Institute for Creation Research - No really, it's a thing.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

There is this rule... and seems you trolling all around...

Carry away...

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Microtectonics maybe, but not macrotectonics... surely?

However, it's not a field I've looked into practically at all, so it is wisest to keep my mouth shut about it for now.

Maybe you should apply that dictum to evolution, as it is clearly something you do not fully comprehend either.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Why is it obvious that the evolutionary rate was slow when there was barely any life on earth? Given what we know of smaller organisms, I honestly would expect that to be the fastest.

Because there was significantly less diversity during the first billion years of life on earth, and less overall creatures on earth. Less creatures evolving at once is less speciation, hence a slower rate. This isn't rocket science. It's obvious based on what you are trying to calculate. Your rate calculates the average rate of known speciation changes as a whole for earth. It is not based on individual rates, it's just a summation of all changes on earth put together and therefor bears no indication on what the rate is today, because the rate constantly changes, even in different geographical locations. Not only that, but also your rate hinges on how many species are on earth at once, so it's bound to be all over the place depending on when you look.

Sure. I pointed that out. But then you run into problematic territory when you try to explain how massive evolutionary shifts happened in a matter of years. Like you pointed out, with mammals it takes a long, long time.

No you don't run into problems. And can you provide a link to a "massive" evolutionary shift that happened in a matter of years? Don't forget that before speciation can occur, genetic mutations need to accumulate. Speciation is basically a trait becoming dominant in a population where it changes them enough to be classified differently. The environmental changes may be sudden, but the speciation process takes a large amount of generations.

In no way should the average speciation rate of all life in the history of earth influence the rate at which it works today.

I'd beg to differ. Unless you're saying that the laws of the universe are arbitrary, we should be able to make a link between the two, given enough time and research. I don't think we've had either yet.

Your loose average calculations are not laws of the universe and there is no reason whatsoever that the speciation rate today is too fast or too slow and I already explained it to you. The earth has been changing in the past 4 billion years. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest the rate today should equal the average, or to claim this poses a problem for evolution. Sorry man, that's not how evolution works, not how science works, and not how mathematics works. Any other academic disciplines you'd like to bastardize today?

Each individual species has different mutation rates, you have to look at them individually instead of taking an average of all life today (which is near impossible) and comparing it to the average of all life in the history of planet earth. Where can you possibly find the number of the speciation rate today? First explain how you calculate THAT.

Psst, nonsense. Mutations are always beneficial! Haven't you seen the X-Men films?

When has any evolution advocate ever claimed that mutations are always beneficial?

Really? I was pretty sure we'd actually measured current rates of continental drift.

We also actually measure the current rate of mutations in evolution.

It relates to the same nonsense that Quad was trying to say. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. There is no reason whatsoever to make the assumption that mutations and traits would stop accumulating past a certain point. Denial of macro evolution while believing in micro is just like believing that continental drift is real, but not thinking that after millions of years they could move great distances. It's simple basic math, and no denier or evolution "critic" has ever answered this point.

I have questions.

Has any mutations helped humans evolve in the last 6000 plus years ?

Has any mutations been passed down to the next generation ?

Warning: bad answers could generate a new thread on this very topic

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I have questions.

Has any mutations helped humans evolve in the last 6000 plus years ?

Has any mutations been passed down to the next generation ?

Warning: bad answers could generate a new thread on this very topic

What do you consider by 'evolve'.

Blue eyes color is one of most recent changes...

We humans got it about 10K years ago.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

LActose tolerance mutation.

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Because there was significantly less diversity during the first billion years of life on earth, and less overall creatures on earth. Less creatures evolving at once is less speciation, hence a slower rate. This isn't rocket science. It's obvious based on what you are trying to calculate. Your rate calculates the average rate of known speciation changes as a whole for earth. It is not based on individual rates, it's just a summation of all changes on earth put together and therefor bears no indication on what the rate is today, because the rate constantly changes, even in different geographical locations. Not only that, but also your rate hinges on how many species are on earth at once, so it's bound to be all over the place depending on when you look.

Right. I could just see a scenario where the first living creatures evolved very rapidly because they were so simple. But I guess the lack of numbers would counterbalance out that advantage, though.

