# Top Ten Scientific Proofs of Creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231 "2012-04-19T02:09:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![supermegaman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@supermegaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supermegaman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/1 "2012-04-19T02:09:50Z")
this looked fascinating! [http://www.christiansentry.com/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/](http://www.christiansentry.com/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/) here’s the first three. > [@](#): > > **(1) Irreducible complexity** > > The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive organs need to exist at the same time and be fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit. Ever thought to yourself how you wanted to be able to fly? Have you started to grow feathers or wings yet? Well these things take time, you suppose to yourself. How do you inform your offspring, tens of millions of years down the line of this need to fly? The amebas and protozoa had the same problem if they expected to ever climb out of the marshes and onto land. That’s one of the many problems of evolutionist theory. How does an organism make itself advance into a more complex form? > \*\* > (2) Earth is fine-tuned for life.\*\* > > Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples. A stable magnetic field that is not too weak or strong had to exist. Bodies of water and land had to be present for that life form to have a home as well as a stable, breathable atmosphere. The food chain had to be present and self-sustaining. How can an organism grow and develop if there is no suitable food source for it as well as the more complex organism around it? That food had to be present before life occurred and also multi-tiered as far as size and nutritional complexity. A leaf isn’t very beneficial to a single celled organism, likewise a group of plankton isn’t very helpful to a land animal. > Water itself, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water. If there was no water present on Earth, then life as we see it today would not be possible. > > (**3) Physics are fine-tuned for life** > > The laws of physics are not only constant, they are finely balanced on a knife’s edge between functional or not. Any slight variable change would make life impossible. The question then comes, where and how did these laws come into being? Again, evolutionists believe this all happened by chance. Not only did matter, elements, and life itself collect and form into vastly complex organisms, but the laws of physics formed into a balanced, complex system on its own as well! Oh, and it had to happen before life formed, might I remind you. You can’t have life form if gravity hasn’t made up its mind on how strong it wants to be. It would make a terrible mess if that sun wasn’t so stable or those molecular bonds just wouldn’t hold together. Strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, and even time itself had to not only be present but constant, functional and stable. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/2 "2012-04-19T02:17:05Z")
Well… I’m convinced. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/3 "2012-04-19T02:25:06Z")
On the question of “Earth is fine-tuned for life”: we know that there must be billions of planets in the universe, and most are probably not capable of supporting life. But consider the much smaller number of planets where life has started and organisms have evolved to the point of considering the philosophical question of whether their planet is “fine-tuned for life”: of course, any such planet must be “fine-tuned”, since if it weren’t, there wouldn’t be sentient beings on it thinking about the question. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/4 "2012-04-19T02:28:22Z")
All of those arguments have been shot full of holes repeatedly. > [@supermegaman](#): > > How can an organism grow and develop if there is no suitable food source for it as well as the more complex organism around it? By directly consuming minerals, and organics created by inorganic processes. Such creatures exist even now. That particular bit of “fine tuning” is the _result_ of life, not its cause. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/5 "2012-04-19T02:47:37Z")
> [@supermegaman](#): > > this looked fascinating! No, it doesn’t. (And not that there’s much point as you’ve cited an apologist website which uses the term “evolutionists”, thereby attempting to equate science with religion and in the same breath admitting that something can be discounted if it’s religious.) 1)“Irreducible Complexity” is a basic God of the Gaps style argument, it’s been falsified numerous times, and each time the IC proponents just try to kick the can a bit further down the road. “Okay… so we know how flagella, the eye, and many other structures evolved, but here’s one you haven’t totally explained (yet). Thus, God did it! Beat that, suckers!” 1. Earth is not “fined tuned” for anything, at all. In fact, the Oxygen Revolution exterminated a huge number of creatures living on the planet at the time. In point of fact, and to steal a quote, what you are doing is seeing a puddle and remarking in wonder that, wow, it must have been Created since look how the water fits perfectly into the contours and crevices of the hole that it’s in! Evolution proceeded such that life changed to be relative-best-fits for the niches it found itself in. No more remarkable, at its base, than water filling in a hole. 2. And no, it’s the same thing for physics although you have at least (seemingly accidentally) stumbled upon the Anthropic Principle. Your cite is also bullshit. No, time is most certainly not “constant”. Even a high school student should be well aware of Time Dilatation. Moreover there are extreme problems with our current state of knowledge. Try applying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to a black hole. Good luck. Nor has anybody claimed that things just fit together “by chance”. The quest for a ToE revolves around finding the underlying mathematics which make the universe work. I’m not going to read any more since the first 3 are obviously awful, but you can try to defend them if you want. I don’t think that the Teeming Millions have savaged a poorly constructed Creationist argument in many a moon. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/6 "2012-04-19T02:49:01Z")
