Is Creationism false

Answer 1

No Actually everything in creationism is based on real science. Also young earth creationism is easily explained by the fact that I believe most dating methods used by scientists today are flawed. Many have been proved to have huge inconsistencies many times over. I remember one experiment where the age of a newly created volcano crust was dated and it came back millions of years old when in fact it was less then 20. And also the recent discovery of dinosaur bones with blood in them show a different story, as many know blood cannot last millions of years. What this shows is that the whole foundation of the archeology timeline is flawed and that the earth is much younger then originally believed. That in fact the world isn't millions of years old but thousands. I'll put up some links to back my claims, one has pictures so you can see it with your own eyes.

Also there was a recent discovery of rings in rocks with a radioactive compound that has a half life of less then a second proves that it was created in less then a second. As the rings wouldn't exist if it was created after it had vanished. Many people believe that this happened because it was deposited by a kind of sap, but this would only account for the rings on the surface, not the rings inside the rock itself.

As you can see everything in Creationism is based on science. I would suggest that you find a movie called "Creation in the Symphony" which shows a lot of the theory and science behind creation. One great line from the movie is "The probability that evolution is true is the same probability that a whirlwind would blow into a junkyard and construct a Boeing 747 and send it flying out the other side"

In fact one reason evolution requires the alleged long time frames is that because we don't see evolution happening before our eyes it is assumed it can occur over the longer time period. This kind of argumentation is frequently used by evolutionists. It has been likened to a salesman who makes a loss on every sale but assumes he can make a profit if he makes a major increase in his sales volume. This ignores the scientific facts of Genetics, which show definite limits to change and no mechanism for new information to arise in the genetic code of an organism.

Further to this, genetics, particularly human genetics, shows there are now around 4000 known genetic disorders. The human genome is thus not evolving into something better but is deteriorating over time. Actual science points to a 'very good' creation which is in decay. If it was as old as stated by evolutionists we probably would not be here.

It is also wrong to assume that it is scientific knowledge which refutes creationism. Scientific knowledge, when all the facts are considered, supports young-earth creationism and refutes evolution. If evolution is true then it would fit all the facts and there would be no need to ignore an 'inconvenient truth.' Creationism is also not 'true by default'. It just happens to fit the evidence, all the evidence, better.

Answer

Yes Creationism is not a science. It is based on an inherently religious claim and posits a diametrically opposed view based on that which cannot be tested by science.

• To say that scientific knowledge do not refute creationism is to claim that hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world, all with substantial knowledge of evolution and the facts and data surrounding it, are wrong.
• To say that creationism fits all the evidence is completely incorrect. Radio-isotope dating, fossil record, genetic comparison and functioning, comparative anatomy, comparative behaviour, ... are all denied by creationism. Yet, they are shown correct by hundreds of experiments, by a multitude of research. If anything, creationism twists the facts it chooses, and denies all others.
• To say that because genetic disorders are increasing means nothing. We allow these people to survive, we protect them and feed them and shelter them; in nature, they would have been killed off within months of birth, thus removing such disorders from the gene pool. A simple glance at the creatures in the natural world, without this defense, shows that genetic disorders are so rare as to be miracles when a specimen is found; for example, the albino great white shark.
• To say that evolution requires huge time frames is not entirely true. It requires huge numbers of successive generations; while for many organisms this is equivalent, for things like viruses, bacteria, even flies and insects (which all reproduce quickly enough to see the differences) we can visually observe that evolution, defined by change in alleleic frequency and survival of the fittest/natural selection, is occurring. This is replicable in both the lab and in nature.
• To say that evolution has an enormously low probability is to say that everything does. Yet it still happens. As to comparing evolution to a 747 appearing from nothing, the argument fails to understand how evolution works; it does not go from A to Z in one jump, but creeps there using hundreds of very small ones.
• Perhaps the best example of the vast errors in creationism: "I believe". Creationism is based on religious belief. It starts with a conclusion - i.e. "God did it this way" - and then attempts to prove this, despite longstanding evidence to the contrary. It does the same with current science; it concludes that this knowledge must be incorrect, and then goes about attempting to prove so.
• If creationism was so correct, then scientists would accept it as such. But it isn't, because it doesn't fit the facts, it doesn't work as science and it doesn't make sense.

Answer 2

Yes There is not one, but at least two different strands of Creationism, each of which I believe to be false. The oldest form of what is now known as Creationism is "Young Earth Creationism", which attempts to maintain a literal reading of The Bible and thus maintains that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Another strand is called "Old Earth Creationism".

In the centuries before the advent of scientific knowledge, it was assumed that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, because the Bible seemed to say so. With scientific discoveries that showed the Earth to be immensely old, Creationists split into two camps: those who accepted the inevitable and sought to lace Creation in the context of an old earth and those who maintained that the majority of scientists are wrong and that the Earth is really only young.

The scientific consensus is that "Young Earth Creationism" is wrong. It simply flies in the face of acknowledged scientific facts. Even the major religions, such as the Catholic, Episcopal and Anglican Churches accept the reality of an ancient earth and of evolution by natural selection.

Explaining why "Old Earth Creationism" is also wrong requires a little more scientific knowledge. Proponents of this strand of Creationism often claim "Intelligent Design" because they say that, although natural forces can be seen in the evolution of the world as well as in the evolution of living things, these natural forces were directed by a Supreme Being, often assumed to be God. Science does not see the involvement of a Supreme Being in the evolution of the Universe, but simply regard all questions about the existence of a creator God as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 3

Opinion: no, it is not false. Here are some arguments for Creation or against Evolution.

These point to Divine Creation:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism.)
  
• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.

See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy

e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Answer 4

Creationism is not supported by scientific evidence and is considered a religious belief rather than a scientific theory. The vast majority of scientists support the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.