Is this website proof, for you, of Creationism over Evolution?

Question

Take a look at the web site link before you answer this question.

http://www.finalfrontier.org.uk/creation.htm

Does this website prove to anyone that Evolution is not correct? Why not?. Do not just say no, prove your position. If we want to talk proof, lets talk about about proof. I have proved my position pretty well I think. If you feel differently prove it.

Thanks for the comments, I appreciate you all actually going to the site. Granted, the "fifth grader" look is a little off putting. However, no one gave me any proof of evolution. I understand that you did not agree with the "proof" (your quotes) I gave, but you did not give any proof in return. Just because the school teaches evolution is not any more proof that it is right than that the church teaches creationism. "Models" prove nothing - models can not even predict the weather for the next day much less a solar system over a million years. It is easy to say "that's not true" but I still have not seen this proof that the evolutionist keep asking from the creationist.

My point: Evolution is not any more provable than creationism. I can poke just as many hole in Evolution.

Answer 1

The section I'm critiquing is below.

In it, you assume a fixed rate of population growth. Show me one study, with citations, that demonstrates a fixed rate of population growth. Populations don't work like that.

As a population fills its niche, its rate of growth slows. Look at the human birth rate. Amongst 'western' nations, smaller families are the norm because infant mortality is decreased. Fewer kids means more resources can be devoted to each one, thus increasing their chances of continued 'success.'

You have an awful lot of shoulds that just don't fit reality.

Answer 2

I'm sorry, but this link is not convincing at all. I cannot specifically address your request to prove my opposition to your theory because you can't prove a negative. However, I can explain (briefly) why I am not convinced by the arguments the site introduces.

The first problem is that a great deal of the arguments are based directly from the Bible. (Such as: the Bible says Adam was created 6000 years ago, therefore the earth is 6000 years old). Since I do not believe that the Bible is a perfectly accurate historical document, none of these "proofs" hold any weight with me. You'd have to prove the Bible's infallibility first, and nobody's really been able to do that yet, so I doubt such a proof would be available to you.

Second, the "evidence" you do cite that is physical or scientific in nature is often either dead wrong or misunderstood in a fundamental way. A couple examples: you assume that if the universe evolved, that all of the planets would have evolved with similar compositions, similar orbits, and similar moons. This assumption supports that whole portion of your argument, and is unproven. Not only is it not proven, but it is demonstrably false, as different masses can form from different concentrations of material in a vacuum. Also, in the moon section you seem to think that the withdrawal of the moon from the earth is constant. There is no evidence for this. If the moon withdraws more and more (as it would, given that as it withdraws the pull of gravity would decrease) then your time measurement is worthless. Finally, the population argument follows similar lines, and exhibits similar fallacies. A population does not grow at a linear rate; it grows exponentially. Thus, your arguments based on how many people we would have with an old earth (based on linear population models) are unsupported.

In general, the arguments you cited were distinctive for their lack of objective, scientific evidence. Consistently throughout the page, the examples attempted to argue with a conclusion already in mind, instead of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion. It is sloppy logic, and worse science. Honestly, I stopped reading after the population argument, so I cannot speak for anything after that. I can, though, say that everything up to that argument was essentially worthless from a "proof" standard.

Answer 3

There is more misinformation on that page than I have ever seen in one place before.

You are aware that there are great solar system models that put together how everything was formed and it is NOTHING like what that site argues against.

About the only thing it got right was the Earth's rotation slowing and the Moon moving away. (which is the same thing by the way, the moon moving away is causing the Earth to slow.)

Do you know how science originally figured this out? It was by looking at the rocks that formed over millions of years in a tidal pool. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/moonwhack_main_000901.html
These guys look at rocks and say the Earth is millions of years old and the Moon is getting further away. We finally get a mirror up there that allows a direct measurement and they are right. You really want to say that they have no idea how the rock formed with that kind of prediction to back it up?

Answer 4

If you saw the slideshow Hovind used when he presented this information in "debates", you'd see that the majority of the evidence he uses is either outdated and no longer valid (ie: theories have been updated since) or completely irrelevant.

In the bit about "space dust" and how it coalesced into a tiny point by spinning fast resulting in the big bang, you'd have noticed that the information he was using was about the birth of a star from a nebula, not the universe from coalesced matter. Completely irrelevant to the argued subject and in no way would it result in all planets "spinning the same way".