Has anyone ever noticed how perfectly a banana fits into a vagina? I bet it looks fascinating! Do you think they have an exhibit on that topic [here](http://creationmuseum.org/)? Oh, and Jason, I’m not sure the mods like it when you shill for your articles hosted on your site, while pretending to have stumbled upon it. I’m not a mod, so feel free to ignore me. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/7 "2012-04-19T02:52:41Z")
> [@supermegaman](#): > > this looked fascinating! [http://www.christiansentry.com/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/](http://www.christiansentry.com/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/) This is not fascinating; it is silly. Everything in there has already been debunked by genuine science. None of these claims are actually scientific, in nature–they are attempts to use (badly formed) rhetoric to make points with people who are not scientifically educated. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/8 "2012-04-19T02:54:10Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Has anyone ever noticed how perfectly a banana fits into a vagina? I bet it looks fascinating! Do you think they have an exhibit on that topic [here](http://creationmuseum.org/)? I have it on good authority that there is extensive research on just such a topic archived on the web. For science. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/9 "2012-04-19T02:56:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is not fascinating; it is silly. > > Everything in there has already been debunked by genuine science. None of these claims are actually scientific, in nature–they are attempts to use (badly formed) rhetoric to make points with people who are not scientifically educated. > > Sorry. How dare you question a superior being. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/10 "2012-04-19T03:02:21Z")
This part nearly made me spit water on my monitor. > [@](#): > > (5) Dinosaurs and the abrupt appearance in the fossil record > > The oldest fossils for any creature found were already fully-formed and complex. They seemingly appeared out of nowhere, just suddenly, dinosaurs! There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. No gradual growth of lizards into behemoths or fish with legs and lungs. Just… dinosaurs. Bam! And not just dinosaurs, birds, fauna, fish, just suddenly appearing out of seemingly nowhere and into the fossil record. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. > > What is more astounding concerning the fossil record is what has been recently discovered. **Human footprints intersected by dinosaur tracks in the same fossil! This alone completely destroys the evolutionary concept of hundreds of millions of years of progression. Humans, not Neanderthals, walked with dinosaurs. In July 2000, archaeologist Alvis Delk found a startling pair of footprints that evolutionists say is impossible. A human track intersected by a dinosaur track! Details can be found here > Want more proof?** Carvings in stone found in ten-foot columns at the Ta Prohm Cambodian Temple, created in 1186 show a walking Stegosaurus. Ancient Sumatrans produced multiple pieces of art depicting long tailed, long necked creatures with a headcrest. Chinese artifacts, especially the Late Eastern Zhou Sauropod Ornamental box, show ornamental characters resembling a Brachiosaur. Artifacts from the pre-Greek civilization of Calabria, which is over 3,000 years old, show terracotta statues of Stegosaurs. Remember, dinosaur fossils were not discovered until the 1820’s in Europe. So how did all of these ancient civilizations from across the globe know what a dinosaur looked like, flesh and all? ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/11 "2012-04-19T03:04:50Z")
“Physics” has become plural. It’s a miracle! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/12 "2012-04-19T03:12:49Z")
I’ll start buying into this creation nonsense, but only if you protect me from the New World Order that the same site warned me about. I’m skeered. > [@](#): > > The New World Order, or N.W.O., is a political and economic control system that has spread across the globe. It is controlled by different organizations such as the Trilatteral Commission, Illuminati, the United Nations, Bilderberg, CFR, Skull and Bones and also central banks in key nations such as the United States, France and Great Britain. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/13 "2012-04-19T03:14:00Z")
