What Are Your Top 5 Scientific Proofs That Creationists Cannot Dispute?

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

I have several debates going with Creationists in my personal life on moral and scientific levels. I am good with the moral issues, but we butt heads quite a bit on science levels. Neither of us are scientists ourselves, so we must rely on evidence of the scientific camps we subscribe to. I remind my opponents that if I personally am not equipped with the information to refute their Creationist claims, it doesn't validate their point. It merely means I am not an expert in the field.

So...for the experts, what are your Top 5 scientific proofs that creationists cannot dispute? A link to some information regarding it would be helpful too.

This will be educational for myself as well as my debate partners.

Thanks.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I'd stay right away from scientific debates. Most of the time, creationists are arguing outdated or utterly incorrect versions of evolutionary theory. It's like trying to debate advanced algebra with someone who thinks that 1+1=3. It's a waste of time.

Instead, I'd focus on this: real-world evolution. In particular, the fact that evolution has practical (including commerical) application. This is something no creationist has ever addressed. Indeed, they prefer to completely ignore this. I would suggest Googling "comparative genomics" and "phylogenomics". Heck, just read up bioinformatics in general.

ETA: A few articles:

Evolutionary Biology: Technology for the 21st Century
Evolutionary biology and the national research agenda (outdated but good)
Applied Evolution (requires subscribed access; you could probably do it through a university or library)

Something else I would recommend paying attention to is the funding for evolutionary based science specifically related to biotech, as well as political initiatives in relation to biotech businesses (typically state-level). There's a whole world of applied evolutionary science out there, which creationists have no clue about. Quite frankly, it puts the whole "debate" into perspective. And I guarantee they won't be able to much more than duck and dodge this stuff.

 

[JamesDaJust]

The Earth is 100 million years old.
The Earth is 500 million years old.
The Earth is 2 billion years old.
Neanderthal Man is the missing link.
Nebraska Man is the missing link.
Java Man is the missing link.
Piltdown Man is the missing link.
Cro-Magnon Man is the missing link.
The evolution of the horse.
Dinosaurs were cold-blooded.
Dinosaurs were slow and clumsy.
The Coelacanth fish is the ancestor of an amphibian.
Archaeopteryx is the link between reptiles and birds.


[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]A list of all the things evolutionists believe which can be shown to be true. For example,
Natural selection causes small variations in species.

Oh! and don't forget Lucy.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[MoonLancer]

the age of the earth is simple. We kept finding older stuff. If we find older stuff from now, we will know the age of the earth is older then we thought. the age of the earth is not going to get younger though.

all knew fields of study start out wrong and get more and more right as the goes along. It refines itself. So evolution science is about 150 years old. Its not going away and its not going be recended.

 

[MoonLancer]

age of the stars. We know how far a star is by how much the stars shift. the ones that shift very little are close while the ones that shift alot are far away. the light of stars travels at a set speed. In order for the universe to be 6000 years old, god would have to have created the stars light already in motion towards us.

this is a good one because its so far removed from evolution, yet is just a damning.


i may revise this later.

 

[Chalnoth]

HERV's are a great little piece of genetic evidence, my personal favorite.
Human chromosome 2 is also a nice piece of genetic evidence.

 

[birdan]

The most effective argument (i.e., rebuttals are usually invocations of miracles) against a young earth that I've found is the issue of heat.

- all those meteor craters = too much heat
- all those igneous rocks = too much heat
- all that plate tectonic movement = too much heat
- accelerated radioactive decay = too much heat

And looking at "flood geology",

- fountains of the deep = too much heat
- water vapor canopy = too much heat
- orbiting ice canopy = too much heat
- water-laden comets = too much heat
- hyper-tectonics = too much heat

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm is a good link for accelerated radioactive decay. I can't find my bookmarks for the others right now.

With the above heat issues (4.55 billion years of heat generating processes being compressed into 6,000 years or less), I haven't found any arguments on the usual YEC websites except, as I mentioned, the occasional "it's a miracle" explanation.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The Earth is 100 million years old.
The Earth is 500 million years old.
The Earth is 2 billion years old.

The earth is about 4.5 Billion years old and we have known this for many years now.

