Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

quote:

---

Also, you say there is irrefutable evidence for an old earth. I would remind you that it is a time honored tradition in debate that he who asserts must prove. You offered no information to back up your assertion. Not commentary. No links. Nothing at all.

---

This evidence is based on radiometrics, and dating various rocks on earth, plus dating a large number of meteorites within our solar system. If you feel this is inadequate, despite the large amount of radiometric datings that can be independently verified, please let us know why.A short explanation to the various methods used and the numbers involved, please visit The Age of the Earth

I would like to adress some quotes from that site:

quote:

---

The 2nd law states that all things left to themselves tend to run down from order to disorder and decay. This is true of the universe as well. If evolution were true, it would demand just the opposite - the building up from simpler to the more complex. Adding great periods of time does not change this fact.

---

This is incorrect. There can be local decreases in entropy, at the expense of local increases in entropy elsewhere, if the total change leads towards greater entropy. This is what happens in the solar system; you would have to deny that the sun exists, and I do not think we should start debating that.

quote:

---

The skeptic asks, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" This is an illogical question. If God is the uncreated creator of the universe, He is the creator of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time. Therefore, he does not have, or need to have, a cause.

---

Our current understanding of time is that it is part of the universe. Hence, by the same logic used, the beginning of the universe would be outside time, since time only starts to exist once the universe is created.The notion that time exists sepparately from space does fall flat in the face of modern science.Could you please explain why you believe this source to be a credible one, despite the shown lack of understanding of the fields it comments on? I assume you've read the page yourself.[ADD] After reading through the other pages, it seems like this site merely lists many creationist arguments which has been explained to the wrong a long time ago, but refuses to acknowledge any of the counterarguments. I hope for the sake of your own education that you do not take all arguments on that site for granted.[This message has been edited by Melchior, 03-03-2004]

That is indeed my point. Entropy can't be used as an argument against evolution, which that site does (including large illustrations). The earth is not a closed system, hence rules for closed systems does not apply.

So, you are saying that miracles in no way affect our universe in a measurable way? That is not the commonly used definition of the word.If they do affect our universe in a measurable way, they are in the realm of science, and if they do not follow natural laws then they conflict with science.Of course, there is the off chance that there are some natural laws that we have totally missed in our observations, but that would make the events non-miracles by definition.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say with that allegory. Are you saying the sun does not supply enough energy for macroevolution to happen in a reasonable amount of time? What do you base this on? Surely you can see that plants can grow extremely fast just from the energy derived from sun-breams?What does swimming up waterfalls have to do with anything? That is due to anatomical features. I mean, humans can't fly, right? Is that somehow disproof of that the sun shines?[This message has been edited by Melchior, 03-03-2004]

But there is no connection between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution states that current observations reveals certain mechanics and patterns in the development of life.Evolution does not as such depend on a materialistic start of life. It might *imply* it, given that if evolution is correct, it is a reason to put trust in the assumtion that other things regarding life follows similar reason.However, it is not *required*. Since we have little direct evidence of the creation of life except, and this is important, that is exists, we can not say that for certain.But the evidence for evolution is MUCH clearer, and we have to agree with the evidence.If you want to say that the theory of evolution is incorrect, you MUST do so on the grounds of the evidence it relies on, or the mechanics of the actual theory, and NOT on the basis that we can't explain something the ToE leaves alone.

If you can prove that YEC is valid in it's important aspects, then yes; it would say that both abiogenesis and evolution occuring in the past is incorrect.This does not in any way conclude that evolution requires abiogenesis.Proving abiogenesis wrong does NOT prove YEC right, hence proving abiogenesis wrong does NOT prove evolution wrong. Okay?

Please consider the following list of logical connections, and point out which part you do not agree with.1: The universe behaves in a specific and measurable way.Therefore2: If our ways of measuring are correct, what we measure must be the way the universe behaves.3: We have measured matter and anti-matter spontaneously appearing in the universe.Therefore4: If our measurements are done correctly, matter can spontaneously appear.So, what we should do is do as many well thought out experiments as possible, and let them be open for others to examine, in order to determine what is correct, instead of what we wish to be correct.

There are horses which, due to various reasons (accidents, birth defects), does not have 4 legs.