Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use

[FallingWaters]

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
from Answers in Genesis
(Click on the link for the explanations.)

Which arguments should definitely not be used?

• “Darwin recanted on his deathbed.”
• “Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.”
• “NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” [Joshua 10] and Hezekiah’s sundial movement [2 Kings 20].”
• “Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.”
• “The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in ‘old’ strata invalidate the geologic column.”
• “Dubois renounced Java man as a ‘missing link’ and claimed it was just a giant gibbon.”
• “The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.”
• “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.”
• “If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today.”
• “Women have one more rib than men.”
• “Archaeopteryx is a fraud.”
• “There are no beneficial mutations.”
• “No new species have been produced.”
• “Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.”
• “Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.”
• “Darwin mentioned the absurdity of eye evolution in The Origin of Species.”
• “Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.”
• “The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.”
• “There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, so the earth may be 10,000 years old or even more.”
• “Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin.”
• “The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.”
• “Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and heliocentrism is anti-scriptural.”
• “Ron Wyatt has found much archeological proof of the Bible.”
• Some of Carl Baugh’s “evidences” for creation.
• “Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, thereby proving a young sun.”
• “Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in a Creator.”

What arguments are doubtful, hence, inadvisable to use?

• Canopy theory.
• “There was no rain before the Flood.”
• “Natural selection is a tautology.”
• “Evolution is just a theory.”
• “There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.”
• “The speed of light has decreased over time.”
• “There are no transitional forms.”
• “Gold chains have been found in coal.”
• “Plate tectonics is fallacious.”
• “Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.”
• “The gospel is in the stars.”

About 20 years ago when I started buying Christian books and videos on this subject,
all these ideas were very popular.
It irritates me that now all these things are being retracted,
but it's important to know the truth.

I am most bummed out about the Japanese Plesiosaur.

 

[FallingWaters]

Apparently, it was a basking shark after all.

 

[laptoppop]

Its so interesting how creationists get blasted for the progressive improvement of their arguments, but this is normal in scientific investigations all the time. Hypotheses are falsfied, new ones developed, we move on.

In the case of creationism, there has been some great work done in the last few years.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Thanks for the post FallingWaters. We have plenty of good evidence for creation. There is no need to use untrue or poor arguments to try to support our case. In fact it will do just the opposite and hurt our cause.

 

[FallingWaters]

Thanks for the post FallingWaters. We have plenty of good evidence for creation. There is no need to use untrue or poor arguments to try to support our case. In fact it will do just the opposite and hurt our cause.

Exactly. I think that was the point of the article.

 

[busterdog]

I am going to spend some time on the list. I note a number of issues with the list.

Ron Wyatt -- Wyatt has an interesting past. Probably his issues with the ark are as controversial as anything. Once we get to this point, it seems reasonable to avoid anything where the strength of his character becomes an issue. Trying to defend character at this distance is pointless.

However, if you get on youtube.com, you will see some video on Wyatt's exploration of the Exodus route, where he video taped chariot wheels in the red sea, the burned mountain top on jabez al lawz in Arabia and even the split rock out of which water flowed. The guys in the videos have those distinctively 70s haircuts, so it seems Wyatt did get proof and did beat a number of other researchers such as Cornuke to this "proof" of the Bible. The gold lamination of a four spoked chariot wheel is clearly depicted and seems to be what was found later by other investigators. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wyatt+exodus&search=Search

Seems some of the arugments are not "false", but just aren't worth messing with or are too controversial.

I recommend reading through each one of these one at a time and thank you for the tip off. Some of them reflect hermeneutical differences. Some of them reflect insufficient proof to decide an issue one way or another.

I note that they seem not to have thrown settefield over the side on the age of starlight, though they are not pleased with the fallacious arguments of the evolutionists. They simply admit big questions exist.

Tough stuff and lots of mystery remains. Isn't this one reason we have this gift of scripture in the first place?

 

[laptoppop]

Seems some of the arugments are not "false", but just aren't worth messing with.

Exactly. For example - beneficial mutations. I started a thread about those a while back and it really looks like its hard to come up with truly beneficial mutations. The primary examples given were some people with mishapen feet who might have been able to climb trees better, and bacteria mutating to avoid particular antibiotics. In the case of the bacteria, from what I've seen, in every case there has been a "beneficial" effect regarding antibiotics there is also a significant negative effect, such as reduction of motility.

Given the many visible negative mutations causing disfigurements, for example, it sure seems logical that we'd have at least ONE example of clear "new information" positive development without any negatives -- such as are proposed for evolutionary development.

Of course, this leads to a big problem. If we can't quantify the number of positive versus negative variations, they can't calculate rates of evolution, so they end up just making assumptions -- and you don't see too many people talking about this skeleton in Evolution's closet.

But - it gets technical very quickly, and perhaps because of the problem it would cause for evolution, there does not appear to be good clear definitions of what is seen as beneficial or not. Also, the existence of a few beneficial changes would not prove evolution anyway. Its just that there is such a stark lack of them that it seems real problemmatic - but it may not be the best argument for us to use.

 

[FallingWaters]

I remember studying about the Wooly Mammoths being flash-frozen.
Someone came up with a pretty good explanation for it, I thought,
but now it turns out that it is likely they were buried in a sandstorm first,
then frozen.

 

[FallingWaters]

Another one that particularly bugs me is that we can't argue that Evolution is "just a theory".
To evolutionists it is a proven fact beyond question,
and just as valid as the Theory of Relativity

 

[busterdog]

I remember studying about the Wooly Mammoths being flash-frozen.
Someone came up with a pretty good explanation for it, I thought,
but now it turns out that it is likely they were buried in a sandstorm first,
then frozen.

