Discontinued debunked and dismissed creationist arguments

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
The website "Answers in genesis" is a pro fundamentalist christian website and a heavy proponent of creationism. The authors of AIG have compiled a list of commonly used creationist arguments that they reccoment NOT TO USE ANYMORE because they have been discounted or are dubious. Yet, here and in other creationism vs evolution debates these same debunked notions keep popping up. Here especially, for some reason, they are used with alarming frequency

I have compiled a partial list of the arguments that HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY CREATIONISTS. They are all ones that I have seen used here.

In order to maintain your credibility in this debate forum creationist should stop using the following (as per the advise of other creationists):

Darwin recanting on deathbed
Moondust
:( Human remains found in "old" strata
:o That the second law of thermodyamics makes evolution impossible
Archaeopteryx as a fraud
"no benificial mutations" argument
the "no new species have been observed argument"
:mad: Paluxy tracks (man and dino prints)
Darwin's quote about the evolution of the eye
Sudden and catastrophic continental drift
Genealogies from genesis
That Ron Wyatt found Noah's Ark and proof of the bible
The "canopy theory"
No rain before the flood argument
the "evolution is just a theory" pap
speed of light changing over time
:mad: lack of transitional forms in the fossil record
plate tectonics not being real
:rolleyes: "mircoevolution is true but macroevolution is not"


Plate tectonics and speciation have been observed directly. The laws of physics have not changed appreciably in 14 billion years (radioactive decay and speed of light), geodes containing 1922 champion sparkplugs and "human footprints along with dinosuars" have been demonstrated to be hoaxes, natural formations or other phenomenon.

Here is the website for a complete description of why not to use these - and other - pathetic attempts to dismiss years of scientific research in various fields by thousands of workers (religious, agnostic and athiest together) that have benefited mankind and expanded our knowlege and wonder of the universe which we inhabit.


Thank you.
 
Stogus,
it was believed that all those arguments were either
1) based on the word of God, or
2) were scientific claims based on numerical figures presented in the Bible.


Late_Cretaceous,

Great article.

I can't believe the guy at AIG said not to use the "microevolution is true but macroevolution is false" argument any more. Doing away with that idea essentially does away with all creationist biology.

I believe it was Jesus who said, "the Truth will set You free". It's good to see some creationists are starting to take heed of this statement.
 
Upvote 0

StogusMaximus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2002
2,410
7
Visit site
✟4,841.00
Faith
Protestant
Originally posted by brt28006
Stogus,
it was believed that all those arguments were either
1) based on the word of God, or
2) were scientific claims based on numerical figures presented in the Bible.

I don't recall reading any of those arguments in the Bible, except for the "Genealogies from Genesis", and I have yet to hear anything which disproves the genealogies.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by StogusMaximus


I don't recall reading any of those arguments in the Bible, except for the "Genealogies from Genesis", and I have yet to hear anything which disproves the genealogies.

The problem is that, if the genealogies are true, that much of modern physics, biology, chemistry, and astronomy are all false.

At some point, it becomes easier to say "this appears to have been extracted from the records of a tribe of desert nomads, and we don't know for sure where they got it."
 
Upvote 0

elephanticity

This appears beneath your name.
Mar 30, 2002
449
3
61
Visit site
✟8,527.00
Originally posted by StogusMaximus


I don't recall reading any of those arguments in the Bible, except for the "Genealogies from Genesis", and I have yet to hear anything which disproves the genealogies.

Would it disprove the genealogies if they don't agree? If the geneology of Jesus, for example, are radically different? Do you want to challenge apparent science with what looks like a two lists of made-up names?
Mt.1:6-16 Lk.3:21-31