No you don't run into problems. And can you provide a link to a "massive" evolutionary shift that happened in a matter of years? Don't forget that before speciation can occur, genetic mutations need to accumulate. Speciation is basically a trait becoming dominant in a population where it changes them enough to be classified differently. The environmental changes may be sudden, but the speciation process takes a large amount of generations.

Sure, I can buy that. I'm still a little confused, though, as to whether you think evolution is a fast or slow process. Although I guess it would depend on the critter in question, am I right?

Your loose average calculations are not laws of the universe and there is no reason whatsoever that the speciation rate today is too fast or too slow and I already explained it to you. The earth has been changing in the past 4 billion years. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest the rate today should equal the average, or to claim this poses a problem for evolution. Sorry man, that's not how evolution works, not how science works, and not how mathematics works. Any other academic disciplines you'd like to bastardize today?

So you don't think observations we make today have any bearing on the past?

Each individual species has different mutation rates, you have to look at them individually instead of taking an average of all life today (which is near impossible) and comparing it to the average of all life in the history of planet earth. Where can you possibly find the number of the speciation rate today? First explain how you calculate THAT.

Like I pointed out before, we don't have a good enough catalogue on the number of creatures alive today to be able to do this with any accuracy. However, when we have seen speciation, like in the example of the Hawthorne fly I linked too previously, it seems to have taken decades.

When has any evolution advocate ever claimed that mutations are always beneficial?

I don't think they have. Hollywood missed the memo, though

We also actually measure the current rate of mutations in evolution.

I haven't said we haven't, had I?

It relates to the same nonsense that Quad was trying to say. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. There is no reason whatsoever to make the assumption that mutations and traits would stop accumulating past a certain point. Denial of macro evolution while believing in micro is just like believing that continental drift is real, but not thinking that after millions of years they could move great distances. It's simple basic math, and no denier or evolution "critic" has ever answered this point.

I haven't been denying macro, have I? I'm simply puzzled by the apparent conflict between the literally billion+ species that roam(ed) the earth and the >4 billion years they have had to evolve. I was under the impression that evolution (usually) was a long, arduous process, but I am unable to reconcile that with the data, even assuming that some species evolve *very* rapidly and some *very* slowly. I'm guessing this problem is part of what got people to thinking along the lines of punctuated equilibrium and the like.

ETA: thanks for being willing to discuss this with me.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Right. I could just see a scenario where the first living creatures evolved very rapidly because they were so simple. But I guess the lack of numbers would counterbalance out that advantage, though.

We are in agreement then. Yes, you are correct, they would probably have very short lifespans, so they may have reproduced even daily or multiple times a day, but the lack of overall numbers in comparison to the word today would be drastically different and there's no reason to expect it to average out at some point. Today, in all logic should be way faster than the first billion years of life.

Sure, I can buy that. I'm still a little confused, though, as to whether you think evolution is a fast or slow process. Although I guess it would depend on the critter in question, am I right?

Exactly. It's not a fast or slow process. It varies. Compared to our lifespans it is generally considered slow (thousands of generations between sometimes millions). Obviously one can deduce that bigger changes take longer to develop than small ones, but it is subjective depending on the time between generations, the mutation rate of the species, and the frequency of environmental changes. Human mutation rates have been shown to be much faster than the rates observed in chimps or gorillas. It's also true that there is much more time in between human generations. So in theory, chimps and humans could balance out, where chimps experience less mutations, but reproduce in half the time (usually 8-9 years), while humans experience more mutations but reproduce less often (20-25 years).

Sorry for going off on that tangent, I just felt like going a little deeper on the subject. Instead of years, the calculations should really be made in generations if you truly want to figure out a measurable rate. Of course that makes the calculations much more complicated, though.

So you don't think observations we make today have any bearing on the past?

Sure, they help us learn about the past, but your average calculation ignores TONS of factors involved in what actually determines the speed of evolution in different times and areas.

Like I pointed out before, we don't have a good enough catalogue on the number of creatures alive today to be able to do this with any accuracy. However, when we have seen speciation, like in the example of the Hawthorne fly I linked too previously, it seems to have taken decades.