Neanderthal Man is the missing link.

Who made this claim?

Nebraska Man is the missing link.

As far as I know Nebraska man was never accepted in the peer reveiwed literature.

Java Man is the missing link.

Java man is a real homo erectus fossil so it is not missing is it?

Piltdown Man is the missing link.

Which creationists was who discovered this fraud?

Cro-Magnon Man is the missing link.

When?

The evolution of the horse.

The evolution of the horse is pretty solidly worked out but I wouldn't put it in the top five evidences.

Dinosaurs were cold-blooded.

Maybe, Maybe not?

Dinosaurs were slow and clumsy.

Some probably were, some weren't. After all even some mammals are slow and clumsy.

The Coelacanth fish is the ancestor of an amphibian.

Whoever said that?

Archaeopteryx is the link between reptiles and birds.

I suggest you do as I have done and go to the Natural history museum in Berlin to see the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica and casts of all the other known specimens. You will see that while Archaeopteryx had features it had many characteristics of dinosuars and in fact without the feathers it is hard to tell archy from some dinosaur fossils.

[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]A list of all the things evolutionists believe which can be shown to be true. For example,
Natural selection causes small variations in species.

Oh! and don't forget Lucy.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

What about lucy?

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

Thanks for all the input and advice so far. I will check out all the links. Keep 'em coming please!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have several debates going with Creationists in my personal life on moral and scientific levels. I am good with the moral issues, but we butt heads quite a bit on science levels. Neither of us are scientists ourselves, so we must rely on evidence of the scientific camps we subscribe to. I remind my opponents that if I personally am not equipped with the information to refute their Creationist claims, it doesn't validate their point. It merely means I am not an expert in the field.

So...for the experts, what are your Top 5 scientific proofs that creationists cannot dispute? A link to some information regarding it would be helpful too.

This will be educational for myself as well as my debate partners.

Thanks.

Are you talking about evidence for evolution or evidence against Young Earth Creationism? Some of the strongest evidence for evolution is in molecular genetics, particularly endogenous retroviruses and unitary pseudogenes which we have discussed before. There are many things that falsify young earth creationism as it is easy to show that the earth is far more than 6,000 years old and that the flood of Noah could not been global. The list of Falsifications of the Worldwide Flood is quite long. However, Old Earth Creationism is not falsified by the facts that falsify Young Earth Creationism. Biogeography is one of my favorite falsifications of the global flood and one that is easier to understand compared to some of the geological arguments.

 

[Impaler]

There are numerous arguements that are scientifically irrefutable against YEC. However, creationists don't care for science so every arguement is still irrefutable as they can just fall back on taking it all on faith, no matter how illogical.

One arguement I like to use is the empire of Akkad, which started either 20-30 years after the flood or directly before it. Either way it would be impossible for Akkad to reach its population and developement so shortly after the flood.

Another is galaxy collision. Most galaxies in the process of collision show way too much distortion to be accounted for in 6,000 years. Even with an unfounded assumption of the galaxies travelling at the speed of light they still put the minimum age of the universe at more than 100,000 years. That doesn't even include entire clusters of galaxies that have collided.

 

[philadiddle]

You can't convince a fundamentalist using science. They think that to accept evolution means to call God a liar. A good place to start is always theology. It may be difficult for you because they will recognize that you don't believe the bible (i'm guessing by your profile). There's a lot of information I could share about that, but it's too much to sumarize into a short, usable argument. You could always try to get them to participate in the Origins Theology board, and then talk to them about their conversations on the board.

 

[Chalnoth]

You can't convince a fundamentalist using science.

I beg to differ. Of course, you can't convince most fundamentalists. But I was convinced, with no difficulty whatsoever, once I saw the evidence (sadly, I was sheltered from evidence, and did not think too closely about my beliefs, until around the age of 21-22).

However, the recent Intelligent Design movement, which attempts to cast a veneer of scientific respectability on creationism, is very much the wolf in sheep's clothing for creationists: in attempting to base creationism on a scientific background, adherents become at least a little more likely to listen to scientific evidence.

 

[MarcusHill]

There's no piece of scientific evidence that creationists won't dispute. In some cases, the disputation will boil down to "A magic man did it. With magic."

