Biblical Creationism has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory

While the discussion if religion has its place in science is heated today, Biblical Creationism does try to solve the problem by bridging the gap between them. Is Biblical Creationism a science theory? Yes, I believe it is. Should you? Maybe, how am I supposed to know that? But none the less I’ll provide reasons why I think it is, so such a belief is not completely irrational to believe. | Discussion on Topicality | 1) The Definition is arbitrary In the part of the definition “if enough evidence accumulates…” the question comes how much evidence do I need to show in order to prove that this can be considered a scientific theory? For the sake of this debate I argue that all I need to provide is at least 1 evidence for it to sufficiently satisfy the criteria, as I’m not proving that it “is” a scientific theory or that it will be received to be one, but could “potentially” be considered as a scientific theory. For my reasoning “if Its potential, then it could considered. ” 2) Pro’s Burden of Proof Con did mention that I had the burden of proof, but didn’t specify in what. So I’ll go ahead and lay it out for clarity sake. Biblical Creationism is a valid hypothesis. Biblical Creationism does atleast have 1 evidence in support of it. If I prove these 2 burden of proofs then I have succedded in objectively claiming that "Biblical Creationism has enough evidence to be considered a Scientific Theory" 3) Is Biblical Creationism a hypothesis? First of all we need to define what a hypothesis is “A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon” [1] Now what is Biblical Creationism? “Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. ” [2] So the explanation to the proposed hypothesis is a supernatural creator being (God) and the phenomena that it is explaining would be the existence of the universe, earth and life. So yes, it is a hypothesis. And I have satisfied my first burden of proof. | Evidence |A] Evidence from Common Observations Observation I: The human body does show “made” characteristics When objects are “made” by an intelligent entity it normally leaves some characteristics in that “made” object. For say an Xbox 360 shows some fascinating architectural design underneath it, and we know it’s a “made” object by an intellectual entity (man). There many similar examples, ranging from car, computer, furniture etc… that does show a consistent pattern of design to it. The human body does show clear characteristics of design, from artery systems to visual sensory perception, there is no doubt that it’s consistent with what is perceived in knowingly made objects. This observation would clearly imply a creator when confronted with the human body. “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. ” ----- Psalm 139:14 Observation II: Humanity possess a great deal of wisdom Simply put, wisdom is “the effective understanding and use of information. ” Why are humans the only species on the planet that seems to possess wisdom? When you compare our wisdom with that of any species of the earth, you find that our wisdom is astronomically off the charts. For do you perceive a panda playing chess, or a bird doing astral physics? No. For there is no common ancestor that remotely has the capacity to possess even an ounce of man’s wisdom. Evolutionary speaking this capacity spontaneously popped into existence, which is a problem because evolution requires a smooth supply of common relationships (ancestors) for it to function to explain a phenomena. Outside of man, wisdom is very alien to this world. However, if we were made in the image of a wise everlasting creator, it may explain where man acquired their capacity to have wisdom. “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;” ---- - Proverbs 2:6 B] Evidence from Young Earth Creationism I decided to log into sites like ICR & Answers in Genesis and check out some common arguments on the subject (what fun! ). There is a connection between young earth and biblical creation, for if a young earth was true, then our designed world is easier to explain from the standpoint of a productive & industrious creator then that of the tardy and procrastinative natural evolution. I have chosen to divide out the tags in YEC ARGS (young earth creationist arguments) for organizational sake. YEC ARG I: Short-Lived comics Comets can’t survive in our solar system because it gets evaporated to quickly for them to be billions of years old… they’ve been searching for the imaginary Oort cloud, but I’m confident it doesn’t exist for there is no evidence for it. This does have an interesting impact, as it implies that the solar system is younger then billions. If the solar system is younger it does follow that the earth is younger as well. “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. ” ----- Isaac Newton, father of Physics YEC ARG II: Soft Tissue in fossils Chances are you’ve heard this argument before, but none the less I shall tack it on to my post. There has been found soft tissue in fossilized bone, probably the more popular one being the dinosaur bone discovered by Mary Schweitzer. This is kind of a problem, as you’re not supposed to find tissue in millions of year old dinosaur bones. The tissue should only take thousands, not millions to decay. YEC ARG III: Very Little Salt in the Sea Roughly about 458 tons of salt mixes into the ocean each year [7]. Yet only about 27% of it its removed yearly [8]. If sodium accumulated at the same rates of today, where is all the salt? For if the earth was billions of years old, then there would be seen LOT more sodium in the sea. YEC ARG IV: Earth’s magnetic Decay As you probably know, earth’s powerful magnetic field blocks harmful solar radiation. However there is another tidbit of information that should be noted, the total energy in the magnetic field decays at roughly 5% each year[5]. And with a little bit more research, that the magnetic field half-life is about 1,465. [6] so every 1,500 years ago , the magnetic field has more energy flowing through the earth’s core. This is somewhat a problem if you believe that the earth is older than 20-25 thousand years, for the earth would be freakishly hot. See . http://www.answersingenesis.org... you wish to better understand the argument. ------------------------- [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.answersingenesis.org... [5] . http://webcache.googleusercontent.com... [6] see page 8, figure 8. . http://www.creationresearch.org... [7] M. Meybeck, “Concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans,” [8] see abstract. . http://static.icr.org...