This is true. Now consider the extinction level event that made the dinosaurs extinct. Within 15 million years of that impact event, mammals dominated the earth. That is relatively quick and if you calculated the speciation rate during that time, it would likely blow away any other rates aside from the cambrian explosion and other ELEs. If the same species of fly lived 65 million years ago when that happened, I'd wager that they would speciate faster than in the lab today (or would go extinct).

I haven't been denying macro, have I? I'm simply puzzled by the apparent conflict between the literally billion+ species that roam(ed) the earth and the >4 billion years they have had to evolve. I was under the impression that evolution (usually) was a long, arduous process, but I am unable to reconcile that with the data, even assuming that some species evolve *very* rapidly and some *very* slowly. I'm guessing this problem is part of what got people to thinking along the lines of punctuated equilibrium and the like.

Nah, I wasn't trying to say you were denying it, that was more about relating Quad's post to what we were discussing. I don't see any problem with the estimated amount of species that have evolved in 4 billion years. Keep in mind that even just 1 million years is a LONG time from our perspective. I doubt most folks can even contemplate how long that is. The big issue with the numbers is that it is merely an average, not an expected rate of evolution.

If you take 10,000 species evolving at once and compare it to 10 million evolving at once, obviously the rate will skyrocket because more creatures are evolving at the same time. This is the big flaw in the calculation you have offered, as it only provides an average rate of everything, it cannot and will not predict what the rate should be now. To do this you'd need more information as well as a way to calculate the average rate today where there are flies and bacteria that reproduce almost daily and humans that reproduce every 20 years. You'd have to somehow reconcile each one to get a reliable number or rate of speciation.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I read about this one a while ago and find it pretty fascinating. It's certainly beneficial.

Mutation in Key Gene Allows Tibetans to Thrive at High Altitude

There is 40% less oxygen in the air on the 4,000m high Tibetan plateau than at sea level. Under these conditions, people accustomed to living below 2,000m – including most Han Chinese – cannot get enough oxygen to their tissues, and experience altitude sickness. They get headaches, tire easily, and have lower birth rates and higher child mortality than high-altitude populations.

Tibetans have none of these problems, despite having lower oxygen saturation in their tissues and a lower red blood cell count than the Han Chinese.

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

We are in agreement then. Yes, you are correct, they would probably have very short lifespans, so they may have reproduced even daily or multiple times a day, but the lack of overall numbers in comparison to the word today would be drastically different and there's no reason to expect it to average out at some point. Today, in all logic should be way faster than the first billion years of life.

That makes sense. It's my understanding that we only observe a small fraction of the life we think inhabits the planet, which is why we probably don't see speciation more often, because it's most likely to happen in the populations which breed quickly, which are also small and less noticeable. (Except diseases...we have an industry devoted to noticing them.)

Exactly. It's not a fast or slow process. It varies. Obviously one can deduce that bigger changes take longer to develop than small ones, but it is subjective depending on the time between generations, the mutation rate of the species, and the frequency of environmental changes. Human mutation rates have been shown to be much faster than the rates observed in chimps or gorillas. It's also true that there is much more time in between human generations. So in theory, chimps and humans could balance out, where chimps experience less mutations, but reproduce in half the time (usually 8-9 years), while humans experience more mutations but reproduce less often (20-25 years). Sorry for going off on that tangent, I just felt like going a little deeper on the subject.

No, that's fine. It's interesting.

Sure, they help us learn about the past, but your average calculation ignores TONS of factors involved in what actually determines the speed of evolution in different times and areas.

Sure, which is why I said from the beginning that I didn't think we had enough data to make a thorough assessment.

This is true. Now consider the extinction level event that made the dinosaurs extinct. Within 15 million years of that impact event, mammals dominated the earth. That is relatively quick and if you calculated the speciation rate during that time, it would likely blow away any other rates aside from the cambrian explosion and other ELEs. If the same species of fly lived 65 million years ago when that happened, I'd wager that they would speciate faster than in the lab today (or would go extinct).

We should recreate those conditions in the lab, starting with the dinosaurs
Hmm, let's see. About 5,000 known mammalian species known today, and if we assume that around that many arose during that 15 million years, we're looking at a not unreasonable rate of evolution, say 1000 species in the first five million years, 2000 species in the next five millions, 3000 species in the next five million...

