List of arguments Creationists shouldn't use (by leading Creationist organization)

[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, it might be advisable to keep it bumped:

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

Oh, here is the link, BTW:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...aq/dont_use.asp

 

[mhess13]

yeah, yeah, yeah, we've all seen this about 37,983 times...

 

[Dark_Lite]

Remember... It's just a difference in the creation ministries...

 

[Vance]

yeah, yeah, yeah, we've all seen this about 37,983 times...

I think it should be made a sticky, since we still see these arguments on occassion.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Yes, AiG is the typical "elitist" organization, or tries to be. I lost a lot of respect for them on that, as instead of having minor disagreements, they really wanted to come out and say "we are better than everyone else." I think some Christians have forgotten we are about spreading the gospel, not arguing amongst ourselves. I stopped donating to them after that.

 

[mhess13]

You're right. They act like no one except for them can spread the YEC message. My goodness, listening to them I can just throw my Defender's Study Bible away! It's not just Hovind and Baugh they go after, in a roundabout way the go after Dr. Morris as well!

 

[notto]

It seems that some creationists have doubts about their list. Which item do you think is still a valid argument and why?

 

[mhess13]

Many of the arguments are still valid. To me the question is not whther or not most of them are valid, but are they THE BEST evidence to present say in a seminar or church meeting. There is so much GREAT evidence that maybe these arguments should take a backseat to some of the better ones. (for the sake of time in a seminar or meeting)

Here are a few arguments that are valid, but maybe not stuff to use in a debate or seminar because there is better YEC evidence out there

-The canopy theory is valid. The Bible clearly teaches it. It is the only way to explain a whole lot of things dealing w/ the pre-flood world. We can't prove it though

-Dr. Walt Brown has studied the moondust issue and has concluded that there should indeed be way more dust. go to his website for his explainations and charts. maybe I wouldn't use this in a seminar just because of the skepticism surrounding it, but it is still valid in the eyes of many creationists

-gold chains found in coal is valid. There have been lots of out of place things found in coal

 

[Vance]

mhess, here is what AiG has to say about your choices:

Canopy Theory
"This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water"

What is interesting about this is that both you and AiG claim to just take the plain reading of Scripture at face value. Maybe the plain reading is not so plain after all.

Moon Dust:
"For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either)."

Gold in coal:
"Several artefacts, including gold objects, have been documented as having been found within coal, but in each case the coal is no longer associated with the artefact. The evidence is therefore strictly anecdotal (e.g. ‘This object was left behind in the fireplace after a lump of coal was burned’). This does not have the same evidential value as having a specimen with the coal and the artefact still associated."

Now, this is from a group which still accepts a LOT of very questionable theories, so if THEY say it is bunk . . .

 

[mhess13]

I don't really care what AiG says. I respect Dr. Hovind much more than AiG anyway.

 

[Vance]

I don't really care what AiG says. I respect Dr. Hovind much more than AiG anyway.

'nuff said.

 

[mhess13]

That's right. I don't care what you say either Vance. You've really showed me something with the way you team up with the ungodly to make other believers look bad by posting this in the other forum

 

[rmwilliamsll]

-The canopy theory is valid. The Bible clearly teaches it. It is the only way to explain a whole lot of things dealing w/ the pre-flood world. We can't prove it though

The ancient Hebrews believed that there was one God. This belief was different from that of the Babylonians and Egyptians for they believed in many gods. This God of the Hebrews created the whole universe and they gave him the name Yahweh. What many Christians in America believe about there being one God who created the universe was also what the ancient Hebrews believed. Their perception of the universe was taken from Genesis, however it gave them an entirely different outlook then what Christians have today. The Hebrews believed that when God created the earth is was in a dome shape.3 On the top of the dome there were floodgates which released the snow, rain and hail. God's dwelling was above the upper waters. Inside of the dome was the sky and it was referred to as the firmament.4 The stars, sun and moon were all placed within the firmament. In the dome there was land, grasses, trees, beasts, birds, men and women. Below the land was the a place that they called Sheol. This place was mentioned many times throughout the Old Testament. It is what Christians today would think of as Hell, but the ancient Hebrews believed that it was the destiny of all men. Below Sheol were the pillars of the earth and the lower waters.5 This was the basic outlook of cosmology according to the ancient Hebrews.

from: http://home.messiah.edu/~ds1239/

the problem-
is it being taught or used as a motif to communicate?

 

[Vance]

That's right. I don't care what you say either Vance. You've really showed me something with the way you team up with the ungodly to make other believers look bad by posting this in the other forum

No, I don't team up with them, I just happen to agree with them that YEC'ism is wrong. We have different motivations, however. They want to oppose YEC'ism in order to prevent them from damaging the pursuit of scientific inquiry, I oppose YEC'ism to prevent it from damaging Christianity.

But no, I do not try to make YEC's look bad. I just point out the flaws in their propositions. They do the rest themselves.

OK, imagine that there were geocentrists out there (which there are), who got very organized and developed ministries to convince their fellow Christians that the heliocentric model of the solar system was contrary to Scripture and was just an evil scientific attempt to discredit Scripture and replace it with God-less scientific models. Imagine that those organizations became very successful so that half of the Christians in the US began to accept geocentrism and attempted to get it taught in the schools, etc, and the non-Christian world began to associate Christianity with geocentrism. Imagine that our Christian youth were being taught that geocentrism was the literal truth of the Scripture and that any view contrary to geocentrism was against Scripture because if heliocentrism was correct, the Scripture wasn't correct. I would hope that you would take just as strong a stand against it. I would hope that you would see the danger of that new movement to the spreading of the Christian message. I would hope that you would take a stand against it. I would hope that you would do what you could to let the unbelievers know that not all Christians were geocentrist and that you COULD be a heliocentrist and still be a Christian.

