Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Lately, I've been noticing an awful lot of conflicting claims coming from the creationist camp - often both conflicting claims are made by the same person. I worry that some creationists here, in the pursuit of proving evolution wrong, are in effect, contradicting their own claims.
So creationists, please do me a favor and help me untangle this twisted web by using one and only one claim of each pair in evolution debates.
1a: Evolution/Creationism is not a salvation issue (i.e. You can be an evolutionist and still a Christian)
1b: Christianity and evolution are incompatible (i.e. Evolution = atheism).
2a: I accept microevolution, it's just macroevolution that I disagree with.
2b: Information Theory proves that microevolution is impossible.
3a: Evolution is a flavor of the week.
3b: Evolution is unchanging dogma.
4a: Organisms which haven't changed much for millions of years pose a problem for the theory of evolution.
4b: The Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.
5a: There was lots of speciation after the Flood (i.e. reproduction "according to kind")
5b: Speciation (aka macroevolution) is impossible.
Here's a relatively minor one, but it's one people should be aware of:
6a: All dinosaurs were wiped out by the Flood.
6b: Some dinosaurs are still around today. (i.e. Dinosaur sightings in the Congo)
I'm sure there are more than what I have listed, but these are just the ones that have been most obvious to me.
__________________ Veritas omnia vincit.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
1a: Evolution/Creationism is not a salvation issue (i.e. You can be an evolutionist and still a Christian)
1b: Christianity and evolution are incompatible (i.e. Evolution = atheism).
Creationism isn't necessary for salvation and does not equal atheism.
Originally Posted by Irish_Guevara
2a: I accept microevolution, it's just macroevolution that I disagree with.
2b: Information Theory proves that microevolution is impossible.
Microevolution doesn't necessarily have to change the length of a gene, but it could rearrange it a little for speciation to occur.
Originally Posted by Irish_Guevara
3a: Evolution is a flavor of the week.
3b: Evolution is unchanging dogma.
Huh?
Originally Posted by Irish_Guevara
4a: Organisms which haven't changed much for millions of years pose a problem for the theory of evolution.
4b: The Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.
The first argument assumes that the Earth is millions of years old and is supposed to imply a problem for only evolutionists to explain since they accept an old earth, the second, however, is only a YEC position.
Originally Posted by Irish_Guevara
5a: There was lots of speciation after the Flood (i.e. reproduction "according to kind")
5b: Speciation (aka macroevolution) is impossible.
You'll never see a cheeseburger evolve into a rubber duck though.
Speciation doesn't necessaryily have to be macro evolution, remember, there wasn't enough time for your version of macroevolution to occur.
Originally Posted by Irish_Guevara
Here's a relatively minor one, but it's one people should be aware of:
6a: All dinosaurs were wiped out by the Flood.
6b: Some dinosaurs are still around today. (i.e. Dinosaur sightings in the Congo)
a couple general ones to add:
7a: The universe must be designed because everything is so perfect, if one thing was off just slightly life wouldn't exist.
7b: c has decayed over time and was once must faster, radiometric decay was also faster in the past.
8a: uniform dating methods do not work and are based on many assumptions.
8b: The earth must be young because [uniform dating method] (such as the decay of the magnetic field) says so.
Thanks, Airkay. Saying that the universe is perfectly designed and that the fundamental laws of nature were once very different doesn't really jive well.
__________________ Veritas omnia vincit.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Sure it does, the universe use to be perfect, with light moving 500,000% faster, then the fall came, our retinas reversed, light slowed down, our lower back disks got thinner, and we realized how tasty meat was.
We can pick and choose which dating methos to accept. Maybe radiometric dating is less reliable than magnetic field dating.
The first argument assumes that the Earth is millions of years old and is supposed to imply a problem for only evolutionists to explain since they accept an old earth, the second, however, is only a YEC position.
Right. These two are conflicting claims only for Young Earth Creationists.
__________________ Veritas omnia vincit.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The first says that IF the world was >6000 whatever years old, then there would be a problem for evolution. The YEC position, however, is that the Earth is ~6,000 years old, so they are simply attacking old Earth/evolution theories.
Anyways, I'm not defending them, I just like to argue.
9a. World topography was created by the Flood.
9b. The Flood didn't have to cover Mt. Everest, just cover the existing pre-Flood mountains.
oh, and
10a. Since we didn't observe it, evolution is just speculation.
10b. O.J. is guilty.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
The first says that IF the world was >6000 whatever years old, then there would be a problem for evolution. The YEC position, however, is that the Earth is ~6,000 years old, so they are simply attacking old Earth/evolution theories.
In order to use the "this species has been around unchanged for millions of years" argument, they would have to accept that the Earth has been around for millions of years in order for that to be a valid argument. Yet in the same breath, they'll claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old exhibiting severe cognative dissonance. The can't have it both ways in the same sentance.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
The first says that IF the world was >6000 whatever years old, then there would be a problem for evolution. The YEC position, however, is that the Earth is ~6,000 years old, so they are simply attacking old Earth/evolution theories.
Anyways, I'm not defending them, I just like to argue.
Claim 4a, claiming that organisms don't change much for long periods of time and that this is a problem for evolution is unintelligible without first claiming that long periods of time exist in the first place.
It's analogous to claiming that the solar system - from the sun to pluto - is the entire universe and nothing exists outside of it, then stating that the existence of Alpha Centauri is a problem for a competing cosmological theory.
__________________ Veritas omnia vincit.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Conflicting Claims 
Saying that the universe is perfectly designed and that the fundamental laws of nature were once very different doesn't really jive well. 
Linear Mode
