I need 10 facts that support Creationism?

In my science class, we are doing a debate on evolution and creationism.

I am stuck on the Creationism side...

What are 10 facts that support creationism...

16 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Consider this

    Creation in the 21st Century “Caught in the Act”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOdByKKvV6I

    Youtube thumbnail

    (Part 1)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CQb7tS-EjM

    Youtube thumbnail

    (Part 2)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfN3UfoDZkQ

    Youtube thumbnail

    (Part 3)

    Creation In The 21st Century -- From Where did these Layers ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyoXQJ5Al0

    Youtube thumbnail

    Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 1 of 3

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o226umqLdsU

    Youtube thumbnail

    Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 2 of 3

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-4O7AOYLqc

    Youtube thumbnail

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXLFFduC56Y

    Youtube thumbnail

    &feature=related

    Evolution: Against All Odds!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS9o9cbQDLI

    Youtube thumbnail

    Creation In The 21st Century - Palace of Dinosaurs Part 2 (1 of 3)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeK239U2fdE

    Youtube thumbnail

    Creation in the 21st Century - Explain God

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqwP3ZuZq1Y

    Youtube thumbnail

  • ?
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Facts About Creationism

  • ?
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Creationism Facts

  • 5 years ago

    This Site Might Help You.

    RE:

    I need 10 facts that support Creationism?

    In my science class, we are doing a debate on evolution and creationism.

    I am stuck on the Creationism side...

    What are 10 facts that support creationism...

    Source(s): 10 facts support creationism: https://shortly.im/5DS35
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Why are you doing that in a science class? science deals with evidence, not myths. Incidently, the whole premise of "evolution vs creationism" is stupid anyway as one deals with origins and the other does not. You may have better luck asking in the R&S section:

    As far as animefan's "evidence" goes:

    1. Belief in evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation, which states that energy can be converted from one form into another, but it can neither be created or destroyed.

    No it does not. Nowhere does the theory of evolution state or imply that energy was created. It deals with change through time of an already existing system from which energy can be drawn.

    2. Belief in evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy decay. The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.

    Only valid for a closed system, the earth has a regular energy input from the sun and thus the 2nd law is irrelevent. Once the energy input ceases then so will life.

    3. Evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind.

    Again, not relevent. Pre-existing life is already assumed in evolution and the variations experienced in each generation are minor enough that it is basically the same kind of creature with a slight genetic mutation. It's not as if a fish suddenly gave birth to a dinosaur.

    4. There is no evidence in the fossil record to substantiate evolution.

    Only if you close your eyes, block your ears and scream at the top of your voice. Just because you ignore the evidence it doesn't mean it's not there.

    5. The fossil record has failed to document a single, verifiable "missing link" between ape and man.

    Aside from; Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopthecus Africanus, Homo Rudolfensis, Homo Ergaster & Homo Heidelbergensis. Again, it's there regardless of whether you choose to ignore it.

    6. Evolution fails to explain the existence of even a "simple cell."

    Again evolution is not, nor claims to be, concerned with origins. You're thinking of abiogenesis which is something completely different.

    You may have to abandon your search for 10 facts because as far as I can see there are none.

  • 1 decade ago

    Animefan had just demonstrated to you that there are no facts supporting creationism. Here's a creationist, and all she could give you are erroneous claims to refute evolution. Note that even if evolution is refuted, it doesn't mean that creationism is right.

    All of her "facts" are actually based on mistaken presumptions made by creationists.

    1. Belief in evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation, which states that energy can be converted from one form into another, but it can neither be created or destroyed.

    Evolution has nothing to do with physics. Evolution is an open system, not a closed one. The first law of thermodynamics talks about a closed system. Our universe is an open system where energy can flow in and out of it at will.

    2. Belief in evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy decay. The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.

    Again, this talks about a closed system

    3. Evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind.

    Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the beginning of life, that's outside of its scope. Evolution talks about the changes that occur after the start.

    4. There is no evidence in the fossil record to substantiate evolution.

    The fossil record is teeming with evidence of evolution, Archaeopteryx is the most famous one. Creationists just like to ignore the facts.

    5. The fossil record has failed to document a single, verifiable "missing link" between ape and man.

    There are many links between ape and man. The australopitecines are one

    6. Evolution fails to explain the existence of even a "simple cell."

    This is called an argument from ignorance. Just because something is complex, doesn't mean you need to resort to super natural sources.

  • Wayner
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    IF by creationism you mean the concept that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old and all the fossiliferous sedimentary rock strata were formed during a catastrophic hydraulic event (flood) about 4500 years ago, then...

    There aren't any.

    Source(s): Me (a evangelical Christian and geologist).
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    . Belief in evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation, which states that energy can be converted from one form into another, but it can neither be created or destroyed.

    2. Belief in evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy decay. The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.