Nah, I wasn't trying to say you were denying it, that was more about relating Quad's post to what we were discussing. I don't see any problem with the estimated amount of species that have evolved in 4 billion years. Keep in mind that even just 1 million years is a LONG time from our perspective. I doubt most folks can even contemplate how long that is. The big issue with the numbers is that it is merely an average, not an expected rate of evolution.

Right. The problem I have is that if most evolutionary changes are slower, some of them have to be blindingly fast to make the average work. I guess that's not out of question for the common flu, though. It's also possible that we overestimate the amount of species that ever lived.

If you take 10,000 species evolving at once and compare it to 10 million evolving at once, obviously the rate will skyrocket because more creatures are evolving at the same time. This is the big flaw in the calculation you have offered, as it only provides an average rate of everything, it cannot and will not predict what the rate should be now.

Sure. But what it does show is that either evolution historically has been happening at a reasonably quick rate *or* that it has been more stagnant and then happened at a *blindingly* fast rate, which makes me uncomfortable. (But that is what the fossil records indicate, as I understand it.) Unlike yourself, I have more faith in our lab experts than I do in natural selection.

To do this you'd need more information as well as a way to calculate the average rate today where there are flies and bacteria that reproduce almost daily and humans that reproduce every 20 years. You'd have to somehow reconcile each one to get a reliable number or rate of speciation.

Yeah, I *did* say up front we needed more information...
The other possibility, though, might be to take selectively known factors we are aware of (say, fruit fly speciation rates and the number of fruit flies we think have ever existed) and extrapolate based on that.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I can't really argue with most of what you said there. I made some edits to my post, you must have replied like right before I sent the edits, so that's my fault for doing it so late. One of the other points I tried to hit was that the calculation of speciation should really be in generations rather than years. Obviously, it makes the calculations much more complex, but I feel it would paint a more accurate picture. It really is all about the generations. Anyways I respect your views and appreciate you also being respectful in this discussion and focusing on the subject matter.

Thanks

a reply to: CoherentlyConfused
What Hubble didn't know was that a later study on quantum red shift would prove he took the wrong choice: Earth is at the center of the Universe.

There are more closeted creationists that you may believe exist, they just don't want to lose their jobs. As soon as you raise your head and say you believe in a young Earth, and disbelieve evolution, you can expect a pink slip. Apparently not even the Supreme Court will stand by you. duckduckgo.com...
a reply to: SuperFrog

a reply to: Subaeruginosa
Sorry, but no blind faith here. Hard science proves a young Earth. You have to turn your back on hard, provable, empirical data to believe in the garbage spewed by the "billions of years" idiots.

There is plenty of evidence for a world wide flood.
There is plenty of evidence for a young Earth.
Not sure why you think that there isn't.

a reply to: Klassified

Science does verify data. The problem is that the data is hidden from you. That's why there are institutes for creation research, and similar organizations. They have the data. It's real, serious, replicable data done by famous, respectable scientists. The problem is, the scientific community is a religious lot, deeply buried in secularism, atheism, naturalism, and uniformitarianism. If you aren't in that club, expect to get kicked out. Hundreds have been. There are plenty of creationists in that community, but they won't raise their hand to admit it because they have a family to feed and it's not a big deal for them to keep it quiet to keep their job. Good movie on it called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" en.wikipedia.org...:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Jim Scott
a reply to: CoherentlyConfused
What Hubble didn't know was that a later study on quantum red shift would prove he took the wrong choice: Earth is at the center of the Universe.

Please post this study, I would be interested in reading it.

I nearly fell off my chair when I found out that people actually believe this.

You need to understand how redshift works when space itself is expanding. From the perspective of any body within an expanding space, every other body you look at will be redshifted.

An analogy you can use is to print or texta some dots onto a balloon, then inflate it. You will find that every dot will move away from every other dot as the balloon expands.

