Creation

Here's one: Genesis ch.1. Day by day, God created the universe and its contents.

God created the universe out of nothing (Exodus 20:11, Isaiah 40:28; Rashi commentary to Genesis 1:14; Maimonides' "Guide," 2:30).Note that the Torah, in describing the Creation, deliberately employs brevity and ellipsis, just as it does in many other topics. See the Talmud, Hagigah 11b.

• On day 1: God created the universe in general, light, and this Earth. The light was not the same as that of the sun. Rather, it was light that God created before the sun, and which emanated from a point in space without any physical source; like what we might term a "white hole."
  
• On day 2: God created the separation between the Earth and the upper atmosphere.
  
• On day 3: God separated the continents from the oceans, and created plants.
  
• On day 4: God created the sun, moon, and stars.
  
• On day 5: God created birds and fish.
  
• On day 6: God created animals and people.
  
• On day 7: God ceased creating, thereby creating the concept of rest.
  

See also:

Is there evidence against Evolution?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom

Scientists have concluded from abundant evidence and the analysis of that evidence, that he earth is about 4.5 billion years old. This is more than merely a hypothesis, since they have the evidence for their conclusions.

Scientists realised nearly two hundred years ago that the earth must be at least a few million years old. Early in the nineteenth century, Charles Lyell examined the great volcano of Etna on Sicily and studied the historical records of frequent eruptions. He noticed that each time it erupted, a new layer of lava would be added, causing the mountain to grow at a measurable rate. By knowing the height of the volcano, its approximate rate of growth and the frequency of eruptions, Lyall determined that the volcano must be several hundred thousand years old. At the edge of the volcano, under the first lava flows, he found fossil shells that were virtually identical to the shells of molluscs still found in the Mediterranean Sea. From this, he deduced that the fossils were geologically recent, that a hundred thousand years was geologically short and that the age of the earth must be immense.

In 1862, Lord Kelvin announced that he had calculated the time it would take the world to cool down from its molten state. He calculated that this was between 20 and 400 million years, but later refined his calculations to within the range 20 to 100 million years. With the subsequent discovery of radioactivity, it was soon realised that the uranium present in the earth could have prolonged its cooling for as long as necessary to harmonise with other methods.

Samuel Haughton, an Irish geologist, calculated that sediments were deposited on the ocean floor at the rate of "one foot in 8,616 years". He then calculated a minimum duration of around 2000 million years. Unwilling to accept such a long period, he scaled it back, by a factor of 10, to just 200 million years.

In the early years of the twentieth century, Rutherford established the age of a rock as 500 million years, by measuring the amounts of radium and helium present. Strutt soon realised that some of the helium would have escaped as the rocks were crushed for analysis, leading to false short estimates of the ages of the rocks - they were really even older than the initial estimates.

In the late 1930s and early 1940s, using the new techniques and the world's most advanced mass spectromoter, Alfred Nier dated some rocks at up to 2570 million years old.

The oldest things so far found on earth are zircon crystals found in Western Australia, that are more than 4 billion years old.

Some Young-earth Creationists have incorrectly claimed that Noah's Flood could have altered the rates of decay for radioactive elements found in rocks on the earth, so that the earth is really only a few thousand years old. However, any effect from a Flood on the earth would not have affected rocks on the moon or in outer space. Zircon rock collected from the surface of the moon has now been identified as more than 4.5 billion years old. Material from meteorites has also been dated to approximately 4.5 billion years old. These figures support the calculations for the age of the earth.

the creationist claim is actually very true, here is a chapter from my SCIENTIFIC book:

Carbon Dating

Many evolutionists believe this to be the proverbial nail in the coffin to the creation of the world, believing that this is the most solid evidence against creationists. In this section I am going into a bit of science so hold on. If this is only going to bore you and make you put down this book, by all means skip to the end, don't worry it will be under a big title labeled conclusion, you can't miss it. For those of you that have taken a chemistry class or two and want to know the intimate details, by all means, read on.

The premise:

The premise is that, cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere create speeding neutrons that collide with nitrogen atoms producing carbon 14. Further, the decay of these atoms into carbon 12 is progressing at the same rate as the creation of these atoms.