1. David _-_-_-_- David
2. Solomon _-_-_-_- Nathan
3. Robomoam _-_-_-_- Mattatha
4. Abia _-_-_-_- Menan
5. Asa _-_-_-_- Melea
6. Josaphat _-_-_-_- Eliakim
7. Joram _-_-_-_- Jonan
8. Ozias _-_-_-_- Joseph
9. Joatham _-_-_-_- Juda
10. Achaz _-_-_-_- Simeon
11. Ezekias _-_-_-_- Levi
12. Manasses _-_-_-_- Matthat
13. Amon _-_-_-_- Jorim
14. Josias _-_-_-_- Eliezer
15. Jecohnias _-_-_-_- Jose
16. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Er
17. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Elmodam
18. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Cosam
19. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Addi
20. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Melchi
21. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Neri
22. Salathiel _-_-_-_- Salathiel
23. Zorobabel _-_-_-_- Zorobabel
24. Abiud _-_-_-_- Rhesa
25. Eliakim _-_-_-_- Joanna
26. Azor _-_-_-_- Juda
27. Sadoc _-_-_-_- Joseph
28. Achim _-_-_-_- Semei
29. Eliud _-_-_-_- Mattathias
30. Eleazar _-_-_-_- Maath
31. Matthan _-_-_-_- Nagge
32. Jacob _-_-_-_- Esli
33. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Naum
34. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Amos
35. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Mattathias
36. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Joseph
37. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Janna
38. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Melchi
39. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Levi
40. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Matthat
41. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Heli
42. Joseph _-_-_-_- Joseph
43. Jesus _-_-_-_- Jesus

28 generations on one side, direct from David to Jesus....43 on the other same side, direct from David to Jesus...3 names between Jesus and David being the same.....
 
Upvote 0

StogusMaximus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2002
2,410
7
Visit site
✟4,841.00
Faith
Protestant
Originally posted by elephanticity
Would it disprove the genealogies if they don't agree? If the geneology of Jesus, for example, are radically different? Do you want to challenge apparent science with what looks like a two lists of made-up names?
Mt.1:6-16 Lk.3:21-31

1. David _-_-_-_- David
2. Solomon _-_-_-_- Nathan
3. Robomoam _-_-_-_- Mattatha
4. Abia _-_-_-_- Menan
5. Asa _-_-_-_- Melea
6. Josaphat _-_-_-_- Eliakim
7. Joram _-_-_-_- Jonan
8. Ozias _-_-_-_- Joseph
9. Joatham _-_-_-_- Juda
10. Achaz _-_-_-_- Simeon
11. Ezekias _-_-_-_- Levi
12. Manasses _-_-_-_- Matthat
13. Amon _-_-_-_- Jorim
14. Josias _-_-_-_- Eliezer
15. Jecohnias _-_-_-_- Jose
16. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Er
17. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Elmodam
18. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Cosam
19. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Addi
20. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Melchi
21. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Neri
22. Salathiel _-_-_-_- Salathiel
23. Zorobabel _-_-_-_- Zorobabel
24. Abiud _-_-_-_- Rhesa
25. Eliakim _-_-_-_- Joanna
26. Azor _-_-_-_- Juda
27. Sadoc _-_-_-_- Joseph
28. Achim _-_-_-_- Semei
29. Eliud _-_-_-_- Mattathias
30. Eleazar _-_-_-_- Maath
31. Matthan _-_-_-_- Nagge
32. Jacob _-_-_-_- Esli
33. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Naum
34. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Amos
35. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Mattathias
36. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Joseph
37. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Janna
38. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Melchi
39. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Levi
40. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Matthat
41. _-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- Heli
42. Joseph _-_-_-_- Joseph
43. Jesus _-_-_-_- Jesus

28 generations on one side, direct from David to Jesus....43 on the other same side, direct from David to Jesus...3 names between Jesus and David being the same.....


Uh-huh.......hmmmmmm. :scratch:

Nope, you have not convinced me of anything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
maybe something along the lines of the book will interest you, if you are trying to decide whether or not to figure out whether or not the bible is infallible:

The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.
In this iconoclastic and provocative work, leading scholars Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman draw on recent archaeological research to present a dramatically revised portrait of ancient Israel and its neighbors. They argue that crucial evidence (or a telling lack of evidence) at digs in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon suggests that many of the most famous stories in the Bible — the wanderings of the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, Joshua's conquest of Canaan, and David and Solomon's vast empire — reflect the world of the later authors rather than actual historical facts.