Reply to Barcs
1. You would have to read their minds, because they won't confess it because they would lose their jobs. Your community of scientists will not tolerate anyone who believes in a young Earth or young Universe. There is a movie about this called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and there is a book about it. Lots of references here: duckduckgo.com...
2. Hard science is science using hypotheses and experiments that can receive peer review, are replicable findings, and establish the laws, theories and facts of science. Soft science, like evolution, takes non-scientific findings and imagines a result. Even Leakey said his line of work might become science in 50 years (20 years from now). en.wikipedia.org...
3. Scientists assume a uniform existence, based on observations they make today and assumptions they make about the past. For example, they assume a uniform expansion rate of the Universe. This could be a faulty assumption, because we do not know the original speed of the expansion of the space-time continuum. Consider this for a moment: energy does not coalesce into matter until it slows below the speed of light times the speed of light, according to E=mc^2. Therefore, we know that space-time expanded to the present limits of the Universe in 20.11 hours before the energy became matter and slowed things to a crawl, respectively:
186400 miles per second - speed of light
60 seconds
60 minutes
24 hours
5,878,310,400,000 = miles per year
times
5,878,310,400,000 = miles per year
equals
34,554,533,158,748,200,000,000,000 (miles per year)^2
Universe size is:
13,500,000,000 light years wide (science)
79,357,190,400,000,000,000,000 miles wide
Distance of width of Universe divided by speed of expansion of space-time:
0.00230 years
0.83825 days
20.11803 hours before the Universe became matter from the original energy (probably light)
I said:
Big bang? Big bust. Big bang was based on Hubble's discoveries. He found the expansion of the universe, and said there were two possibilities: either it was created (and we can't have that), or it started from nothing by itself. Had we taken both as possible, we would be on the right track to finding the solution. Now, hard science shows that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe (quantum red shift).
You said:
Pure BS. Please back up that claim. Big Bang theory doesn't state the universe started from nothing. It states that all energy and matter was very close together and then expanded. Once again you use appeal to authority about one man's opinion and you are talking about the theory as it was first proposed, not as it stands today, a common fallacy used by creationists.
I said:
Here you go: www.boston.com... The Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle theoretically allows the creation of the Universe, but applying it to the Big Bang assumes that the laws of physics exist before physical matter exists. I find this to be unacceptable, unscientific, and unprovable...hence, a religion based on faith...aka naturalism.
I said:
The only way for science to reconcile the discoveries of hard science is to create imaginary solutions: dark matter, dark energy, multiverse, etc.
You said:
LOL. Dark matter is proven and the effects of dark energy can be measured. It is called dark because we don't know the cause of it. We know it's there. Multiverse is a theoretical physics position, not a physical scientific one. String theory is based on math, not physical evidence. Oops!
I said:
Science is in a process of discovery. They frequently change back and forth as data is acquired, and that's fine. It would not seem that there is any hard evidence for the existence of the dark matter other than the "effect" must have a "cause" (other than God, because God is not acceptable to naturalists). So we see it does not exist, www.space.com... or that it does exist www.nasa.gov... depending on what year and scientist you want to "put your faith" in. No matter, anyway. We are looking for how the Universe operates, essentially (IMHO discovering the workings of the Almighty God who made it).
I said:
It is highly likely that these solutions will never be proven, and can therefore be considered to be faith-based.
You said:
Back in the dark ages, people said the same nonsense, and look at all the technology we have now thanks to knowledge gained from scientific discovery and research.
I said:
Looks to me like we are still looking for these facts, based on the above sources. Perhaps you have other evidence. I do not.
I said:
Therefore, your world view will dictate how you interpret the facts.
You said:
World views make up facts. Science does not. It tries to figure out how things work. Scientific facts aren't up for interpretation.
I said:
Let's try a couple of young Earth facts that have been peer reviewed and accepted. Polonium halos at www.halos.com, and helium loss trueorigin.org... There are dozens more.
I said:
IMHO, scientists are firing those who believe in creation, and reject any evidences for creation. The Bible said this would happen, and said it 2000 years ago.
You said:
Please quote me where the bible mentions anything about science or scientists. They didn't even exist back then and for the first thousand + years of Christianity science was frowned upon unless it exactly agreed with the bible. The fact is that there is NO objective evidence for creation or a creator. Maybe one day we'll discover this, but as it stands now, there is nothing but appeals to ignorance and blind faith in ancient stories. Besides, your claim is false because as you said above many scientists believe in god (although you are wrong because most "top" scientists do not).
I said:
You can't prove God, you can only prove that it is impossible without God. Today, it is statistically accepted that there is less than one chance in 10^140,000 that the Universe came into being without God. You have more faith than I do if you take those odds. Scientists now propose the Multiverse, which is faith-based and unprovable, hoping to account for the impossible. Of course, any scientist that does not believe in God accepts those odds, which is foolish. The odds are like looking for a single marked electron in trillions times trillions times trillions (etc x 100000) of universes. Please, let's get real. Anyway, here's your scriptures from the time of Christ foretelling your opposition: I Timothy 6:20, 2 Peter 3:4 opposition of science, uniformitarianism, denial of the flood, etc.
Romans 1: 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(I think IMHO he used the word "professing" for a reason, as in Professor).