    3. Evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind.

    4. There is no evidence in the fossil record to substantiate evolution.

    5. The fossil record has failed to document a single, verifiable "missing link" between ape and man.

    6. Evolution fails to explain the existence of even a "simple cell."

    DO NOT USE THESE ARGUMENTS UNLESS YOU WANNA GET LAUGHED AT

    1. Belief in evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation, which states that energy can be converted from one form into another, but it can neither be created or destroyed.

    no it doesnt- nowhere in the theory of evolution of animals by decent say that matter is created

    2. Belief in evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy decay. The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.

    the sun gives us energy- duh

    3. Evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind.

    Law of Biogenesis

    Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is sometimes called the law of biogenesis and asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

    and while they do bring forth there own kind they can diversify to the extent that 2 kinds come from one

    4. There is no evidence in the fossil record to substantiate evolution.

    WRONG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Transitional_...

    5. The fossil record has failed to document a single, verifiable "missing link" between ape and man.

    WRONG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Transitional_...

    6. Evolution fails to explain the existence of even a "simple cell."

    BECAUSE THEY DONT EXIST, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SIMPLE CELL

    there are a few argument which while easily refutable are hard to refute when you just hear itie the irriducable complexity of the bacterial flagellum, the implausibility of the cambrian explosion, the symbiotic relationship between crocodiles and birds

    these do hold water durin a debate but get a book and you discover that the flagellum is reducable, the cambrian explosion can be explained and there are no crocodile birds

  • 1 decade ago

    This is probably not the place to ask since nearly all geology students are brainwashed into believing in evolution by their lecturers. The evidence for Creationism is immense.

    1) The origin of life - totally inexplicable to atheistic scientists. It has been suggested that you can put water vapour, ammonia andf carbon dioxide together under certain conditions and create an amino acid! Maybe true but that isn't life!!

    2) The Cambrian Explosion - the sudden abundance of fossils above the Precambrian / Cambrian boundary most of which have no known evolutionary ancestors! Darwin was puzzled by this problem when he wrote 'The Origin of Species'. He assumed that future fossil hunters would resolve the problem for him. 150 years later, this problem for evolutionists is as evident as ever!!

    3) The highly complex compound eyes of the trilobite, Phacops rana which are a complete engineering wonder since they are composed of single calcite prisms but have a small proportion of magnesium ions towards their outer surface that enabled them to focus as a result of a subtle change in the refractive index. But Phacops had no evolutionary ancestor that had anything LIKE this wonderful eye from which it could have evolved.

    4) No one has been able to establish how the earliest fossil amphibians such as Ichthyostega could have generated their ribs or their well developed legs. The frequent claim that these arose from an Eusthenopteron like rhipidian fish clearly has no scientific foundation.

    5) Dictyonema is a well known graptolite and yet, with its many fronds, no evolutionary palaeontologist has any idea about its ancestry as it is totally unlike other graptolites.

    6) The many unique features of the whale, make clear that it is entirely different in a number of respects from land mammals. The whale could not have evolved from land animals but must have been created separately (besides which there are no specific fossil links).

    7) The proportion of helium in the atmosphere when considering its generation from the current rate of radioactive decay in the world and the current rate of loss of the gas into space, point to a young earth as mentioned in the Bible.

    8) Tree ring data indicate that the OLDEST trees, the California Redwoods point to their establishment shortly after the biblically recorded date of Noah's Flood.

    9) A graph of population numbers over time points to the human race having arisen from a small number of people around 4500 years ago. The similarity of genetic detail in humans from different parts of the globe similarly point to recent common ancestry.

    10) Carbon 14 is MEANT to have a half-life of around 5700 years and is therefore used exclusively for archaeological dating rather than the dating of rocks. Why then, has C 14 been found in samples of Carboniferous coal and wood from Triassic Sandstones that are assumed to be from rocks over 200 million years old!! Radiometric dating of rocks is a total hoax!!

    And I'll give you a no.11. Two years ago a Tyrannosaurus femur was unearthed that still contained DNA and other soft tissue (see link below). Old earth geologists believe that the fossil was 65 million years old!! This couldn't have been so as soft tissue would never be preserved that long.

    Source(s): http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna University qualified geology graduate.
  • 5 years ago

    1. Creation necessitates a creator and the creator of creation is far more brilliant, resourceful and powerful than the most brilliant, resourceful and powerful entity the universe has to offer - mankind. And mankind could not create time/space/matter/energy ALL AT THE SAME TIME, the universe and the 8.7 million species of life within; therefore, the creator can't POSSIBLY be anything other than God due to this fact. ALSO, the creator has to have the tools to create creation (brilliance, divine power) and the ONLY entity w/ these powers is God almighty. This disproves evolution as it's model is nothing but a mindless unguided process and arrangement does not come without a mind. Evolution does not exist, but even if it did, it's only ability would be "dysfunction."

    2. The big bang, evolution, abiogenesis - none of it has ever been seen and being in the physical universe - there's no excuse for it not being observed EXCEPT that they do not exist. We see other physical phenomenon every day, such as speciation, reproduction and gravity, so the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis are not science at all because they cannot be tested, measured and observed. So you can stop with the science talk when you mention these theories of lies AND stop w/ the certainty of any of them as they are something YOU HAVE PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN.

