The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Frequent objections to creationism

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search


  • If the earth is young, why is it that the predictions made for an old earth allow us to find oil?[1]
Creation wiki response:
Fewer and fewer oil reserves are being found. Even back in the 1950's only one hole in five produced oil. Is the naturalistic model all that good at finding oil?
Do the methods used to find oil actually depend on any particular view of geological history? It seems more likely that they are empirical — based on past experience of where oil is actually found. Most likely, theories of oil's origin have been retrofitted onto the empirical evidence. [More research needed.]


  • Flowering plants should be near the bottom of the geologic column as they cannot climb and grow in low lying areas. However, no flowering plant has been found below the layer associated with the Cretaceous period and extend upwards in the geologic column to present day angiosperms.[2]
Creation wiki response:
The lowest levels of all are going to be marine; the flood waters would have swept away much material and deposited it on top of all the material in the sea. Naturally, therefore, we would not expect to see flowering plants at the lowest level. The objection takes no account of catastrophe; it assumes that new material is gently deposited on top of old. However, the flood would have torn up the whole surface of the earth. Plants, being naturally buoyant, would have tended to float and are much more likely to be found at higher levels.
  • Pterosaurs were flying archosaurs that should have been very able to seek higher ground, yet none of them are found in layers more recent than those associated with the Cretaceous period. Somehow the archosaurs appear lower in the geologic column than hundred ton seismosaurus.
Creation wiki response:

Starlight and Time

  • If the universe is 6000-10000 years old, why is it that we can find events occurring more than 6000-10000 light years away? If the universe is 6000-10000 years old, we wouldn't see anything outside the Milky Way.[3][4][5][6]
Creation wiki response:
God stretched out the heavens. What did this do to light and time outside the solar system? The objection assumes that everything was created in exactly the form it now has.


  • I'm amazed that micro evolution will be accepted but macro evolution is impossible. The diversity of humankind, which apparently came from the 3 sons of Noah, obviously happened in only 4000 years. So, if this isn't macro-evolution in 4000 years, and if you can see what can happen in only 4000 years, then it should be logical that if you multiply this by X that more and more should be possible.
Creation wiki response:


  • Why don't we see isotopes with half-lives under 25 million years that are not products of isotopes with longer half lives? Here is a nice diagram :

Creation wiki response:


  • Creationists have failed to come up with a single applicable use for creationism in any field of applied science. On the other hand, mainstream science (including evolution and common descent) are applied sciences that have commercial application today.
Creation wiki response:
No applied science benefits from the idea of evolution. All empirical science depends on seeing what actually happens and basing hypotheses on that. The most that could be seen is variation within a kind, about which there is no dispute. The application of ideas of flood geology could potentially benefit mining and oil exploration, but they will not do so until someone is willing to try them. We constantly see new research reports on the amazing design of living creatures, sometimes without even a token acknowledgement of evolution; this is effectively applied creationism.
On the other hand, evolutionary ideas have been a positive hindrance to science. Evolutionary ideas about the development of our posture led to back treatments that worsened patients' problems. Evolutionary ideas led to 198 human organs' being labelled vestigial. Now, all are known to be useful or even essential. In the same way, evolutionists label large areas of DNA as junk, thus greatly hindering investigation of what it actually does.
  • Creationism isn't testable, and thus, isn't science. Every single claim which has ever been tested has come up testing false, it ignores evidence it doesn't like.
Creation wiki response:
  • What is it with Young Earth Creation and quote mining? Why is this dishonest tactic so common amongst Young Earth Creation literature?[7]
Creation wiki response:

Why does AIG's $14,000,000 "museum" NOT contain any artifact displays or scientific facilities.[8]

Creation wiki response:

Related References

See Also