All things should absorb these atoms of carbon 14 their entire life, maintaining the same ratio of Carbon 14 to carbon 12 as the atmosphere. Once the animal/thing dies, it's carbon 14. This ratio, (1 to 1 trillion) will begin to change, the number of carbon 14 atoms diminish while the number of carbon 12 atoms remain the same. This carbon should decay at a steady rate, thus scientists can track it back like a clock, determining the approximate age of the artifact. The smaller the ratio is, the longer the animal as been dead.

Percent 14C Remaining

Percent 12C Remaining

Ratio

Number of Half-Lives

Years Dead(Age of Fossil)

100

100

1 to 1T

0

0

50

100

1 to 2T

1

5,730

25

100

1 to 4T

2

11,460

12.5

100

1 to 8T

3

17,190

6.25

100

1 to 16T

4

22,920

3.125

100

1 to 32T

5

28,650

T = Trillion

The Problem

Dr. Willard Libby first experimented with carbon 14, assuming that the ratio of one carbon 14 to one trillion carbon 12 atoms has always been the same. This "assumption" was based on the fact that the earth has been billions of years old. As any REAL non-bias scientist will tell you, all the calculations can be right, but if they are based on a wrong assumption then the product will be wrong. And as my chem. 3a teacher always said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In Dr. Libby's original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby's calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real indeed, as the ratio of carbon 14 and carbon 12 is not constant.

The first problem with this is that the magnetic field around the earth is weakening, (don't worry it always has been, recycling your water bottle won't help) allowing more cosmic rays into the atmosphere, and producing more c14 than in the past. Also, volcanoes, floods, decaying plants from floods,( and if the bible is true, there was a big one), can all greatly increase the carbon 14 in the atmosphere, ruining any chance of getting an "accurate ratio".

In the 1990's a group known as the RATE group was put together to determine the age of the earth. This team included:

• Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
• Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
• Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
• John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
• Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
• Steven Austin, PhD Geology
• Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
• Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies

This team's purpose was to collect "censored evidence" that evolutionists had been hiding/covering up. These men took ten coal samples, each from a different strata that had been labeled to be millions of billions of years old. Since coal is made from compressed living plants etc. you would think it would be perfect for the job.

Careful not to contaminate the samples, the carbon dating found the coal to have a significant amount of carbon 14. This was a significant discovery, because half life of carbon 14 is relatively short, (5,730 yrs old). There should be no carbon 14 in these samples after about 100,000 years. The average age of these samples, according to evolutionist "science" only came to 50,000 years. However using a creationist pre-flood ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 reduces the age to 5,000 years, just about dead on the the biblical age of the earth.

Conclusion: Yes you just saw the words "dead on to the biblical etc." don't panic, you should have read along, now look at what you've missed. For the scientists now asleep, we had a beautiful read without you. Please turn the page for the summary.

Okay, we just learned that since you need a starting ratio for carbon dating, and since nobody knows what the starting ratio was, probably because there weren't any scientists around 6 thousand to several billion years ago. And the best you can do with this technology of carbon dating, is operate it on an assumption, an assumption that if wrong, badly distorts the outcome, thus carbon dating is pointless, unless you want an inaccurate age of a recent item, like whether or not the 1980's magazine you got is original.

A recently discovered 220-million year old fossil, Odontochelys semitestacea, is further evidence of evolution. This new species of turtle had a fully formed shell on its underside, but only a small partial shell on its back, extending from its backbone.

Scientists had long debated how the turtle shell evolved. As well as a partial shell, Odontochelys semitestaceaalso had ribs that had begun to widen, thus demonstrating that the fully developed shell of later turtles evolved from the ribs of earlier species.

Odontochelys semitestacea is one more piece in the jigsaw that shows conclusively how life on Earth evolved from earlier species.

I'm not sure about disbelief in everything, but someone who doesn't believe in god/gods/or other all mighty powers is called an atheist. Agnosticism is the view that there is no way we can know the validity of the mentioned subjects of belief (to varying degrees), it is not the disbelief of them.

i will do further research into the subject and add to my answer any relevant information i find.

Supplementary answer

I agree that an atheist does not believe in any God. But the question also mentions karma, evolution, Big Bang. Not to believe in any of those things makes you an agnostic.

Someone who does not believe in anything at all is a skeptic. An agnostic is someone who is not sure whether god exists or not.