Challenging the fundamentalist readings of the scriptures and marshaling the latest archaeological evidence to support its new vision of ancient Israel, The Bible Unearthed offers a fascinating and controversial perspective on when and why the Bible was written and why it possesses such great spiritual and emotional power today.
(From Barnes and Noble)

The authors of htis book are not trying to debunk the belief structure in anyway, they have just come to find out that it shouldn't be taken literal.

Some examples from the book:
There is NO archealogical evidence of the Jewish people as they wandered through the desert for the supposed fourty years. Even at the base of Mt. Sinai, there is NOT ONE thing found that says that a large group of people where there.
Nor at where they stayed for many years before entering "the promise land" (the best estimation of where that was).

You might not think much of it, but you hvae to realize that if there were as large a group of people as the bible said, and they were at those two locations as long as the bible said, something would have been found!

Between that, and other arguements they put forth in the book, including arguements based on things like ancient culture's records (day-to-day records kept by the egyptians, ect.), they make a pretty convincing arguement.

And if that isn't enough to convince you, I can always pull out the long list of bible contradictions (GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.) and bible absurdities (LE 11:6 States, incorrectly, that the rabbit, or hare, chews its cud.); though I am sure substantial lists have been shared before....
 
Upvote 0

Caedmon

kawaii
Supporter
Dec 18, 2001
17,359
570
R'lyeh
✟49,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Others
For the sake of simplicity, let's use this example. A begets B, begets C, begets D, begets E. Remember to take into consideration the telescopic nature of the lineage sequence.

Let's say that this is the accurate lineage:
A, B, C, D, E
Let's also say that the two most important items are A and E, David and Jesus, working with the Old Testament prophecy that states that Jesus will come from the house of David.

If one person uses this pattern:
A, B... D, E
And another person uses this pattern:
A, B, C... E
How can you say that one or both of them are incorrect?

Regardless of skipping a generation, the two sequences are legitimate because the purpose of the genealogy was to demonstrate that David is Jesus' ancestor.

If A brings about B, and B brings about C, then it is safe to say that A brings about C, however indirectly. But if you say that only complete cross references will lead you to accept the genealogy, then I can understand your skepticism.

Why the authors of these books abridged their genealogies, I'm not completely sure. However, I do know that even though genealogies are important -- in so far as showing fulfillment of prophecy for skeptics at the time -- the context of Titus 3 also states that Christians are not to be consumed by them to the point of forgetting to live for God and serve others.

This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. - Titus 3:8-9, NASB
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by humblejoe
This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. - Titus 3:8-9, NASB

boy, to bad all authors can't throw in a "don't worry about that part" to their books when faced with disagreements, contradictions, and other errancies :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Caedmon

kawaii
Supporter
Dec 18, 2001
17,359
570
R'lyeh
✟49,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by rage
boy, to bad all authors can't throw in a "don't worry about that part" to their books when faced with disagreements, contradictions, and other errancies :rolleyes:

The genealogy was directed toward skeptic Jews.
The Titus passage was directed toward believing Christians that were wasting their time trying to defend their faith in debates initiated by skeptics. These debates were keeping them from accomplishing good works and service to men for God.

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. - I Timothy 1:3-4, NASB
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by humblejoe


The genealogy was directed toward skeptic Jews.
The Titus passage was directed toward believing Christians that were wasting their time trying to defend their faith in debates initiated by skeptics. These debates were keeping them from accomplishing good works and service to men for God.

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. - I Timothy 1:3-4, NASB

more like, they knew they couldn't answer them, nor prove the skeptics wrong, so lets avoid the problem.

Not to mention that these are valid arguements in whether or not the bible is "infallible", so it is no good to avoid them. It may not have been the purpose of "Timothy" to give the impression that they are to avoid it because he can't explain it, but that is definitely what comes across. In addition, if you believe the bible to be infallible, you should WANT to figure out the truth. Don't believe something just cause the bible told you so. Even the bible says to examine it and test it to be true (I believe so..if you want the verse, I can find it for you)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums