What are some scientific problems with Creation?

Question

Assuming that God, as unlikely as it is, is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent

Answer 1

lalaland maybe your onto something after all woman is XX man is XY, umm maybe it is true human life started as XX and a(rib) was taken to form XY so Adams rib was taken to form Eve does this mean Adam was a female?

Answer 2

where did dinosaurs come from, how can you explain the complexities of the circulatory system and reproductive system as being "formed from clay", if we all came from adam and eve wouldn't incest have to have occurred?  

Answer 3

Well, that is an interesting question.  It depends on how you define Creation (the Big Bang could be that Creation).  However, I am sure you are referring to the Biblical account that places people on the Earth as direct creations, rather than evolved creations, from God.  Just the same, I offer the following to consider:

1) Nuclear decay.  Heavy atomic particles, which should also have been created at the time of the Earth's creation, such as Uranium, etc. have continued to decay since they first arrived.  As they decay, they continuously diminish in quantity, while new lighter atomic particles (byproducts) are produced.  Using science (the power of observation and deduction), we understand that heavy atomic particles are byproducts of nuclear fusion from lighter elements, fused by immense gravitational forces within large stars, etc.

2) Many species have genetic compositions that are very similar to other species, implying that they once had common ancestors.  A simple example is to say that you and your cousins have similar genes.  If you go back up your family tree, you would find that you have different parents, but the same grandparents.  If you went back several thousand, or million, branches up your family tree, you would find that you are related to many other people.  Evolution implies that if you keep going back further and further, you may find that your ancestors go back before modern humans, making us related to other species that are not human.

3)  The Adam and Eve story has some limitations.  For example, if Adam and Eve were the only two first ancestors, and their children multiplied by incest, the resulting children should have had many birth defects (statistically), based on our current understanding of inbreeding and the risks thereof.

4)  The whole story was recorded by who?  Languages have continuously changed, and we have only been writing things down for a few thousand years.  We know that people lived quite a long time ago, based on excavated finds, and that those people were not mentioned in the Bible.  Yet, the origin (Adam and Eve) was recorded?  In what way did that really happen?

5)  Fossils.  The Bible leaves no room for ancient creatures to have roamed the Earth.  Dinosaurs (which definitely existed) and many other animals that predated any mammals would not have been created to help Man, because they predated Man.  Since they had no function according to the Bible, they shouldn't have existed without a purpose.  Yet, they did exist (trust me on this one).

6)  Life on other planets.  We have not yet found it (meaning bonafide, indisputable proof), but the way things are looking, we are almost certain to do so within the next little while (next week, in 20 years, 100 years, 500 years, who knows), or possibly records of it (i.e., Mars).  If and when that happens, by itself, it will be the biggest challenge to Creation.  However, it hasn't happened yet, so you can discount this for today...

7)  Looking at skeletons of large mammals, such as whales, reveals fingers.  Looking at skeletons of bat wings reveals fingers in the wings.  Looking at legs of birds reveals scales.  Looking at skeletons of many snakes reveals remnants of legs.  These are all signs of evolution, but not necessary in Creation.  Check it out at any museum, or online, for that matter.

These are just a few that come to mind, but I'm sure I'd think of more if I sat here for long enough...

My challenge to you is to answer your own question.  Look for your own scientific problems with Creation.  I am not trying to debunk Creation or Christianity.  I am only trying to understand the world around me, and prefer to use facts over stories.  Facts, to me, are those things that I can check up on at any time, on my own, and still verify independently of what people tell me.

Answer 4

There are many problems with creation. The first thing that put me off the whole creation c**p was that in the bible god supposedly created eve from one of Adam's ribs. Males and females both have the same number of rib bones as evident on any x-ray. Also the biblical "fact" that the world is only 2,000 years or so old is complete c**p. Carbon dating has proven the world be be billions of years old, with ancient humans dated back to at least a million years ago. So much for creationism...Darwin wins again!!!

Answer 5

I defer to Adam Zampino's excellent answer.

And I'll only comment on your Additional Details.

Are you implying that since God is omnipotent and can do anything He wants for reasons only He understands, that this answers any scientific objection to Creation?

If so, then that is precisely why Creation, regardless of whether it is true, is not *scientific*.    And this is why a supernatural being, who can act outside of any physical laws (and in fact can both *make* or *change* those laws), is outside the bounds of what science deals with.  Science is restricted to things that obey physical laws and leave physical evidence.

Again, this is not saying that Creation is not true.  It is just saying that Creation is not *scientific*.   If you keep articles of religious faith *separate* from the types of questions that science deals with, then there is NO CONFLICT.

Answer 6

You can't create a woman from part of a man.  

Answer 7

the only "scientific problem" with creation is that creation transcends science itself

Answer 8

Evolution