Frequent objections to creationism

Oil

• If the earth is young, why is it that the predictions made for an old earth allow us to find oil?[1]

Creation wiki response:

In reality, oil is found by studying the features and layout of an area's geology. The origin of these doesn't play a part in this search. That the language surrounding this is couched in terms of deep time does not automatically prove that deep time was essential to the discoveries.

Furthermore, it is unreasonable to make this assertion until the evolutionist can demonstrate that a falsification of this hypothesis was attempted but failed. Dr. John Morris once attempted to figure out whether oil could be more successfully found using creationist principles and even demonstrated that a small team of creation geologists doing a few years research would cost the equivalent of a single failed drill. However, the major oil company he approached didn't accept his proposal, possibly due to prejudice on their part.

Fossils

• Flowering plants should be near the bottom of the geologic column as they cannot climb and grow in low lying areas. However, no flowering plant has been found below the layer associated with the Cretaceous period and extend upwards in the geologic column to present day angiosperms.[2]

Creation wiki response:

The lowest levels of all are going to be marine; the flood waters would have swept away much material and deposited it on top of all the material in the sea. Naturally, therefore, we would not expect to see flowering plants at the lowest level. The objection takes no account of catastrophe; it assumes that new material is gently deposited on top of old. However, the flood would have torn up the whole surface of the earth. Plants, being naturally buoyant, would have tended to float and are much more likely to be found at higher levels.

Additionally, the question's entire premise is false as fossilised pollen, clear evidence of flowering plants, has been found in so-called Precambrian rock.

• Pterosaurs were flying archosaurs that should have been very able to seek higher ground, yet none of them are found in layers more recent than those associated with the Cretaceous period. Somehow the archosaurs appear lower in the geologic column than hundred ton seismosaurus.

Creation wiki response:

Starlight and Time

• If the universe is 6000-10000 years old, why is it that we can find events occurring more than 6000-10000 light years away? If the universe is 6000-10000 years old, we wouldn't see anything outside the Milky Way.[3][4][5][6]

Creation wiki response:

God stretched out the heavens. What did this do to light and time outside the solar system? The objection assumes that everything was created in exactly the form it now has.

Biology

• I'm amazed that micro evolution will be accepted but macro evolution is impossible. The diversity of humankind, which apparently came from the 3 sons of Noah, obviously happened in only 4000 years. So, if this isn't macro-evolution in 4000 years, and if you can see what can happen in only 4000 years, then it should be logical that if you multiply this by X that more and more should be possible.

Creation wiki response:

Micro- vs Macroevolution is outdated terminology. The disagreement is not about the amount of change but the direction. "Macro" (i.e. Molecules-to-man) evolution requires natural processes that create new information in an organism's genome. Conversely, observations (so-called "micro" evolution) show processes that - by and large - copy, degrade or remove information that was already present, not add new information that didn't previously exist.

Chemistry

• Why don't we see isotopes with half-lives under 25 million years that are not products of isotopes with longer half lives? Here is a nice diagram :

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/transition.gif

Creation wiki response:

Misc

• Creationists have failed to come up with a single applicable use for creationism in any field of applied science. On the other hand, mainstream science (including evolution and common descent) are applied sciences that have commercial application today.

Creation wiki response:

The questioner is really making two separate claims here. As far as the first is concerned, it is clear that the critic has never actually researched this claim and is merely parroting what others have told them. If an evolutionist makes such an assertion, challenge them to present proof that backs up the assertion that creationism has zero use in applied science. If the claimant refuses to do so, point out that this is because they have no evidence in the first place and that they are merely parroting lines from the evolutionist script because they have blind faith in it.

In fact, this claim is provably wrong. First, Christianity provides the foundation for modern science and nearly all of it's foundational aspects were codified by biblical creationists, a pretty important applicable use in applied science. Next, there are many examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge. Finally, even if we limit our data to the 20th century, some counter examples include:

• Dr Raymond Damadian developed the magnetic resonance imager, a life-saving piece of diagnostic equipment, which won the USA’s highest honour in technology.
• Sir Ambrose Fleming, a founder of the Evolution Protest Movement, invented the thermionic valve which made radio broadcasts possible.
• Wernher von Braun was probably the person most responsible for sending men to the moon.
• Forrest M. Mims III has ‘invented an atmospheric haze sensor [that] could revolutionize this important field of study’ according to Scientific American (May 1997—ironically, Scientific American previously refused to hire Mims solely because he was a creationist!).

No applied science benefits from the idea of evolution. All empirical science depends on seeing what actually happens and basing hypotheses on that. The most that could be seen is variation within a kind, about which there is no dispute. The application of ideas of flood geology could potentially benefit mining and oil exploration, but they will not do so until someone is willing to try them. We constantly see new research reports on the amazing design of living creatures, sometimes without even a token acknowledgement of evolution; this is effectively applied creationism.

On the other hand, evolutionary ideas have been a positive hindrance to science. Evolutionary ideas about the development of our posture led to back treatments that worsened patients' problems. Evolutionary ideas led to 198 human organs' being labelled vestigial. Now, all are known to be useful or even essential. In the same way, evolutionists label large areas of DNA as junk, thus greatly hindering investigation of what it actually does.

• Creationism isn't testable, and thus, isn't science. Every single claim which has ever been tested has come up testing false, it ignores evidence it doesn't like.

Creation wiki response:

Warning:
This argument represents a
Contradiction.

Warning:
This argument represents a
Fallacy of elephant hurling.

This is a blatant contradiction. How can creationism be untestable if every single claim has been tested and found to be false? Either creationism is impossible to test or it has been tested and falsified - you can't have both. Even evolutionists have noted the logical incoherence of holding to this position.

Furthermore, the claimant has refused to present any proof to back up this claim but is instead merely resorting to an elephant hurling fallacy. This is because they are merely parroting what others have told them. If an evolutionist makes such an assertion, challenge them to present proof that backs up the assertion that creationism has zero use in applied science. If the claimant refuses to do so, point out that this is because they have no evidence in the first place and that they are merely parroting lines from the evolutionist script because they have blind faith in it.

In fact, this claim is provably wrong. There are some examples documented on Creation Wiki. More recent examples can be found in the work of Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, who has made a number of predictions regarding Creation Biology that are very much testable and falsifiable.

• What is it with Young Earth Creation and quote mining? Why is this dishonest tactic so common amongst Young Earth Creation literature?[7]

Creation wiki response:

• Why does AIG's $14,000,000 "museum" NOT contain any artifact displays or scientific facilities.[8]

Creation wiki response:

Related References

• 'Creation Science' Doesn't Work in the Real World Griper Blade Blog

• Oldest fossil flowers of hamamelidaceous affinity, from the Late Cretaceous of New Jersey. W L Crepet, K C Nixon, E M Friis, and J V Freudenstein

• A Brief History of the Discovery of Cosmic Gamma-Ray Bursts J.Bonnell

• The Cosmic Distance Scale Maggie Masetti

• The Nerest Galaxies Maggie Masetti, Dr. Koji Mukai, Phil Newman

• The Local Group Maggie Masetti, Dr. Koji Mukai, Phil Newman

• The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines Talk.Origins newsgroup, edited by John Pieret

• Creation Musiem Walk-through Kenneth Ham

See Also

• Responses to Talk.Origins
• Responses to Evowiki