 

[LeeC]

So...for the experts, what are your Top 5 scientific proofs that creationists cannot dispute? A link to some information regarding it would be helpful too.

I could give you more than 5, but this isn't the point when talking to creationists - they ignore the evidence and say it is either a lie, it is God's will (He is testing our faith) or just "They believe this bible is true, and that is that." - closed to the evidence, so what is the point?

I've got myself one of those fancy Physics and Astrophysics degrees from a place people call a university - I have books, and books on how the universe formed, stellar evolution, stellar distances etc etc.

It matters not to a creationist - to them, I am just an atheist out to "trick them" out of their faith.

I have since tried a different tactic (this is new for me, so I have no results on the success – but I certainly failed with the science approach)

I cannot show "atheist science" to a young earther and convince them I am telling the truth - they think by listening to me they will be atheists themselves and not get into heaven and stuff.

The only other approach to test their faith in the bible itself – could the bible be wrong when it “states” 6,000 years? Not good for the same reasons – I am questioning their religion and faith, so the “shields” go up.

I now point them now to Christian literature, people who have faith and "know God created an old universe and evolution is God's way and plan to make man"

I found a web-site, that's has a load of Christian stuff -
(But I do not have “enough posts” to show you the link…
I’m sure if I look I will find more.)

Lets try this instead (just edit it a little):
h ttp: //home.entouch.net/dmd/yungerth.htm


See how you do…

If you still want "5 things in science that prove an old universe?" - well.

Radioactive dating of rocks - Earth 4.5 billion years old.
Plate tectonics, layering of rocks
Bang Big and cosmic background radiation (how else is the temp 2.7K??)
Stellar and galactic distances
Stellar creation and evolution
(Population I and II stars)
The Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagrams

None of all this matters to a young earther though... God made it all this way, 6,000 years old - it just looks older to test our faith (or we do not understand science)

Good luck.

If you want to test me with any technical questions your friends ask you, please just ask – I will try and help if I can.

Lee

 

[LeeC]

However, the recent Intelligent Design movement, which attempts to cast a veneer of scientific respectability on creationism, is very much the wolf in sheep's clothing for creationists: in attempting to base creationism on a scientific background, adherents become at least a little more likely to listen to scientific evidence.

ID fails as a science (as we know) but it does give the creationists "something that sounds like science".

I agree though, if a theist starts to think down these lines though - looking for evidence, testability, falsifiable etc - then we may have a chance.

The problem though I am finding when debating with ID-ers is the response "Well ID is a science, and they say a designer did it" In other words, they do not understand what a science is, and are using ID as another shield. They are still not questioning and still have faith.

Also, it is still the magic man situation as MarcusHill said.

Ask the question "Where did the designer come from, who made the designer?" and the response will be the same as every other religion.

Lee

 

[Chalnoth]

ID fails as a science (as we know) but it does give the creationists "something that sounds like science".

I agree though, if a theist starts to think down these lines though - looking for evidence, testability, falsifiable etc - then we may have a chance.

The problem though I am finding when debating with ID-ers is the response "Well ID is a science, and they say a designer did it" In other words, they do not understand what a science is, and are using ID as another shield. They are still not questioning and still have faith.

Also, it is still the magic man situation as MarcusHill said.

Ask the question "Where did the designer come from, who made the designer?" and the response will be the same as every other religion.

Lee

Yeah, most definitely. But there are still some who genuinely believe they are being rational and skeptical, and have just bought the lies of the ID movement. Those people can be reached quite easily with evidence, even if they aren't all that common.

Anyway, you've reminded me of another piece of evidence. One piece of tripe that is trotted out all the time for explaining away apparently distant stars is that claim that perhaps the speed of light was faster in the past. Our observations of supernova 1987A refute this handily:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/supernova_agesize.html

 

[Merlin]

ROTFLOL.
Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Chalnoth]

ROTFLOL.
Thanks for the laughs.

And what, pray tell, is so funny?

 

[Merlin]

And what, pray tell, is so funny?

Creation vs. evolution.
It CANNOT be proven, short of a time machine.
No one was there to witness the events.
We all take it on faith, based on our own belief paradigms.