    3. You can't have something that you cannot produce yourself or get from an entity that does not have it to give. In other words, Our moral, intelligent, living God of absolute worth is the only one that can give us our life, intelligence, morality and value, because he is the only one who has it to give. Mindless unguided processes have no possibility to give a human being life, intelligence, morality and value.

    4. Nature is physical; thus, is finite; thus, is physical; thus, had a beginning; thus, did not create itself, because it did not exist to do so; thus, was created w/ all bodily systems (circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, pulmonic, digestive, skeletal, muscular, nervous, body (skin), etc., etc.) intact to sustain the life given it by God as he alone has the power to create nature immediately with the ability to reproduce:

    "Then God said, "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same KIND--livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals..." - Genesis 1:24

    5. Mindless purposeless evolution couldn’t realize that the human species needs separate genders

    of “male” and “female” counterparts in order to reproduce. Creating and programming these

    separate entities to come together from two different paths, not only physically, but internally in order to

    procreate - would be impossible. This happenstance cannot be fathomed by the mindless model of

    evolution.

    6. All the following was CREATED IN AN INSTANT and was totally co-dependent AND co-existent w/

    all the other entities in the list, as “life” was not only created, but maintained EVEN THOUGH

    the atheist/evolutionist claims they all “self-created” out of nothing from dead mindless

    chemicals/forces/laws AND found themselves all perfectly “fine-tuned” to co-exist w/ all the others in

    the list TO support “life” being created, maintained and prospered:

    * The spark of Life

    * All internal life systems & adaptability to

    the atmosphere

    * Consciousness & conscious adaptability

    to the atmosphere

    * Time & time adaptability

    * Space and space adaptability

    * Matter and matter adaptability

    * Energy and energy adaptability

    * Atmosphere (gas/fluid/solid),

    * Gravity & Resistance to Gravity

    * Oxygen levels and assimilation

    * Germ proliferation and immune defense

    * Sunlight UV absorption & adaptability

    * Temperature & Temperature Adaptability

    * Predators & Predator defense

    * Weather differentiation & Weather

    Adaptability

    * Wind & Weather Adaptability

    * Rain & Rain Adaptability

    * Sound & Sound Adaptability

    * 2nd Law & 2nd Law Adaptability

    * Water & Water Adaptability

    7. A common mistake that evolutionists make: assuming that the random occurrence of order (repetitive,

    low information) in nature, such as crystals and snowflakes, provides insight into the generation of high-

    complexity (nonrepetitive, high information). You're confusing order with complexity. The

    difference between crystals in rocks and proteins in living organisms is profound. Break a crystal

    and you just get smaller crystals; break a protein and you don’t simply get a smaller protein; rather you

    lose the function completely. Large crystals have low information content that is simply repeated, while

    the protein molecule isn’t constructed simply by repetition. Those who manufacture proteins know that

    they have to add one amino acid at a time, and each addition has about 90 chemical steps involved.

    8. One of the largest proofs of evolution being a farce, is that there is not one single undisputed "missing

    link" or transitional fossil that has ever been found on earth, where there should be millions of them. The

    most famous "fraud" is "Archaeopteryx," but Archaeopteryx cannot be regarded as a transitional form

    because:

    a. It has a ‘mosaic’ of characters in common with both groups but shows no true transitional

    structure such as a part-scale, part-feather.

    b. There are no fossil links between it and either reptiles or birds—it stands alone.

    c. True birds have been found which are assigned by evolutionists to an earlier time

    than Archaeopteryx.

    9. A non-complex life form is an impossibility, since it needs to have the ability to reproduce. Even the

    simplest known true self-reproducing organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 482 genes with 580,000

    ‘letters’ (base pairs). But even this appears not to be enough to sustain itself without parasitizing an even

    more complex organism. This proves evolution and atheism wrong, because only a brilliant divine God

    can design/create/form a life form with such complexity and IT'S IMPOSSIBLE that atheism's "mindless

    unguided processes could even begin to design/create/form a life form with such complexity.

    10. There's no foundation for atheism, evolution or abiogenesis. The universe had a beginning; almost

    no one disputes that, because the laws of thermodynamics demand it: the universe is running down and

    it cannot have been running down forever, or it would have already run down. No stars would be still

    churning out energy and we would not be here. Some have proposed one universe giving birth to

    another, but again, there cannot be an infinite series of such births and deaths, as each cycle must have

    less energy available than the last and if this had been happening for eternity, the Death of everything

    would have already happened. The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the

    cause was material / natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it

    would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths

    of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material

    or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay

    and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit - God.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I started to seriously answer this question, but then I realised that I really couldn't.

    Sorry.

    Maybe you should ask to be excused from this argument, since you are only interested in learning about science in Science class.

    Religion should be restriced to religion class.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.