The Large Creationist-Claim Collider '06!

[shernren]

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will open in 2007. When it opens, it will help us answer questions like "Why do particles have mass?" and "Why are there more particles than antiparticles?" It works by smashing highly energized particles together and then examining the debris. The trickiest hardware functions in the system are the ones that accelerate the particles, and the ones that target them so that the two beams hit right on-target.

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/CERNFuture/WhatLHC/WhatLHC-en.html

Well, we'll have to wait for 2007 to see what the LHC can tell us about the universe. But I'm planning to build a large collider of my own right here in ChristianForums!

See, a lot of times we evolutionists refute scientific-creationist ideas on their own merit. Where they have "examples" we provide counterexamples that call into question the validity of their counterexamples. When they provide quotes we show that they have been taken out of context and do not represent accurately what the scientist him/herself believes.

But I'm starting to realise that in fact, a lot of creationist arguments may be mutually contradictory. What Creationist Claim A says may invalidate Creationist Claim B. In that case it may be more fun (though probably less effective) to use creationist arguments to demolish creationist arguments!

Right now I'm looking at two inherent contradictions within scientific creationism:

1.
Statement A: "'What-we-disagree-with'* is bad because it provides a naturalistic explanation for biodiversity which means that God is not required."
Statement B: "We want to prove that the earth was created young and that there are inherent discontinuities in biodiversity that are not explainable by evolution, scientifically."

When they collide: "'What-we-disagree-with'* is bad because it is naturalistic and leaves God out. Therefore, we want to disprove it - by providing naturalistic arguments (which leave God out) that they cannot refute."

[Thought about this when reading about Ken Ham's exposition on AiG's position towards William Dembski and the Discovery Institute. One notable "pot meet kettle" moment was when he said that the ID folks were doomed from the start because they were following naturalistic lines of evidence. Gee, I wonder why they make such a big deal out of having good science...]

2.
Statement A: "Conventional scientific laws are wrong."
Statement B: "By conventional scientific laws, 'what-we-disagree-with'* is impossible.

When they collide: "By conventional scientific laws, which are wrong, 'what-we-disagree-with'* is impossible."

[First brought up when discussing the Red Sirius case. One e-mail reply I read noted that creationists cannot both argue that the fundamental laws of physics as we know them are wrong (i.e. Sirius A a red giant is unexplained) and that the fundamental laws of physics forbid the Big Bang (e.g. "matter can't come from non-matter!").]

* Replace 'what-we-disagree-with' with any, single or multiple, of the following as appropriate:

the Big Bang & General Relativity
the nebular hypothesis of the solar system
conventional geology esp. radiometric dating
molecular abiogenesis
evolution

The main problem I can see, whether with particles or with arguments, is:

1. Energetics. To accelerate a particle to high velocities requires a huge input of energy. In the same way, an argument should be refined and taken carefully to logical yet clearly contradictory extents before a collision will yield a suitable "one, or the other, both weak and useless by themselves" conclusion.

2. Accuracy. Just a micrometer of difference over a tube that is kilometers long, and the two particle beams will simply miss each other. In the same way the arguments need to be accurately aimed so that they cancel each other out maximally.

So, any takers? We'll start our experimental schedule with the first two collisions noted above ... happy hunting!

 

[Willtor]

Statement A: If Genesis is an allegory, then God is a liar.
Statement B: I love "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." It's got a true, Christian message.

When they collide: Human authors are permitted to use allegories, but God is not (unless He says so, explicitly).

 

[shernren]

Not just new collisions, also any examples or additional arguments to add on to any collisions already posted. For example my collision no. 2 still needs some work before it can be really convincing.

 

[shernren]

Statement A: The erets in Gen 2:9 refers specifically to the Garden of Eden, despite the fact that it is used in just the previous verse in the same sentence to refer to the whole earth.
Statement B: The erets in Gen 7-8 refers specifically to the whole world, despite the fact that a global flood makes no scientific sense whatsoever.

When they collide: Self-explanatory.

 

[random_guy]

This is a great idea. I'll keep my eye open, but one off the top of my head:

Evolution is fake and doesn't happen vs.

Noah took only kinds of animals, and through mutations they diversified into every single living species we see today.

 

[shernren]

Statement A: Creationism has found a lot of scientific evidence for a global flood!
Statement B: The global flood washed away all the evidence.

When they collide: Creationism has found a lot of scientific evidence for a global flood which washed away all the evidence.

From http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=22302693#post22302693

Also,

Statement A: Creationism has found a lot of scientific evidence for a global flood!
Statement B: Scientists don't recognize global flood evidence since they've never seen a global flood before.

When they collide: Creationism has found a lot of scientific evidence for a global flood which cannot be scientifically recognized as being evidence for a global flood.

 

[depthdeception]

Statement A: A supernatural being supernaturally created the universe, and all that is contained within it.
Statement B: We can tell this by looking at the natural universe.

Collision/Conclusion: The supernatural is defined within the parameters of the natural.

 

[shernren]

Taken from http://home.entouch.net/dmd/woodrad.htm ; restated and paraphrased without express permission.

Statement 1: Scientists are selective and don't publish bad dates in journals.
Statement 2: This journal has a bad date (like a freshly killed seal being 20,000 years old) which shows that radiometric dating is wrong.

When they collide: This journal, which doesn't publish bad dates, has a bad date which shows that radiometric dating is wrong.

And this is a spinoff from random_guy:

Statement 1: There are no transitional fossils, which shows that evolution doesn't happen.
Statement 2: Noah only brought a pair of each kind on the ark, which means that they micro-evolved into all known species today.

When they collide: There are no transitional fossils, which shows that Noah did not bring a pair of each kind on the ark, since they could not have micro-evolved into all known species today because there are no transitional fossils that show this.

 

[shernren]

Oh, and this zinger. Inspired by a transcript of a debate between an atheist evolutionist and John (if I'm not mistaken) Morris I saw online last night.

Statement 1: Uniformitarian assumptions are unreliable because the present cannot be used to interpret the past confidently, hence evolution* is wrong.
Statement 2: The recent eruption at Mt. St. Helena** shows that a global Flood could have produced the Grand Canyon***.

When they collide: The recent eruption at Mt. St. Helena** observed in the present shows that a global Flood could have produced the Grand Canyon*** in the past, even though it is unreliable to use the present to interpret the past.

* or replace "evolution" with any of the following:
the Big Bang & General Relativity
the nebular hypothesis of the solar system
conventional geology esp. radiometric dating
molecular abiogenesis

** or replace "the eruption at Mt. St. Helena" with any creationist misinterpretation of modern data, e.g.
no evolution is observed today.

*** or replace "the global Flood could have created the Grand Canyon" with any creationist assertion of an event that happened in, or property of, the past, e.g.
no evolution has ever happened.