Is the earth 6000 years old
What is it about creationism?
Argument 1: Complexity must have an intelligent creator
All creationists or opponents of evolution agree that the organisms known today do not go back to a common ancestor, but - as so-called basic types - were created by a creator or designer. Many creationists believe that God had a hand in it is proven by an argument of the theologian William Paley (1743-1805): If we find a clock in nature, we assume that it was made by an intelligent being (clockmaker) . From this it follows, according to Paley, that even highly complex living things must have been created by a designer: "Design must have a designer."
Argument 2: The earth is only 6000 years old - says the Bible
The Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) calculated an earth age of around 6000 years using various biblical chronologies. He took October 23, 4004 BC as the time of creation. At 9 a.m. By the way, a Sunday. "Moderate" creationists, on the other hand, have agreed on an age of around 10,000 years.
Argument 3: Life cannot have come about by chance
Creationists claim that the spontaneous emergence of complex (ordered) macromolecules, which could be the original building blocks of life, is statistically practically impossible. A chemist calculated a probability of 1: 101000 that such a DNA macromolecule would form spontaneously. That is comparable to the probability with which the parts of a junkyard whirled up by a tornado will assemble by themselves into a fully functional aircraft.
Argument 4: evolution contradicts physics
Creationists keep claiming that the theory of evolution contradicts a fundamental principle of thermodynamics, and thus of physics. The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy, i.e. the measure of disorder or indeterminacy in a system, tends to reach a maximum in the universe. However, the origin and development of organisms has brought ever greater diversity and complexity with it.
Argument 5: The theory of evolution is unscientific
A scientific theory can only be considered true if it can be confirmed or refuted by reproducible experiments. However, evolutionary processes run so slowly that they evade experimental verification. Hence the theory of evolution cannot claim to be more scientific than any theory of creation.
Argument 6: There are no intermediate fossil forms
There are no transitional or intermediate forms between the blueprints of different fossil animal classes. So there is a lack of evidence for macroevolution, i.e. the development of new building plans above the species boundary.
In the textbook "Evolutionary Biology", Ulrich Kutschera lists these and other arguments and refutes them point by point. In particular, the last-mentioned argument, the alleged lack of transitional forms, is dealt with in detail.#Subjects
- Where can I find wombats for sale
- Should I move to India to live there?
- What is public speaking and its meaning
- True meaning of life 3
- Are the South Park Creators Trump supporters
- What is my interest
- Why is space floating
- What is the best vintage sofa brand
- What is the search function in Excel
- What are the rules of the fight club
- Frequent steaming on the face can accelerate aging
- What's next for Tony Romo
- At what age does a teenager begin
- Why do people lack happiness
- What is the most beautiful word in Ireland
- How good is the training at CSIR
- What do millennials really do
- Are IAS officers arrogant
- How did Trump lose an evangelical support?
- What offends you most about Hollywood celebrities
- Will Kashmir be free from India
- How do ordinary Russians see India?
- What is Norway's flag
- How specifically do you practice self-reflection