Here you go: en.wikipedia.org...
This is an interesting idea: answersingenesis.org...
and
proofthebibleistrue.com...

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: Jim Scott

He found the expansion of the universe, and said there were two possibilities: either it was created (and we can't have that), or it started from nothing by itself

Both theories say everything came from nothing.

The difference is one group says god did it. The other group says we don't know how the universe started, but because we have made these observations, this could be what happened.

I choose to be on the side that's more intellectually honest.

Please tell and show us which one ??

Neither of them are even remotely near honesty.

Maybe try a 3rd side, or for that matter, look for the truth, something which neither science or religion have EVER been free to do.

I follow the hard science, not the soft science. Creation explains more, and predicts better, than science. With creation, for example, we don't have to make up something like dark matter or dark energy or multiverses, which are only based on unobservable (like supernatural) evidences.
Let's look at what creation has been able to do:
Proving creationism:
1. Creationism predicts that all life was made fully formed, with complete and complex information stored in the DNA of each lifeform. There has not been any record of information being added to DNA, therefore organisms were made with their existing information.
2. Creationism predicts that man was created suddenly. DNA proves this to be correct, as there has not been enough time to mutate DNA to make humans. The human DNA has 6 billion dipolar base pairs. You would have to have two successful mutations per year, every year, since life began on Earth, to create humans.
3. Creationism predicts that there would be helium in rocks. Helium loss in rocks shows the Earth is in the neighborhood of 7000 years old. Any older, and there would not be any helium in rocks.
4. Creationism predicts that there would be soft tissue in dinosaur bones. There is. Soft tissue cannot exist past about 4000 years.
5. Creationism predicts that carbon 14 will be present in fossils, and that it will show that fossils do not date older than about 7000 years, adjusting for atmospheric changes following a major flood. It does, as all fossils on Earth contain Carbon 14, and none test older than an adjusted date of about 7000 years.
6. Creationism predicts that polonium halos would exist in granite if the Earth was made in one day. Scientific evidence concerning polonium halos in granite show that the halos could only form if the granite cooled in just a few minutes. www.halos.com
7. Creationism predicts that man and dinosaurs coexisted, being made within a few days of each other. Dinosaurs and man show intermixed footprints in stone at the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas and other sites on Earth.
8. Creationism predicts that there was nothing, and it was made into the Universe within 6 days. Using Einstein's E=mc^2 formula, we find that the time for the stretching forth of the Universe from Earth to 13.5 billion light years away took 5.5 days at the speed of light times the speed of light. After this expansion began to slow below the mc^2, it transformed from light (E) into mass (m), with light stretched out in the space-time continuum between all objects.
9. Creationism predicts that the creation spread out from a centerpoint, Earth, to the rest of the Universe. Hubble confirmed that this was one of two possibilities but argued that he could not accept a favored position for Earth and chose the second possibility. However, since Hubble, we have discovered that quantum red shift puts Earth at the center of the Universe within 100 light years (the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across), which would allow for motion in the Milky Way galaxy to move our position from exact center to slightly off center.
10. Creationism predicts that red shift will show that the Universe was spread out at speeds increasing with distance. Red shift confirms that the Universe was indeed spread out at speeds increasing with distance from Earth.
11. Creationism predicts that this Universe is a special creation by God for man to inhabit Earth. Due to recent studies of the fine-tuning of the Universe, scientists now know that the chance of this Universe existing and being suitable for life for man is 1x10^140,000. Scientists explain this by stating that the infinite Universe is surrounded by more infinite universes and that we were lucky to be in ours. This scientific counterpoint can never be proven to eliminate the facts proven that support creationism.

Only creationism predicts these true results.