Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

A Defense of Biblical Creationism First I would like to clarify one thing: I have already won. You see, to assert one knows the origins of the universe, as well as the correctness of one particular theory, one has already lost. No human being was present at the foundations of existence, except, I assert, God. Therefore, there is no reason to state that a particular case is, "incorrect", because, for all one knows, aliens could have given rise to the earth after they simultaneously causated with superpowers. Ridiculous indeed, yet one cannot say that is false; however, we can look at the world around us, as well as the evidence given, and assert that this theory is highly unlikely. A better topic for this debate would have been, "Creationism is highly unlikely". I will be defending Biblical Creationism on the grounds of logic and science, yet I cannot assert that it did, or did not happen; just as Pro cannot argue that a natural process did, or did not give rise to the universe. With this clarified, I begin my contentions. Contention 1: The Bible Many of you read this and immediately classified me as a, "the Bible says so" contender. However, I will not be using this argument, rather, it will be a spin-off of this, which makes more sense. The book of Genesis was written approximately 2,000-3,000 B.C.,[1] making it the oldest story of origins. In perspective, Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was published in 1859[2], and was the first direct challenge of Creationism during the Modern Era, but has since proven unreliable and inaccurate. However, this book gave rise to thousands of natural theories of origins, most of which have some scientific merit, yet are still false. The Bible simply states that God created the world in seven days, and since it is the oldest, by technicality, it should be the accepted theory, because whoever wrote it was closer to the beginning than us. This concludes my first contention. Contention 2: Scientific Evidences 2a. The Fresh Tissue Argument: "Paleontologists, operating under the assumption that earth"s strata represent millions or billions of years, have not looked for fresh tissues within fossilized remains. But fresh biological material within some fossils has been there all along and is being continually discovered, despite the protests of biochemists that it should not exist. Molecules such as proteins, pigments, and DNA"as well as intact cells and, in some cases, cells still grouped together in tissues"have been found in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old. Whole organisms are sealed in amber deposits, and over a thousand still-living kinds of microbes have been extracted from them.Fresh tissues and living cells cannot possibly be millions of years old, and they constitute some of the strongest evidence for the young world that the Bible describes." - ICR[4] 2b. Mutational Buildup In its most basic form, this argument states that mutations build up over time, and at a certain point they will be activated and cause extensive damage to organs and flesh in the species they inhabit, causing extinction. It is estimated that if 100 mutations are added every twenty years to the human species, they would become extinct after only 500 generations. This indicates the earth must be young, (as described in the Bible) because if our race was millions of years old, we would have become extinct long ago. 2c. So-Called, "Living Fossils" These are animals which were once considered ancestors to modern animals, but were later discovered as animals which are alive today. The most famous example is the Coelacanth. Originally believed to be a intermediate between fish and amphibians, it was found living in the deep waters off the Indian ocean. Therefore, by logic, it was concluded that the Coelacanth was not an ancestor of anything, because it exists in its original form, which is what you would expect if you were a creationist.[6] Millions of other examples exist where an animal today is the same as an animal fossilized,[7] yet the scientists dated the fossilized animal back millions of years. If one was to believe evolution, he would have to make a jump in logic. No animal could be the same millions of years ago as they are today, otherwise, evolution would be false. Contention 3: Universal Expansion From the things we can observe in the universe, we are made aware that the universe is slowly expanding.[8] The converse of this would be that in the past the universe was smaller, until you reached a point where nothing could exist. This would be where creation comes into play, because God is able to create things. Creationism is confirmed by this, because nothing cannot make something, unless there is something which made it. I believe God created the universe, and ever since it has been expanding, and others with more scientific weight would agree.[9] Conclusion: I hope my presentation has been respectful, thought-provoking, and logical. Thank you for reading, you are an awesome human being. Back to you Pro. [1a] http://en.wikipedia.org... [1b] http://biologos.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3a] https://answersingenesis.org... [3b] https://answersingenesis.org... [4] http://www.icr.org... [5a] http://www.icr.org... [5b] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5c] http://www.nytimes.com... [5d] http://www.bioone.org... [6a] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6b] http://www.icr.org... [7a ] http://www.mnn.com... [7b] http://www.icr.org... [7c] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9a] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [9b] http://biologos.org...