Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use

[Floodnut]

Which arguments should definitely not be used?

• “Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.”

There are adequate answers to the supposed weaknesses of this evidence, that it may in fact still be a valid support for a youthful moon. (see Tisdall)

• “Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.”

While this is entirely offensive and incredible to Evos, nevertheless there are a good many tracks there, and it is difficult to believe that they are all fraudulent. Along with the contemporaneous tracks there are numerous petroglyphs of dinosaurs, and other ancient art depicting the animals which were created on the same day as Humans.

• “Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.”

I find it incredible that for those who take a steady grammatical historical approach to biblical interpretation, that suddenly the world EARTH does not mean earth in Genesis 10. And the sense is the division was marked and final. NO, it does not need to involve a major catastrophe. It happened in his days (possibly during a period of a hundred or more years. There was a point in time when it was no longer feasible to simply walk from Asia to North America. The continents were divided, either by a raising of water level, or by the continued elevation of the land mass, or perhaps it was simply the final melting in on season of a major ICE BRIDGE.

What arguments are doubtful, hence, inadvisable to use?

• Canopy theory.

The Bible seems to me to teach that there were waters above the firmament, and the world CLOUD or CLOUDS is not used. Later, after the Flood there are still waters above the firmament. This does not require that the pre-Flood meaning had to be clouds. The term is used post-flood to refer to clouds, but now we are hearing that there are rivers of water in the upper atmosphere.

• “There was no rain before the Flood.”

Contrary to the AiG position here, It still seems to me to be senseless for the account of origins to tell us that there was no rain, and then to never ever mention the appearance of rain until the onset of the Flood, if in fact that passage in Genesis two was not telling us of conditions that prevailed till the Flood. Telling me that physical laws would REQUIRE RAIN doesn't set the rule on how that passage is to be read. There is no rain in a terrarium, but every thing remains moist and conducive to vigorous growth.

• “There are no transitional forms.”

There are not forms showing transition from one species to another, no chain of progression from hydrogen to human, from microbe to man. It is not a case of a missing link, but a MISSING CHAIN!

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.

I agree, that it is important that we be sound and solid in our discussion, yet, although AiG is a great resource, I don't see that they are the POPE of creationism. I place great weight in their views, but I also value Morris, and Whitcomb, and Woodmorappe, and many others who love the Scriptures and also endeavor to use good observational science. AND, it "bums me out too" that the carcass has proven to be a basking shark.

 

[laptoppop]

I agree that many of the arguments you mention are probably true. If you look at the original AIG article, they seperate the arguments into ones that are "weak" and probably should not be used from the ones that they thought were proven wrong that should not be used.

Truth can stand up to any examination. It is good for us to improve the quality of our investigations and understanding of God's wonderful creation. There are so many strong reasons to believe in creationism, we can afford to not waste time with weaker ones.

 

[busterdog]

I agree, that it is important that we be sound and solid in our discussion, yet, although AiG is a great resource, I don't see that they are the POPE of creationism. I place great weight in their views, but I also value Morris, and Whitcomb, and Woodmorappe, and many others who love the Scriptures and also endeavor to use good observational science.

Orthodox science is a particularly vicious business at times.

Everyone has stories of the sniping involved between rival theoreticians.

As far as contoversy goes, I have seen worse than the AIG list.

Consensus however, can be worse. With the dinosaur meat find, we saw how rapidly science moved into agreement on the age of that thing (70 mil or so).

 

[kulenok]

sure thing...but many more remain that I have researved for the next battle of Darwin vs. Jesus