You know what, I'm not even going to bother with a rebutal of this "argument". Your evidence is flawed and if you don't realise that then you're already beyond help.

Answer 5

No it does not prove anything. First off one of the people doing the study is Dr Kent Horvind, Creation Science Evangelism...so of course this is a very bias report.

Secondly they state that their information is from the bible...the bible is a man made book which you can't prove....I find it silly that they are trying to prove something with something else that you can't actually prove as being the truth.

And why did they not mention anything such as dinosaurs or early man fossils. Would they have problems disproving that scientifically.

I really don't think that proved, or disproved anything. It was just something from a creationist trying to disprove something.

When you have REAL scientific evidence please feel free to show us that....and how about a study that was done by someone that went to a really school, instead of all these unaccredited places...and how about one that was done by someone that isn't or hasn't been in jail for numerous reasons.

Answer 6

My good man, that website is utter tripe, unconvincing to anybody whose brain has not been completely turned to mush by systematic sectarian programming.

The real, essential flaw - above and beyond (and behind) its massed factual errors - is that it presupposes that the bible (in the particular interpretation thereof endorsed by the particular Christian cult that runs the website) is infallible, and that therefore any scientific evidence which appears to contradict its literal truth must be in error. That it grossly misapprehends the nature of the facts is only a symptom of this brainwashing. I honestly think this website was intended seriously, as sad as that is; but it just shows how deplorably imbecile people can become under the influence of dogmatic religion.

This is the precise difference between religion and science, btw. Religion begins by insisting that Truth has been "revealed" to and preserved by some Authority, whom we therefore strictly obey, and that all else is apostacy. Original thought is by definition "evil." Progress is impossible.

Science, meanwhile, is constantly modifying itself, constantly incorporating new discoveries, constantly adapting its theories to these advancements – constantly progressing towards a more perfect understanding of the problems at hand and their potential solutions. The greatest scientific discoveries, in fact, are precisely those which demand an entirely new conception of the universe. Every scientific statement is conditional. This is what is really meant by the rather provocative-sounding assertion that "all scientific theories will eventually be disproved." We’re always "wrong in the first place," and it’s impossible from the very nature of the case for us to ever be completely “right,” but the progress of science is towards more fitting, convenient, useful, and interesting - if not "truer" - modes of conception.

Answer 7

Sorry most the Creationism claims from that site is just circular reasoning or outright lies.
Heres afew:
"In 1955, scientists predicted that Moon dust might be several miles deep." - Wrong, it was Henry Morris a Creationist (he mis-quoted another scientist).

"The Earth slows down by 1/1000 second per day."- Wrong, the Earths days are sometimes slow and other times faster but its barely noticable.

Answer 8

You've proved your position by posting a web link? Remind me not to bother engaging in a debate with you...Id wipe the floor with you, if this is all you have...

One biased website, full of distorted views and false assumptions, HARDLY provides proof of Creationism. If there is proof that Creationism is real and Evolution is not, why hasnt the person who has proven it won the Nobel Prize? why hasnt Evolution been unseated as the correct theory? And, why does Creationism keep losing battles in courts of law?

Because it is scientifically unsound and because there is no evidence that Creationism is real. Thats why.

The very website trips over itself by misspelling the name of one of its contributors, Kent Hovind (who is currently in jail for tax evasion!) *Spelt Horvind on the website! LOLOLOL!!!!! Some proof that is!

Answer 9

There are quite a few flaws in the logic on this website.

For instance, at the top of the page, it says, "Evolutionist believe that the whole Universe and life itself arose by chance between 3 and 15 billion years ago." Then later on the page, it says,
"If you believe that Human life started 3 million years ago, we would have 150,000 people per square inch!"

Evolutionists do not believe that human life started three million years ago. They believe that the Universe itself started three million years ago, but human life did not come until much later.

Answer 10

This is not a reputable source:

1) It assumes either A or B. For instance, it misses out old earth creationists.

2) It makes the assumption that all changes were constant. e.g population increase

3) It makes massive, unfounded, assumptions e.g. age of the oldest tree implies a global flood

4) Fine tuning of the universe does not imply intelligence. It implies life was possible, so life evolved. I also like the Anthropic Principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle