�

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE
Evolutionists say billions of years after the Big Bang the planets coagulated from gas, vapor, and dust; cooled down; and it rained for millions of years, forming earth’s oceans – a primordial soup rich with many complex chemicals. This is where the first “simple cell� (as Darwin called it) supposedly formed, defying the fact that proteins unbond in water more quickly than they bond. Meanwhile, biogenic law has two provable concepts to it: 1) Life can only come from life; and 2) Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. (Reptiles produce other reptiles, and do not arcanely become birds.) More than a century after it was first proposed, scientists have never seen this law violated. Although Louis Pasteur (famous for “pasteurization�) disproved “spontaneous generation� over a century ago, some evolutionists will argue he only tested large, modern organisms and that it’s still possible. This is what evolutionists believe happened, even though no scientist (even with all our great technology) has ever been able to synthesize a living cell out of non-living chemicals or material. In fact, two scientists – Dr. Miller and Dr. Urey – tested the hypothesis that mankind could create life from scratch. In experiments, they created a few amino acids under tightly controlled circumstances that were supposed to mimic those conditions of a primordial earth. They assumed a (chemically) “reducing� atmosphere; however, this is pure speculation and contradicts the empirical evidence, because if it existed we should find methane stuck to ancient sedimentary clays but we do not; instead there are oxidized rocks as far down as geologists dig. Therefore, amino acids would really have been destroyed by oxidation, but without oxygen UV radiation would arrive unhindered, also meaning death. Using a spark to simulate lightning, trapping out the gases he wanted, and finally filtering the product, Dr. Miller produced a combination of 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid, and 2% amino acids. Actually, this spark was better at tearing the amino acids apart than putting them together and evolutionary science should show how life arose without any outside intelligence to guide it. Also, the amino acids would have inevitably bonded with the tar and not survived, even if there had been the 20 different amino acids necessary for viable life. The amino acids Miller created were a long way from being alive, and the solution contained both left- and right-handed amino acids. In nature, only left-handed amino acids are used to make proteins. In fact, if even one right-handed amino acid occurs in the code of a protein, it renders the entire chain useless. Dr. Miller himself has stated that no useful conclusions can be drawn from his experiments. Besides, it took intelligent design to construct the experiment in the first place! In review, Miller used the wrong starting conditions, interfered with the experiment, and got the wrong results. Other than that it went great. Furthermore, the various nucleotides essential for building RNA and DNA molecules require radically different external conditions for their random assembly. Cytosine and uracil need near-boiling water temperatures, while adenine and guanine need freezing water temperatures. Thus, it seems most unlikely that under natural conditions all four building blocks would come together under adequate concentrations at the same place. Self-assembled life arising in a primordial soup or on a mineral substrate would be expected to leave behind some inorganic kerogen tars marked by a certain carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio. No such kerogen is found in the geologic column. In addition, the simplest chemical step for the origin of life – the gathering of amino acids that are all left-handed and nucleotide sugars that are all right-handed – cannot be achieved under inorganic conditions.

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY / HOMOLOGY
Comparative anatomy is a theory stating that like features inside two different creatures means they are distant cousins on the evolutionary “tree�. The problem with this is that those features the scientists use to “prove� like ancestry usually come from different areas on the DNA strand. Like an architect, an Intelligent Designer could certainly make multiple uses out of codes for well-constructed organs or skeletons, but this does not imply biological relationships. Darwin said that embryological evidence was “second to none in importance�. The idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used as evidence for the theory. In the human embryo, the main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed “gill slits� (left over from fish), the “yolk sac� (left over from the rep-tile stage), and the “tail� (from the monkeys). The so-called gill slits are never really slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair becomes germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle-ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands. The yolk sac does not store food because the mother’s body provides all of the embryo’s food. In fact, the “yolk sac� is not a yolk sac at all; its true function is to produce the first blood cells. The “tail� is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans normally do. Also arguing against
recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different embryonic stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order. Homology studies the similarity of structures between different types of organ-isms. People have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Luther Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is compared (according to the ideas of homology) humans are more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep. With the development of molecular biology, we can now make a comparison of the same cells in different species, adding a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidence, presenting a greater argument against evolution theory than for it. Molecular biology can test proteins of the same type in different organisms to determine how much difference there is in amino acid makeup. The resulting figure is converted into a percentage. The lower it is, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton states, “There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish.� Using the evolutionist reasoning of so-called “similarities� between animals, one could conclude that crocodiles and chickens are closely related, because the A-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of chickens (17.5 %) than that of vipers (5.6 %), which are their fellow reptiles. Hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood, is found in vertebrates but it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. Maybe we “evolved� from chickens, because our lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than that of any fellow mammal. Also, the antigen receptor protein in camels and sharks has the same unusual single chain structure, but this cannot be explained by envisioning a common ancestor of sharks and camels.

