A list of Creationist arguments which should NOT be used (according to AIG)

Vance · #1 27th August 2003, 05:12 PM

For those interested (and not having seen it posted any time recently), here is the list of former YEC arguments that AIG is now saying should *not* be used. As they say "some [of these] arguments are definitely fallacious, while others are merely doubtful or unsubstantiated". Some, but not all, of these arguments are those which had been made by AIG in the past. Here is the list:

1. Darwin recanted on his deathbed
2. Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon
3. NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua's "long day" and Hezekiah's sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.
4. Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe
5. The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in "old" strata invalidate the geologic column
6. Dubois renounced Java man as a "missing link" and claimed it was just a giant gibbon
7. The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand
8. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall
9. Archaeopteryx is a fraud
10. There are no beneficial mutations
11. No new species have been produced
12. Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood
13. Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed
14. Darwin's quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species
15. Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents
16. The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology
17. There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may be 10,000 years old or even more
18. Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin
19. The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution
20. Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural
21. Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark
22. Canopy theory
23. There was no rain before the Flood
24. Natural selection as tautology
25. Evolution is just a theory
26. The speed of light has decreased over time
27. There are no transitional forms
28. Gold chains have been found in coal
29. Plate tectonics is fallacious
30. Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution
31. The Gospel is in the stars

Again, these are arguments that the leading Creation Science group says should not be used to support the cause.

troodon · #2 27th August 2003, 06:36 PM

*cough*presumed source

18. Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin

That's a strange YEC argument

I really wish YECs would take special note of these:

9. Archaeopteryx is a fraud...

21. Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark

22. Canopy theory...

26. The speed of light has decreased over time

Serapha · #3 27th August 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

For those interested (and not having seen it posted any time recently), here is the list of former YEC arguments that AIG is now saying should *not* be used. As they say "some [of these] arguments are definitely fallacious, while others are merely doubtful or unsubstantiated". Some, but not all, of these arguments are those which had been made by AIG in the past. Here is the list:

....

Again, these are arguments that the leading Creation Science group says should not be used to support the cause.

Since I have never been on the site, I guess I have to take your word for it that the organization doesn't support those ideas.

However,

Even better than posting what an organization states or doesn't state, would be for this forum to remove every personal comment as it is posted.... and even better yet would be for every member to cease posting personal comments.

Quote that.... but quote it "right".

~malaka~

Vance · #4 27th August 2003, 07:54 PM

Malaka:

Here is the link:

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Since some Creationists out there are still using these arguments in seminars and tapes, and since some of the books with these arguments are still in circulation, it seems a very practical thing to let Creationists know that at least one prominent Creation Science group has changed its position on these points.

And, yes, I would agree: all statements of a personal nature should be edited out. This would, of course, include all statements along the lines that a fellow Christian is not truly being led by the Spirit, or is not fully surrendered to Christ, etc.

Serapha · #5 27th August 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

Malaka:

Here is the link:

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Since some Creationists out there are still using these arguments in seminars and tapes, and since some of the books with these arguments are still in circulation, it seems a very practical thing to let Creationists know that at least one prominent Creation Science group has changed its position on these points.

And, yes, I would agree: all statements of a personal nature should be edited out. This would, of course, include all statements along the lines that a fellow Christian is not truly being led by the Spirit, or is not fully surrendered to Christ, etc.

Originally Posted by Vance

For those interested (and not having seen it posted any time recently), here is the list of former YEC arguments that AIG is now saying should *not* be used. As they say "some [of these] arguments are definitely fallacious, while others are merely doubtful or unsubstantiated". Some, but not all, of these arguments are those which had been made by AIG in the past. Here is the list:

....

Again, these are arguments that the leading Creation Science group says should not be used to support the cause.

Here's a personal note that should never be posted.....

When I went to the website, I found the entire statement page with remarks....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp

Now, this was of particular interest to me....

"‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin-Landau/Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture."

for you see, the way that the statement is posted in the original question here... indicates that the opposite must be true of these statement... or at least, our question host would want people to think that.

And that simply is not the case.

Slanting anything is as bad as bearing a false witness.... and since this is "supposed" to be a christian forum... then why don't member stop posting all the "slanted" stuff such as is indicated in this posting, and just try to carry a good witness... just in case a "non-believer" happened to read.

~malaka~

Vance · #6 27th August 2003, 08:19 PM

I am still not quite sure exactly what is "personal" about this original post. That baffles me. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "personal comment".

As for being misleading, I did forget to post the link (as I did on the science group), but you will see that rather than *just* post a link, I took the trouble to give a one line summary of the point being made by AIG. Giving the full text for each point would be unduly burdensome and unecessary.

They say that it is not a good idea to argue "Evolution is just a theory", and that is exactly what I said. I never implied that it was NOT just a theory and I gave no gloss or slant on it one way or the other.

Serapha · #7 27th August 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

I am still not quite sure exactly what is "personal" about this original post. That baffles me. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "personal comment".

As for being misleading, I did forget to post the link (as I did on the science group), but you will see that rather than *just* post a link, I took the trouble to give a one line summary of the point being made by AIG. Giving the full text for each point would be unduly burdensome and unecessary.

They say that it is not a good idea to argue "Evolution is just a theory", and that is exactly what I said. I never implied that it was NOT just a theory and I gave no gloss or slant on it one way or the other.

Thank you for editing out this comment...

"and I can't imagine that any intelligent person would interpret it this way."

Because it takes nerve for you to post that you don't "understand" personal comments and then post such a slam.

You know, vance, I am done with this thread... it's all yours to post however you want. I see the slant you are pushing... and I don't want to be the recipient of your insults... you need to "edit" before you post.

Twist it however you want.... But IF you should chose to post the whole truth, then it doesn't carry the same emphasis as your original posting.

The better thing to do... is don't post incomplete.....

Bye!

~malaka~

Vance · #8 27th August 2003, 09:25 PM

I only edited since I saw that some people could interpret that as insulting, and since I never wish to insult anyone, I decided it would be better to take it out. I always stick with this policy. In any case, it was not directed at anyone in particular, just a statement of fact that nobody could truly think that I was saying that evolution was not a theory based on the way I posted.

But really, what was personal about the first post, or any other post in this thread? It makes no mention of anyone whatsoever. How could it possibly be personal? Do you take every post which criticizes the Young Earth position a personal attack? That would not be logical at all, so I must be missing something.

And if you think it would be better to post the entire text of that long article, I bet the forum moderators would beg to differ. The summary I gave was simply reducing each argument to a single line and I think most would agree that I did this with no slant whatsoever.

Saint Philip · #9 3rd September 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

For those interested (and not having seen it posted any time recently), here is the list of former YEC arguments that AIG is now saying should *not* be used.

Does any Evolutionist website have the integrity to post a list of arguments Evolutionists should no longer use? If so, link please.

A few those have never been commonly accepted among Creationists. Some of them are just simplistic lay versions of the real Creationist arguments. Most of them are valid arguments against Evolution but they're not as straight foward as some Creationists think. Still, AiG is being overly cautious.

Vance, it is negligent of you to post those points, without either their explanations or a link where the full text can be found. Without the explanations, a number of those points is misleading.

Vance · #10 3rd September 2003, 08:29 PM

The link is in the thread. I would strongly suggest you read their explanations. While I think they do not go nearly far enough to weed out their falsified theories, they are at least making an honest attempt to avoid undue embarrasment.

I would also suggest you read their discussion with Hovind over some of these points. Hovind basically falls back on the fact that he has a lot invested in his seminar materials, books and tapes and will not redo them all just because an argument he uses looks like it may be false.

AIG is not impressed, of course, and their response is very interesting.