AIG's list of arguments Creationists should no longer use - time for a repost

Since it has been a while since this list has been posted, 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.

The list can be found here:

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

BTW, for Buck, check out number 8. Even AIG, the leading Creation Science group, admits that this whole "entropy and second law of thermodynamics" is a false argument.

Again, it is a very bad idea to get your science from YEC sites.

I got my science, Vance, from a MSc awarded by a secular university, not from any YEC sites. I also got my Biblical education from opening it up to page 1 and reading it right off the text. One does not need a great deal of education to do that, which is why Christ says:

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

What do you think He means here?

Entropy is a feared topic for evolutionary advocates. It goes the wrong way for evolution to work. And its power is quite impressive and easily demonstrated. Next time you clean your house, or wash the car; take a picture. Compare it with what they both will look like at the end of the week.

We are not evolving. It is as plain as the fading paint on my car.

I must also express some amusement that when a Creationist points out a flaw in evolution, it is laughed off, and argued that the Creationist just doesn't understand that those flaws have already been refuted. I contest that the "refutations" are nothing more than more notional specualtions drawn up to cover some serious issues with the evolutionary fundamentals. The greater population of the planet holds to evolution (supposedly) therefore the Creationists MUST be wrong, no matter the evidence.

The pattern here is the same used in the liberal political arena. Although most Americans flat-out disagree with most of liberal trash that oozes out of DC like an open sore, since they control the media, their Marxist agenda is pushed into everyone's face on every outlet of popular media so that only the few that really want to know the truth actually take the time to look at the facts.

Since evolutionists control the science journals, textbooks, and programming....well?

Also do not think that by isolating TE from mainstream secular evolution, while sharing almost all of their doctrines, is a good thing. Almost all evolutionists HATE God. That is why they hold to evolution so tightly, because the alternative (creation) is unthinkable.

If the enemies of God can get rid of God then they can do as they please. This is what kids are being taught today.

Do not tell me YEC is "damaging" to the faith. No sir, quite the contrary.

Psa 2:1-3 Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!"

Entropy is not a feared topic for the very reasons that even AIG points out. Do you have any response to their position that it is NOT an argument against evolution? I can guarantee that you got the idea that entropy and the second law somehow contradict evolution from a Creationist source.

It may be true that most people who accept evolution hate God, but no more than most people who accept gravity hate God. This is simply because MOST people hate God, not because they believe in evolution, or vice versa. Rather than make conclusory statements regarding the refutations of creationist claims, why don't you respond to some of them?

Every YEC argument which has been made has been refuted with scientific analysis. If you want to refute evolution, you can not do so merely on theological grounds, since many of us hold the same theology as you but have no problem with evolution. You must show that it is bad science. All we ask is that before making an argument which shows why evolution can not be true, you check the sites I have given to see what the standard refutation to that argument is and respond to *that*. Otherwise we are simply spending a lot of time going over the same ground.

Evolution is not correct because it is majority opinion, no more than YEC was correct just because *it* was the majority opinion before 1800 or so. Evolution is almost assuredly the method God used for diversity of life on the planet because we know it works and we know it still happens, and there is no reason, scientifically or Biblically, to argue why it is not how God did it.

Actually, things are evolving into a simpler form. The fact that we are complex doesn't mean we are evolving the wrong way, it merely means that we are as simple as can be for our environment. Why do you think vestigal organs are selected out of our genetics?

Need proof? Look at the bacteria. Super simple organism that has remained in its basic form for eons.

__________________

For any interested, here is AIG's explanation of why entropy is not a good argument against evolution:

"This law says that the entropy (‘disorder') of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse."

This is from the leading YEC source. If they no longer buy the argument, any YEC should pause before blithely using it. Here is a non-YEC response to the claim that the second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends towards disorder, making evolutionary development impossible:

The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says heat won't spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one, or equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system won't decrease. This doesn't prevent increasing order because

1. the earth isn't a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy which accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

• entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. [Aranda-Espinoza et al, 1999; Kestenbaum, 1998] Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size [Han & Craighead, 2000].
• even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they're offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

2. In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

3. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so obviously no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution [Demetrius, 2000]. Some people see the evolutionary increase in diversity and the origin of life as entropy-driven.

This is found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

And one more link to a discussion by a Christian physicist explaining how and why entropy and the second law do not disprove evolution:

http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php

A more thorough discussion than those above and, again, from a Christian. Buck, if you want to explain why the YEC group AIG and this Christian physicist are wrong, I would be glad to listen. If you concede that they are correct, then I would seriously reconsider the source that told you that entropy and the second law are a threat to evolutionary principles. If they lied to you on this point, maybe they are lying to you on others as well.

I do not use the word "lying" lightly. If they know anything about the science of origins at all, then they undestand that entropy does not argue against evolution and, thus, they would be lying to tell you otherwise. If they do NOT know anything about the science of origins, then they would be lying by presenting themselves as someone who DOES know about such science. I think anyone who writes a book or puts together a website preaching YEC'ism is making an implied statement that they are well-read on the scientific issues.

The Second Law of Entropy requires a closed system for it to hold true. The Earth is not a closed system. Thus, it does not apply. If there were no sun it is undenyable that evolution would not occur. Happy?

Since you obiously don't understand entropy or evolution (you wouldn't make strawmen if you did) your MSc is not in biology or physics and therefore is irrelevant.

__________________
"Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"