> [@supermegaman](#): > > The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap But a mousetrap with several pieces missing will function perfectly as a paperclip, for example. Moreover, if one smears gum arabic onto a mousetrap it will catch mice, even if all the parts except for the back board are missing. IOW a mousetrap is not in any sense irreducably complex. > [@](#): > > What good is a circulatory system without a heart? Am I missing something here? A circulatory system without a heart circulates nutrients. That is what it is good for. > [@](#): > > An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? Well my friend, jellyfish have eyes, but they do not have a brain of any sort to interpret the signals. I guess that means that God fucked up. Right? > [@](#): > > What good is a half-formed wing? Why don’t you look at the thousands of organism that \*have \*half formed wings. Organisms such as beetles that use their half-formed wings as sheild, or ostriches that use them as displays. Once again, the actual existence of all these cretaures with half-formed wings must mean that God fucked up. Not much of god, is he? > [@](#): > > Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive organs need to exist at the same time and be fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Ahh, no. Once again, there are millions of species that do not have matching male and female reproductive organs. Many of them lack reproductive organs altogether. Once again, the actual existence of all these creatures without matching male and female reproductive organs must mean that God fucked up. This is a pretty crapsack god that you are worshipping. > [@](#): > > Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit. Not even remotely true. You might be able to stretch it to say that it eliminates anything that is _detrimental_, which is almost exactly the opposite of what you just wrote. > [@](#): > > . How does an organism make itself advance into a more complex form? It doesn’t. Individual organism either live or die. Evolution doesn’t produce advancement. Just change ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/14 "2012-04-19T03:15:56Z")
> [@supermegaman](#): > > this looked fascinating! So did the feces I excreted this morning. The astonishing shades and contours. Surely the work of God! ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/15 "2012-04-19T03:18:03Z")
Good grief… I clicked through to the link and the ‘proofs’ actually somehow manage to get _worse_. 1. There is no such thing as “the Law of Biogenesis”, at least not as you’ve presented it. Pasteur said that fully formed organisms cannot arise from nothing. But we have a very good idea of how abiogenesis may occur. I’d advise you to look up information on proteanacious microspheres, for example. 2. The Flintstones was not a documentary. No, seriously. There is no actual doubt that humans and dinosaurs were separated by a span of time that’s large even in terms of geological time. To say nothing of the fact that not only do we have transitional fossils, but we also have pre-dinosaur fossils. This is also not in dispute and even [bastions of the Liberal Atheist agenda](http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/13/paleontologists-brazil-uncover-complete-fossil/) have reported on examples. 3. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The 2nd law only applies to a closed system. And on the _whole_, the amount of free energy in the universe is indeed decreasing. But life can quite aptly be described as negative entropy. Just like your freezer can make ice, so too can certain systems locally counteract entropy. But just like your freezer, there is always a net increase in entropy overall. 4. Yes, mutations can and do create new information. No, information is not only the result of intelligence, that’s simply fiction. 5. This is just another God of the Gaps style dodge, and the more we discover about cognitive neurology, the more we are learning exactly how humans go about constructing what we know of as “awareness”. I’d recommend you read _The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat_. 6. There are many solid answers for the development of language and languages, as well as evolutionary benefits to population groups from having distinct grammar, syntax, pronunciation and vocabulary. Nor is language truly unique to humans. Language exists along a continuum, and other animals have and use their own methods. While they do not engage in Time Binding in the way that humans do, nor do they (appear to) have the ability to work in abstractions as humans do, your argument is about as rational as declaring that since prions do not exhibit the amount of biological complexity as protists, that protists must have been Created. 7. Now you’re just reaching, having abandoned any pretense of scientific accuracy. Even ignoring the fact that many “prophecies” were written after the fact, or were vague enough that they could apply to multiple events, or did not come to pass at all, that still would not prove Creation. There is no functional way to tell that the Oracle of Delphi’s “prophecies” and ancient Jewish “prophets” got their magic from the same or different sources. Even if we accepted that prophecy was real, there’s no reason to think that it’s not Apollo still messing around with us. ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/16 "2012-04-19T03:44:12Z")
Your finger will fit inside your nose, but not your ear; can’t explain that! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/17 "2012-04-19T03:55:58Z")
Hmmm. One post at 7:09 PM; Last Activity at 7:09 PM. I rather suspect that this is the only post we’ll see from this guy. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/18 "2012-04-19T03:59:25Z")
He had to go, his planet needs him. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/19 "2012-04-19T04:04:32Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > . . . Am I missing something here? A circulatory system without a heart circulates nutrients. That is what it is good for. . . . And…there are invertebrates with circulatory systems and no hearts. (I loved my old bio textbook, where the author wrote about one, where the blood gooshed from one end of the critter to the other, and then back, “…like the characters in a Marx Brothers movie.”) ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/20 "2012-04-19T04:07:52Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Well… I’m convinced. It’s a miracle! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=2)