Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

Responses: 2C1A. "It is agreed ... that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal ... contradicts ... Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century." I'll accept this dichotomy -- with one change. The choice should be: Either some mechanism created the universe or the universe created itself. This is because scientific theories such as the Zero-Energy Universe and universe as a large-scale quantum fluctuation allow (if they end up being correct) for a purely mechanical creation of the universe by external causes, with no need for a sentient Creator. Furthermore, why wouldn’t a Creator need a Creator? --- 2C1B. "As the universe is ... seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe ... design [is] the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws ... imply a Law-giver." Please provide an objective standard of measurement that could be used by, say, a computer program, to determine whether or not something is designed. If you can do so, and if the universe fits, then perhaps a Designer would be the scientific default. Otherwise, it would just be an illusion, much as chemically-induced "beauty" or "love" is. Please explain why the existence of rules governing the universe implies that somebody must have created it that way. --- 2C1C. "Unless a natural mechanism ... by which the entire universe could come into existence ... is found, a Creator must be the ... default. .... As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated ... 'Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.' " Please see my response to 2C1A for the creation of the universe, and 2C1B for the complexity of the universe. --- 2C2A.“ Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is ... possible, there needs to be an excessive ... amount of time. .... If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments ... the age was pushed back[.] ... In 1905, the earth was ... two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was ... 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth [was] ... 4.6 billion years old.” I would like to point out that my opponent accuses scientists of being ideologically- (rather than data-) driven in their research without any evidence to support this statement. Furthermore, I would like to point out that significant proof of creation theory would provide a scientist massive amounts of fame, money, and accolade, because it would disprove so much of scientific work elsewhere. The question is not why the age has been revised, but why creationism has not yet been proven. Furthermore, I would like to point out the fact that the ability of science to become more accurate in response to more data is one of its strongest defenses and is what allows it to so accurately describe so much of the universe. This contrasts with Biblical Creationism, which starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct, will never change or become more accurate, and will never add to the predictive power of human reason. --- 2C2B.“However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." I would love to see that meta-analysis. Please, do provide. --- 2C2C. “Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest.” My opponent mentions half a dozen nouns that he purports to be proof of a young (less than ~6,000 year old) earth. I cannot respond to each those points that he does not explain, both because of character limits and because he does not provide any reason why any of these would promote a young earth – as such, I cannot attack his methodology or results, and it would be unfair to ask me to research my opponent’s own positions just to disprove them. --- 2C2D. “Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.” Two words: Dark matter. It stays on the outsides of galaxies to due to the compressibility of gas and the noncompressibility of dark matter, causing those sections to both spin slower than would be expected and to have higher gravity than would be expected. A quick reading of [ http://en.wikipedia.org... ] or a Google search of “dark matter spiral galaxies” will give you a similar result. Furthermore, how does a 6,000-year-old universe deal with the incredibly long times associated with galaxy formation? Furthermore, how does a 6,000-year-old universe deal with the Starlight problem? --- 2C2E. “The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in ‘Limiting Factors.’ While it may be impossible to be certain when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this illustration: A boat sinks. .... If a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in 1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin was minted. The coin is a ‘Limiting Factor.’ Sure, if counterfeiters don’t exist. But I digress. --- 2C2F. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth ... it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829.... During that time, it has deteriorated .... By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation). First off, please provide a source. Second off, the strength of Earth’s magnetic field does not exponentially decline. It decreases and increases as the magnetic field reverses polarity. For example, about 41,000 years ago, the Earth’s magnetic field very rapidly reversed, (read: 250-500 years) and dropped to about 5% of its original strength during this time. [http://www.sciencedaily.com... ] My opponent needs to prove that, if it’s actually being observed, whatever current decline of Earth’s magnetic is occurring is both not a part of a long-term reversal and that it fits his trend. Third off, please tell us how a strong magnetic field would kill life. Fourth off, even if this is true, this does not prove that only Biblical Creationism could be correct, merely that the Earth cannot be older than 22,000 years. This would allow another Creator (Flying Spaghetti Monster, anyone?) to have created the world 22,000 years ago, while the Bible would still be incorrect about both the correct Creator and the age of the earth. --- 2C2G. “The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it.” First off, please provide a source. Second off, if I remember correctly, and my sources do, the Earth is now spinning 1.7 milliseconds slower than 100 years ago, which gives a rate of 0.000017 seconds per year, or 0.0000255 seconds per 1.5 years. [ McCarthy, D.D. & Seidelmann, P.K. TIME: From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. (2009). pp. 88–89 ] Third off, why would a faster spin both create a stronger Coriolis Effect and kill life? Fourth off, what is the maximum timeframe for life surviving the Coriolis Effect? If it’s over 6,000, then it’s clear that another Creator is possible. --- 2C2H. “The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth.” First off, please provide a source. Second off, according to George E. Williams, who reviewed sedimentary deposits related to each rotation of the moon, 2.45 billion years ago the moon was 10% closer to the earth than it is today, which would give (by your no-touchy-logic) a maximum age of the earth of 24.5 billion years, more than the age of the universe. [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... ]---The remainder of my response can be found in the comments section, because I am nearing the 10,000 character limit.