Creationism is a viable theory

Thanks for the quick response Pro! Okay on to rebuttals. Argument From Information First, to squash this notion of DNA proof not being god of the gaps. If you had presented this argument as one possible theory for the emergence of life, then I would accept it as not being a god of the gaps argument. If you had said, “Here is one possible theory of abiogenesis; god must have created it because of its complexity, etc. etc.”, then I would have agreed (not with the theory, but with it not being god of the gaps). That’s not why you bring up the DNA argument. You bring up the DNA argument to stretch it across the young earth creationism model, and to prove to me that evolutionary theory isn’t plausible. That is your ulterior motive. Therefore, it becomes god of the gaps – unless you concede that the rest of young earth creationism isn’t plausible, and thereby lose the debate. DNA complexity doesn’t relate to trusting the biblical account of creation. It doesn’t account for the young earth theory. At the very most, according to a creation-based answer to this question, we can make a loose assume that maybe something might have fine-tuned life’s building blocks, but what that might have been, well you can’t ever know. It might have been aliens for all you know. If you want to attach a being to our creation, well, that’s one theory. It still provides no proof that biblical accounts of creation are true. By bringing up DNA proofs, you must also, as a logical, fact-seeking person, see that DNA and the mapping of the human genome has also brought more evidence against creationism. For example, the building blocks of life (ATCG) and the 22 amino acids have built a ‘base’ that every single creature on earth is comprised of – and we agree on that point. Most biologists agree that this is compelling proof that we all evolved from a single ancestor some 3.9 Billion years ago. You must agree that, thanks to the research on DNA, we have discovered that we are 98% genetically similar to chimpanzees; astonishing proof for evolutionary theory. We can’t be certain exactly how life was started, but we can conduct experiments that show it was possible for amino acids to form in primordial soup. Famously, Stanley Miller showed that way back in 1953. He built an environment and atmosphere like how it would have been 3.9 Billion years ago and then added sparks for lightning, and found that a primordial soup formed – containing all the ingredients and amino acids necessary for life – without a god. So to end the response to this contention, I’ll say that while neither I nor you can prove exactly how life started, I’m more than confident that I disapprove the rest of Young Earth Creationism. Can you say the same about evolutionary theory? Evidence Consistent With a Young Earth Humphreys is a punchline in the scientific community. He is one of those fringe scientists who looks for facts and evidence to suit his ideology. In other words, he doesn’t let fact stand in the way of a good theory. This is another god of the gaps argument. Nobody has ‘cracked the case’ on magnetic field. As Tim Thompson says “Nobody knows, yet, by exactly what mechanism specific fluid motions generate the Earth's specific magnetic field, but the presence of turbulent motions in the Earth's fluid outer core can hardly be denied, and physical models do show that the expected velocities will, in general, generate magnetic fields.” I’m no scientist, but he goes on to point out several flaws in the decay theory. I’ll quote him, but you can read his entire document in the talk origins website listed in the sources below. “Humphreys' theory is typical of a style that he has held to ever since, a mixture of physics and divine intervention. In this case, he postulates that God created everything initially out of water, which is a strongly polar molecule. If the Sun and planets are created entirely out of water, and created with some substantial fraction of those water molecules sharing a parallel alignment of their magnetic moments, then the resultant magnetic field of the parent body will also be substantial. But those alignments will collapse rapidly after creation, and the collapsing magnetic field will induce an electric current such as to resist the field collapse (in physics this is called Lenz's law). That establishes the field and the exponentially decaying current. God then intervenes directly and transforms everything into its present constituents, leaving the fields and currents intact. The result is an exponentially decaying field…” So immediately I am struck by the bizarre nature of such a theory… but don’t worry, it get even better Thompson continues: “Humphreys outlined his postulated history for the Earth's magnetic field in [23, 24, 29a]. He has a created magnetic dipole decaying exponentially until the time of the flood. At the onset of the flood, the dipole moment plummets rapidly, and then oscillates very rapidly (the rapid reversals) during the year of the flood. He the shows a series of fluctuations from about 4000 to 1500 years before the present, after which the field has been steadily decaying. This invented scenario depends heavily on the idea that all of the field reversals happened very rapidly, and all during the year of the flood. This can be seen in the online version of Impact #242 an ICR publication.” “I certainly do not accept the ideas put forth by Barnes and Humphreys, concerning the physics and history of the Earth's magnetic field…He has a strong tendency to over-interpret results, and to over-emphasize the degree to which his theories are predictive in nature, or to which they are congruent with reality. His mix of divine intervention and physics is quite natural for a creationist, but not at all acceptable to the non-creationist. Moreover, it is not consistent with an unbiased scientific investigation, in that it presumes what the result will be before the experiment is done…For those of you impressed by credentials, or who wonder if I am "qualified" to write such an article, I will point out that I have B.S. (1978) and M.S. (1985) degrees in physics, from California State university at Los Angeles, as well as a decade's worth of experience as a radio astronomer studying the magnetospheric environment of the outer planets.” Indeed, a study of Humphreys’ proposed model: s://letterstocreationists.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" /> And an independent study of the actual data by a Christian geologist named Joe Meert shows the difference over the proposed period of 10,000 years. Meert goes on to say, “ Note that there are no ‘wild fluctuations’ observed in the archeomagnetic database using 500 year averages and that today’s field is actually stronger than it has been in the past. Thus, while the dipole field shows a decreasing intensity, it is still greater than 6000 years ago and therefore (using the young earth timeline) stronger than at creation.” s://letterstocreationists.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" /> "Just because an explanation is complex, it does not mean it is wrong. In fact, the complex theories for the Earth’s magnetic field are based on real data. Humphreys ‘theory’ is based on a misrepresentation of archeomagnetic data (e.g. drawing reversals and zero lines on a curve that shows neither)……"I challenge pro to combat these claims, as well as my own, made in the arguments section, in his next round. Thanks. P.S. in case my pictures don't load.Here is Humphreys’ proposed model: https://letterstocreationists.files.wordpress.com...And the independant study: https://letterstocreationists.files.wordpress.com... Sources: http://evolution.about.com... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://humanorigins.si.edu... http://www.universetoday.com... https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com...