Answer to above^^^^

Not an Agnostic a Nihilist

This question relates to the specific list formerly placed on the Answer to the related question, "Do any qualified scientists support the creation theory?" The list has been copied in large part from the website of Creation Ministries International, but may contain additional names. The original list appears now to have been copied to an extremely large number of sites across the web, and any attempt to list them all would quickly become out of date. The fact that the list appeared on WikiAnswers and such a large number of other websites makes it a matter of public interest to estimate the accuracy of the original list.

Some details collected by our community:

Kelvin and Romanes were not creationists. Other biologists have claimed that the statements made by these organizations that they signed were misleading and that attempts to get the organizations to remove their names from the list have been unanswered.

Several of the signers have also signed onto other unscientific lists, including one denying that HIV causes AIDS (for example, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells and Tom Bethel).

There are differing opinions about the qualifications of the listed individuals. A number of names on the list, including the one presented on this site, are known to be presented inaccurately. The TalkOrigins Project Steve FAQ contains a number of examples of such.

Only about 0.15% of American biologists support creationism when asked via confidential survey; this strongly refutes the proposition that biologists who support creation keep their views quiet to avoid any backlash. Examples of such backlash for simply believing creationism are nonexistent (as shown on Expelled Exposed and at Talk Origins).

The question is whether those named on the list have qualifications such that lay people should give weight to their opinions in the creationism versus evolution debate. A spot check of a few names on the list, based on information widely available on the internet did not find any medical practitioners from the lists with PhDs in a science-related field or employed as scientists in the normal sense. The spot check also indicated that the following names are of people who do not appear to fulfil the normal requirements to be defined as scientists, although some may be leaders in other fields:

• Dr. John Meyer received his Ph.D. from The University of Western Ontario. His specialities are in the areas of work attitudes, work motivation, leadership, and organizational change
• John N. Moore, M.S., Ed.D., (Science Educator) has a Doctorate in education
• Dr. John W. Moreland (Mechanical Engineer and Dentist) has a Bachelor of Science, Engineering Mechanics and Materials, and Doctor of Dental Surgery.
• Arlton Murray received a D. Sc. (Doctor of Science) in 1981 from the Sussex College of Technology, widely described as a "degree mill". He does not have a PhD or any other doctorate from a recognised university.
• Stanley A. Mumma (Architectural Engineering ) has Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering
• Prof. John Oller received his doctorate in General Linguistics.
• Saami Shaibani does not have the credentials he claims; he in fact was charged with perjury for claiming so in a court of law.
• Harold Slusher only has a degree from a diploma mill.

A project by the NCSE, Project Steve, has collected the signatures of over 880 scientists only named Steven, Stephen or another variant (of which about two thirds are biologists, unlike the creationist lists) who agree completely with the basic tenets of evolutionary biology. As Steves represent only 1% of the population, this means that, at minimum, about 88,000 scientists would be expected to sign this statement, as compared to the about 500 (many of whom are dubious in their scientific credentials) who have signed the statements supporting creationism.

reation 'ex nihilo' means creation out of nothing. Most ancient religions placed implicit limits on the power of the gods, and therefore usually did not claim that creation was entirely ex nihilo.

Many experts in Hebrew have carefully examined the creation accounts in Genesis and confirm that they are not 'ex nihilo'. In both creation stories, the basics were already there - the waters, the dry land, the wind and therefore the air.

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

Answer 1

The use of chemicals for healing or other purposes has been known from the time of Adam. Through inspiration the Lord made it know unto Adam and his progenitors which herbs to use. In the beginning only natural herbs were used.We now know that other elements taken from the earth, other than herbs, can be used when administered by themselves or combined are useful to mankind.

Answer 2

I believe that the question refers to the origination of life on Earth, and not to the use of chemicals in healing. It has not been established with absolute certitude when the first life appeared on Earth, but fossil evidence shows that stromatolites existed as early as 3500 million years ago, and more recent findings suggest the possibility that life already existed hundreds of millions of years before that. So the answer to the question is: it took the Earth at most a billion years after its formation to produce life, and probably at least half a billion years.

