Creation science and the world

[Mallon]

I thought it might be interesting to assemble a list of conclusions that creation science has drawn about the world as it was in those first days of creation. Surprisingly, I haven't come across a summary of creation science research before, so this will be a first (at least for me). Everyone is free to contribute to the list, but please be sure to cite or link to your sources.
I'll start:

• Before the Flood, the earth was surrounded by several kilometers of vaporized water floating in the atmosphere, thereby providing a source for the floodwaters (Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood).
• Before the Flood, there were fewer than 300 species of animals, which then underwent a period of extreme diversification following to the Flood, producing the hundreds of thousands of species we see today in just a few thousand years (AiG's Creation Museum).
• Before the Fall, T. rex used its massive, serrated teeth to eat plants (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-and-humans).

Please feel free to add your own. It will be fun piecing together the pre-Fallen world creation science has made!

 

[stumpjumper]

Well the vegetation growing on day three while the sun wasn't created until day four is certainly an interesting conclusion...

 

[Scotishfury09]

Well the vegetation growing on day three while the sun wasn't created until day four is certainly an interesting conclusion...

Stump, you heathen, there was no need for the sun. Jesus was the light.

The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
Revelation 21:23

 

[shernren]

The observable universe is surrounded by a wall of ice.

That's the "waters above the firmament", as you'd expect it to be if it was stranded in outer space.

Sourced from Starlight and Time, 1994 - I don't know if Russell Humphreys has changed his mind about this since then.

 

[champuru]

One time i was watching that guy from the Creation Museum on tv and he talked about how when Ostriches die they bend their head back and that many dinosaur fossils have the dinosaur's head bent back which proves they were killed quickly in the Flood.

Yet they dont believe birds evolved from dinosaurs...hmmm

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Before the Fall, T. rex used its massive, serrated teeth to eat plants (http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rex-and-humans).

I have also heard that they used their huge serrated teeth to crack open nuts... hmmm... one would think that was a bit of an overkill.

I have also read that Adam would have been around 15 feet tall due to the extra pressure of the water canopy surrounding the earth.

Furthermore, apparently the T-Rex could breath fire. no I am not making this up. They compared it to the modern Bombardier Beetle which is able to shoot super hot gas out of their tails (I have not actually fact checked whether these beetles can actually do this).

And last, but certainly not least, some creationists say that to deny literal 6-day creationism is to deny Jesus Christ.

Most of this information came from a 1997 publication by Jim Pinkoski called "A Creationist's View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution" which appeared in pamphlet form.

BTF

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I though that the only conclusion creation science ever wanted to reach was:

See the Bible is right.

 

[Molal]

The term 'kind' has no definition and could mean anything.

Noah's ark is a TARDIS, since the inside is mostly definitely larger than the outside.

 

[lemmings]

The term 'kind' has no definition and could mean anything.

Noah's ark is a TARDIS, since the inside is mostly definitely larger than the outside.

Noah managed to actually create space? That is a feat only mastered by D&D players!

 

[Molal]

Noah managed to actually create space? That is a feat only mastered by D&D players!

I think Noah was a time lord, maybe Dr. Who himself.

 

[lemmings]

I think Noah was a time lord, maybe Dr. Who himself.

Noah?​

 

[Molal]

That's him! I knew it.

 

[Jadis40]

I wish I would have bookmarked the page so I could refer you to it, but a pastor put up a copy of a sermon online where he actually used the argument from YEC sites like AiG and ICR where they put forth the notion that the light from the stars we see now was created in transit...

Edit: I did some re-checking, and to their credit, it appears that AiG no longer supports the "light in transit" idea. My point is, the idea is still out there.

In my mind, that would mean he's saying that the light we see now was from events that didn't actually happen, like the explosions of the nova or supernova thousands of years ago that produced the Veil Nebula, the Horsehead Nebula, the Crab Nebula, the 1987A nova etc....

These nebulas are physical evidence of an event with an actual physical object, namely the explosion of a star that took place thousands of years ago, if not longer. Add on to that the simple fact that the lifespan of a star is millions if not billions of years depending on its mass, and the whole "light in transit" argument crumbles to dust.