VESTIGIAL ORGANS
Vestigial organs are those in the body which are said to be useless, remnants left over from evolutionary development. It is said they were formerly important organs but are not needed any more. At one time, more than 180 organs of the human body were classified as such. In the last 100 years, all but four of these organs have been found to have important functions for the body. Some of these were the pituitary gland (which oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (which in turn affects the development of sex glands), the tonsils and the appendix (both of which fight disease; the appendix also aids greatly in digestion). It appears that every part of the human body has functionality, implying masterful design, not chance evolutionary processes. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed, or that one can live without it, does not make it vestigial. The bones of the “vestigial� pelvis in whales are, in fact, anchor points where muscles essential to their reproductive systems attach. (Male and female whales differ considerably.) Evolution implies that if an organ has lost its value, over time it should vanish completely. Furthermore, if organs did become useless, this would serve to back up the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the degenerative process, rather than evolution, which requires adaptation of existing organs for new purposes and new organs forming for likewise useful purposes, rather than old ones dying out. Evolutionists have mostly given up the vestigial argument.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
Darwin wrote, “If it could be shown that any biological organ or system existed which could not possibly be made by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.� A common example of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap, which must have all parts (the catch, the hammer, the holding bar, the platform, and the spring) in the right places in order for it to function. Molecular biologist Dr. Michael Behe observes in his book Darwin’s Black Box that, “The cell is chock full of ‘irreducibly complex’ systems… literally molecular machines� which could not evolve step-by-step. In his book Evolution – A Theory in Crisis, Dr. Michael Denton (a non-creationist) wrote, “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand-million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant large airship large enough to cover a great city like Lon-don or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings, we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which, a functional protein or gene, is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is exactly the opposite of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy.... It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.� Even the simplest cell is incredibly and irreducibly complex; it won’t work until fully assembled, lending credence to the idea of God as our Creator.

THE END

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #2

Post by Furrowed Brow »

Re: PROBABILITY V/S IMPROBABILITY

I'll refer you to this previous thread Metabolism First hypthesis

This quote from Stephen Benner makes the point
Stpehen Benner wrote:The sugar ribose, the R in RNA, provides an object lesson in how a problem declared unsolvable may instead merely be not yet solved. Ribose long remained impossible to make by periodic synthesis because it contains a carbonyl group - a carbon atom twice bonded to an oxygen atom.

if borate and organic compounds abundant in meteorites are mixed and hit with lightening, good quantities of ribose are formed from and the ribose does not decompose.

The fact that such a simple solution can be found for a problem declared unsolvable does not mean that the first form of life definitively used RNA to do genetics. But it should give us pause when advised to discard avenues of research simply because some of their problematic pieces have not yet been solved.
For unsolved read impossible.

Really all the probabilistic arguments like that touted by Coppedge do is remind us that our knowledge is limited. What is the probability that a "ribose" solution may arise…and the answer is we don't know. Thus we really do not know the true value of Coppedge's calculation. Coppedge’s argument is pretty much meaningless, and may even be harmful if it puts off some bright student from investigating the problem...but the really bright students will just see Coppedge's argument for what it is.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #3

Post by Furrowed Brow »

Re: SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE
Meanwhile, biogenic law has two provable concepts to it: 1) Life can only come from life; and 2) Like kinds always give rise to like kinds.
Sorry both points are tired creationist misinformation. What law of biology are you invoking? Ernst Haeckel's biogenic law provides no leverage against common descent.
In addition, the simplest chemical step for the origin of life – the gathering of amino acids that are all left-handed and nucleotide sugars that are all right-handed – cannot be achieved under inorganic conditions.
It may be advisable not to tell nature what it cannot do. I refer you to the ribose problem in RNA mentioned above.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #4

Post by Furrowed Brow »

Re: COMPARATIVE ANATOMY / HOMOLOGY

I refer you to the Hox 13 gene.

The Finger points to common ancestry

A case of compartive anatomy and genetics working together neatly. Your point is again a case of creationist propaganda.
Last edited by Furrowed Brow on Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #5

Post by Furrowed Brow »

RE: VESTIGIAL ORGANS
Evolution implies that if an organ has lost its value, over time it should vanish completely.
No it doesn't. It implies that if a function/characteristics were to be harmful to a species survival then it should be vanish or the species will vanish.