This question is about the age of the universe and the age of the earth, so any must address both issues and provide supporting evidence for the age of both. Moreover, although scientific estimates are constantly being revised, the real issue is not whether the estimates are marginally wrong, but whether they are dramatically wrong. Young Earth creationists insist that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Present estimates put the age of the earth at 4.54 billion years, plus or minus 45 million. The oldest things so far found on earth are zircon crystals in Western Australia - these are more than 4 billion years old. The preponderance of evidence points to these ages. They have been measured in various different ways, and they all tend to point towards the same age range. This information is always open to challenge as new knowledge comes to light, but clearly the true figure is close to 4.54 billion years.

Creationists usually ignore other scientific dating methods and focus on attacking only radiation dating, by speculating that rates of decay of radioisotopes may have changed most dramatically in the recent past. The reason for this assertion is the need to claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, if all rocks are exactly the same age - 6,000 years - why do different rocks in the geological column provide different ages via radioisotope dating, with the youngest rocks in any locality consistently at the top of the column? Some creationists speculate that the rates of decay of radioisotopes changed so dramatically due to some catastrophe, such as the biblical Flood. However, moon rocks have also been found to be just over 4 billion years old, and they would be entirely unaffected by any Earth-bound flood.

Present estimates put the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years. Light from the nearest star to our sun takes 4 years to get here, but light from distant galaxies takes millions of years to get here. For radiation to reach Earth from the most distant discernible sources in only the last few thousand years, the speed of light must have been millions of times higher than it is now, with a sudden and most dramatic fall in its speed everywhere in the universe, in the last few thousand years. Like the creationist claim that radiation decay rates changed dramatically only a few thousand years ago, this is just too improbable to be taken seriously.

Another answer from our community:

Alternate If you believe in current scientific cosmology the would be yes, as above. If you believe in Creation the would be no. Quite a lot of verifiable and repeatable scientific data points to the earth being much younger than suggested by current science.

Some believe that there is no way to reliably check these ages since we cannot go back and test the early earth and repeat its beginning. In any case dating methods, such as those involving radioactive decay such as uranium to lead or potassium to argon involve three unprovable assumptions and so may not be at all correct. It is known that they fail when testing rocks of known age due to contamination. Notes: People will often refer to this general debate as being between Creation and Evolution. It is important to know that evolution is a relatively recent process in cosmological time. Evolution is not the fundamental science that has led to the theories of the origins of the universe. Proponents of creation/intelligent design are interested in at least these two areas of scientific theory: origins of the universe, usually called 'cosmology' and usually associated with astronomy and sometimes physics; and the origins of different species, currently called evolution and usually considered part of biology. Evolution does not address issues of the origins of life itself, another question of biology that is important for creationists.

Credible scientific evidence suggesting that the earth and universe are considerably younger than the scientific estimates should be carefully examined. Generally people holding to younger ages are basing their interpretations on scriptural accounts that suggest a younger world, and they assume that the accounts are authoritative. Other scientists start with a different set of assumptions, develop sometimes brilliant strategies to test them out, they make measurements, share their data and the material is available for others to verify, refute or re-interpret. People coming from faith-based positions tend to hold a more dogmatic view, essentially by definition, although many from an allegedly scientific perspective hold their position no less dogmatically. Their opinion is not discovered or uncovered, but revealed. Science is a process, and scientists should be cautious about putting too much weight on current beliefs until they have withstood the test of time-- lots and lots of time.

No. It's not true and even evolutionists question the dates and the dating methods.

They are not absolute and proven as evolutionary believers so often state.

'The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be short-lived as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.

And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.'

Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, 'Secular catastrophism'. Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p.21.

'All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometricdating.'....

'It is obvious that 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 quite different(sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). 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.(animal breeding)(Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University)in The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977,pp.82 and 84.

'In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or to low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon. '

A. Hayatsu(Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), 'K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia'. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,p.974.

'Thus, if one believes that the derived ages in particular instances are in gross disagreement with established facts of field geology, he must conjure up geological processes that could cause anomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals.'

Prof. J. F. Evernden (Department of Geology, University of California, Berkeley, USA) and Dr. John R. Richards (Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra),'Potassium-argon ages in eastern Australia'. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol. 9(1), 1962,p.3.

Regarding the rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) method:

'These results indicate that 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, USA) and Prof. James L. Powell (Department of Geology,Oberlin College,Ohio, USA) in Strontium Isotope Geology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p.102.

'One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature.'

Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,USA), 'Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental vulcanism'. Science,vol. 193, 17 September 1976, p.1093.