 

[GodSaves]

Vance you spend so much time in here trying to do what? I really have no clue what you really are trying to do. You seem on one hand to try and start arguements. On the other you seem to want to demean other Christians, take bluejeans for an example. But yet you say that you are trying to help those who come and look in here. I think you just enjoy trying to prove others wrong, even if you put them down in the mean time. This became evident to me with how you handled bluejeans. You didn't care about her feelings, you just wanted to make your point using her posts, even if it hurt her in the process. You didn't care if you hurt her, or misrepresented her because you said you would not apologize to her, even though you did hurt her.

If you spend half this much time spreading just the Gospel to non-believers you must not have time to work. Do you feel this is more important than the Gospel?

Overall Vance, this is not about YEC, OEC, GAP, or TE. This is about you proving you are right, and we are all wrong. So let me be the first to concede, you are absolutely correct, everything you say is right, I am absolutely wrong in everything. You want to win the debate/arguement? You win, I am wrong. If it is ok with you I will still believe what i believe, but for everyones sake, I am wrong you are right.

God Bless you in all that you do.

 

[seebs]

Right now, I think Creationism is one of the largest stumbling blocks to the Gospel in the western world. Given that, working on this issue is probably crucial to effectively spreading the Gospel.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Right now, I think Creationism is one of the largest stumbling blocks to the Gospel in the western world. Given that, working on this issue is probably crucial to effectively spreading the Gospel.

Well, in the US. Over here, it's not a barrier because most people don't come into contact with the minority YEC extremists (yes, that's what they are here) until after conversion. And there are enough sensible Christians around to let them know it's not an issue.

To most UK people, YEC is right out there with flat earthers, snake handlers and "touch your television and be healed" telly charlatans. It's not on the radar. People at work fall about laughing when they find out that there are Christians who believe in it. Fortunately, they know it's just the extreme fringe.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Right now, I think Creationism is one of the largest stumbling blocks to the Gospel in the western world. Given that, working on this issue is probably crucial to effectively spreading the Gospel.

Agreed. Keep up the good work Vance in loving rebuke of our YEC brothers and sisters who are unknowingly creating the largest stumbling block to people coming to Christ in this generation and the main reason many young people are leaving Christian churches in this generation.

In Paul's time, it was Jewish Christians insisting that circumcision was required to be a Christian. In our time it is YECs insisting that YEC is required to be a Christian.

 

[Vance]

Vance you spend so much time in here trying to do what? I really have no clue what you really are trying to do. You seem on one hand to try and start arguements. On the other you seem to want to demean other Christians, take bluejeans for an example. But yet you say that you are trying to help those who come and look in here. I think you just enjoy trying to prove others wrong, even if you put them down in the mean time. This became evident to me with how you handled bluejeans. You didn't care about her feelings, you just wanted to make your point using her posts, even if it hurt her in the process. You didn't care if you hurt her, or misrepresented her because you said you would not apologize to her, even though you did hurt her.

No, you are simply wrong. I had no intention of hurting her, since I had no plans on her name even being mentioned. When I realized that she, herself, had given her name at the top of the list, I removed that bit. What she was doing was incredibly damaging to the Christian message among the unbelievers in the other forum. It really was a problem. I was posting it here so that other YEC's could see the nature of the posts and realize that if they are not careful, that is how THEY could sound (and sometimes DO sound).

And how could I be misrepresenting her? Unlike you guys in your private forum going on talking about TE's in which you DO misrepresent what we say, I just quoted her VERBATIM, and providing EVERY SINGLE post, not just a selection. How could that possibly be misleading? You guys, on the other hand, actually misstate what we say in a very damaging manner in a forum that the public can read, but in which we can not defend ourselves (I know this, because when I did defend myself there, someone there complained and the post got deleted).

Talk about a double standard.

If you spend half this much time spreading just the Gospel to non-believers you must not have time to work. Do you feel this is more important than the Gospel? .

It IS part of spreading the Gospel. If you are driving down the road with a cargo of important goods, and there is a series of big tree trunks in the way, you must take the time and energy to remove them if you want to get that important cargo through.

Overall Vance, this is not about YEC, OEC, GAP, or TE. This is about you proving you are right, and we are all wrong. So let me be the first to concede, you are absolutely correct, everything you say is right, I am absolutely wrong in everything. You want to win the debate/arguement? You win, I am wrong. If it is ok with you I will still believe what i believe, but for everyones sake, I am wrong you are right.

God Bless you in all that you do.

No, you are wrong again, and your attitude is a bit petty. It has nothing to do with being right, it has to do with the very subject of this forum. Why do you think we have this forum? It is to debate the pros and cons of this issue. That involves explaining why you think your position is most likely correct and why the other position is most likely incorrect.

The problem is that you and other YEC's are so convinced that all good, solid, Bible-believing Christians really believe as you do, that the presentation of a contrary view is somehow an attack on Christianity itself. More importantly, you see it as a personal attack. I have never attacked anyone here personally and I don't plan to. Most YEC's here can not say the same.

 

[TwinCrier]

To make the assertion that the beliefs that some hold dear are not only lies but are detrimental to the whole cause of the gospel is a bit much. Some interpret scripture according to their conscious, others according to their faith, still others according to science. The truth will be revealed one day.