Does this bother you? It bothers me a little. That, I just have these nagging concerns about how they reached this conclusion. Which wooly mamoths are they referring to?

We don't just have wooly mamoths. There are stories of rivers of fish also being frozen in place. It it gets too cold, fish are going to die first and the evidence of their deaths should be preserved in the ice. I am looking for some info on the fish. I have a reference in a magazine from prophecyinthenews.com.

 

[busterdog]

Another one that particularly bugs me is that we can't argue that Evolution is "just a theory".
To evolutionists it is a proven fact beyond question,
and just as valid as the Theory of Relativity

Aren't they saying that there is evidence of speciation, whichis part of their theory about how new species were created quickly "after their kind" following Gen. 1? So they apparently buy into evolution, but not to explain the creation of life in the first place and not to create even the "kinds" from which our modern species developed?

Seems they are suggesting that if you make this argument, you are going to be trapped by the evolutionists. It is a bit of fine point or distinction, which sometimes makes for tough arguments.

By the way, I don't often learn as much in this forum. Usually it takes a fight with an evolutionist to get the juices flowing. Good OP.

 

[FallingWaters]

Does this bother you? It bothers me a little. That, I just have these nagging concerns about how they reached this conclusion. Which wooly mamoths are they referring to?

We don't just have wooly mamoths. There are stories of rivers of fish also being frozen in place. It it gets too cold, fish are going to die first and the evidence of their deaths should be preserved in the ice. I am looking for some info on the fish. I have a reference in a magazine from prophecyinthenews.com.

Hm.
You're right.

I haven't heard a new hypothesis on the fish.

 

[FallingWaters]

Aren't they saying that there is evidence of speciation, whichis part of their theory about how new species were created quickly "after their kind" following Gen. 1? So they apparently buy into evolution, but not to explain the creation of life in the first place and not to create even the "kinds" from which our modern species developed?

Seems they are suggesting that if you make this argument, you are going to be trapped by the evolutionists. It is a bit of fine point or distinction, which sometimes makes for tough arguments.

By the way, I don't often learn as much in this forum. Usually it takes a fight with an evolutionist to get the juices flowing. Good OP.

Well I admire you, then.
I don't have the gumption to stand up to evolutionists.
A while back, I mentioned to one that evolution was just a theory,
and he was the one who told me about the AIG page!
Talk about !
I was told in no uncertain terms how ignorant I was to not know that just because evolution is a theory does not mean it has not been proven.

Oh my! They are much too vehement for me.

I guess I was thinking that it is called a Theory because it has not been proven to be true,
but I was informed that I was wrong.

 

[FallingWaters]

Does this bother you? It bothers me a little. That, I just have these nagging concerns about how they reached this conclusion. Which wooly mamoths are they referring to?

We don't just have wooly mamoths. There are stories of rivers of fish also being frozen in place. It it gets too cold, fish are going to die first and the evidence of their deaths should be preserved in the ice. I am looking for some info on the fish. I have a reference in a magazine from prophecyinthenews.com.

I don't know if there's anything online,
but the source where I learned that they were probably not flash frozen was a
video by Michael Oard called The Mammoth and The Ice Age,
distributed by AIG.

You might be able to find something he's written.

The Extinction of the Wooly Mammoth:
Was It A Quick Freeze?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/tj14_3-mo_mammoth.pdf

Mammoth Wiki
http://creationwiki.org/Mammoth

 

[Floodnut]

I never assert that Evolution is just a theory. I always say that the notion that the universe came to its present form through hundreds of millions of years of evolution, micro to man evolution, that notion is a lie a myth and a fairy tale. IT IS A LIE. It is based on lies and misreading of the evidence of the natural world, but mostly it is in itself a lie (II Thes 2:2)
The

 

[RichardT]

“Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and heliocentrism is anti-scriptural.”

sue me.

 

[busterdog]

sue me.

Counter sue.

I wonder where the "center of the universe" is?

One man's idea:

 

[RichardT]

Counter sue.

I wonder where the "center of the universe" is?

One man's idea:

awesome. You're a geo as well?

 

[busterdog]

awesome. You're a geo as well?

Well, I just pulled that off the net without much thought, since it just seemed like an interesting idea. Then I saw this:

The balloon model is a 2 dimensional example to help us understand how everything can be moving away from everything else, but have no centre of expansion.

Only the actual surface of the balloon is used; there is no outside the balloon or inside the balloon. In this 2 dimensional balloon universe there is no up and down. You can only move in the surface of the balloon.

As the balloon expands, all points on the surface move apart, but there is no centre of expansion on that surface. There is no also no "edge". Everything on that surface can see the other things moving away from them, but cannot feel the expansion of the space in between them. Nowhere on that surface can be considered to be the centre.

Inhabitants of this 2 dimensional balloon universe have no concept of it's actual shape, as they would need extra dimensions that do not exist in their universe in order to visualise it (i.e. up and down).

Now apply this concept to our own universe that has at least 3 dimensions! You may find that there is no centre of expansion and no edge...

To this, I said "ruh ro " and got the heck out of there before I got confused.

I don't really know what "geo" is, quite frankly I have a vague sense, but that's a good way to remain confused. Would appreciate hearing it explained.

 

[RichardT]

Well, I just pulled that off the net without much thought, since it just seemed like an interesting idea. Then I saw this:

To this, I said "ruh ro " and got the heck out of there before I got confused.

I don't really know what "geo" is, quite frankly I have a vague sense, but that's a good way to remain confused. Would appreciate hearing it explained.

GEOCENTRICITY: A Fable For Educaded Man?