Here are some vestigial stuff you might like to consider:

Erector Pili and Body Hair
human tailbone
The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus
wisdom teeth
Furthermore, if organs did become useless, this would serve to back up the Second Law of Thermodynamics..
#-o Not more misuse of the 2nd law. Please you said you had 51 reasons. Are they all this fallacious. The 2nd law has no bearing upon vestigial organs. Please stop purveying this nonsense.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #6

Post by Furrowed Brow »

Re: IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

P...pleeeeeeze!!!

You really want to tout Behe? This argument is dead and buried.

User avatar
daedalus 2.0
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: NYC

Post #7

Post by daedalus 2.0 »

OMG, I thought ID was dead already!

Either way, the OP is a perfect example of Pseudodscience trolling. Bible codes, alien visitation and Creationism.

Again and again we see these same things put forward by the next generation of the credulous.
Imagine the people who believe ... and not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible.... It is these ignorant people�who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us...I.Asimov

byofrcs

Re: 5 out 51 Reasons for Creationism

Post #8

Post by byofrcs »

liberative wrote:Debating Christianity People,

I have found 51 scientific reasons that support creationism (some have more than one sub-reason). These reasons I discuss in “CreationismOreCredible� on my website at http://liberative.tripod.com (11 pages long – about 2 hours of reading). My 51 reasons include: * Adaptations v/s Evolution (micro not macro) * Elemental Accumulations (young earth) * Thermodynamics (entropy) * Probability v/s Improbability (staggering) * Spontaneous Generation of Life (against Pasteur) * Comparative Anatomy/Homology (invalid) * Vestigial Organs (none such) * Irreducible Complexity (such as cells) * Peppered Moths (adaptation) * Gecko Lizards (amazing suction) * Gardening Ants (symbiotic with acacia) * Mimicry (chameleons and the Hawaiian angler fish) * Flight (4 paths not a family tree) * Echolocation (irreducible) * Eyes (4 totally different kinds) * Meteoric Dust (young moon) * The Solar System (against physical “law�) * The Big Bang (universal thermodynamics) * Stars and Galaxies (astrophysics) * Fossils (formation, flood) * Too Many Fossils (no transitional) * Dating Methods (unreliable) * Paraconformity/Geologic Table (species not in series) * Petrified Plants (chopped wood in the USA’s national “forest�) * Oil and Coal (quickly formable) * Permanence of Kinds (not evolving) * Fossil Horses (not a sequence) * The Archaeopteryx (not transitional) * Reptiles to Mammals? (big differences) * Amphibians to Reptiles? (poisonous changes) * Mammals to Whales? (landlocked impasse) * Apes to Humans? (incompatible DNA) * Prehistoric Forgeries (evolution unmasked) * Population Sequencing (8 people 5000 years ago, like Noah’s family) * Living Fossils (Coelacanth, contemporary dinosaurs) * DNA Evidence (intelligent design) AND * The Anthropic Principle (fit for survival)

.......
You're pulling our leg on this on !. In fact you've only got a 91% chance of pulling the Plantaris muscle because...

The Plantaris muscle is found in 91% of humans.
The Palmaris muscle is found in 89% of humans.
The Pyramidalis muscle is found in 80% of humans.
The thirteenth rib is found in 8%
The cervical rib is found in just 0.2% of humans

Long time ago when dismantling say a carb or pump from the car I'd end up with the odd bits left and then I learnt to meticulously count and label all the nuts and bolts and stuff. Is god just a useless mechanic like I was before I got myself a pile of plastic trays to store the washers, nuts and bolts ?.

Maybe we can donate some money and buy god a set of Tupperware containers to store the bits when he's making some new species ?

"contemporary dinosaurs" - this is great !. Bring it on. I just LOVE dinosaurs. No seriously there are no contemporary dinosaurs not matter what you saw in Jurassic Park.

JURASSIC PARK IS A MOVIE. IT IS MADE UP OF CGI (COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGERY). MEANING IT IS MADE WITH COMPUTERS. OK, GOT THAT ?. COMPUTERS *NOT* REALITY, THOUGH IT WAS QUITE WELL DONE and without the use of the more modern matchmoving technology which I think is pretty awesome if a little esoteric for this forum.

I could go on but I don't really suffer fools.

Homicidal_Cherry53
Sage
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:38 am
Location: America

Post #9

Post by Homicidal_Cherry53 »

We just had a ten page topic on the second law of thermodynamics and how it doesn't apply to evolution, yet people are still using it to support creationism. >_>

I'd say Furrowed Brow sufficiently disproved the five reasons you gave for creationism, so I'm not even gonna bother with that, nor will I read the other reasons because, based on these five, it's every creationist argument I've already heard, compiled in one place.

Beto

Post #10

Post by Beto »

I must ask liberative if these were the irrefutable and air-tight reasons he talked about. Because in that case, the others are probably not worth the effort of addressing.

Post Reply