CMI logo.
Posted on 10/13/2015 8:15:43 AM PDT by fishtank
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
By: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
The primary authority for Creation Ministries International is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A Bible). All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories. Evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, so it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised too.
The first article on this page sums up what we believe the creationists’ attitude should be about various ideas and theories. The other articles provide examples of arguments that we think should no longer be used; some arguments are definitely fallacious, while others are merely doubtful or unsubstantiated. We provide brief explanations why, and/or hyperlinks to other articles on this Web site with more detailed explanations. We don’t claim that this list is exhaustive—it will be updated with additions and maybe deletions as new evidence is discovered. Many of these arguments have never been promoted by CMI, and some have not been promoted by any major creationist organization (so they were not directed at anyone in particular), but are instead straw men set up by anti-creationists.
It is notable that some skeptics criticise creationists when they retract doubtful arguments, but these are also the same people who accuse creationists of being unwilling to change their minds!
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
CMI logo.
For the record.
Good summary of items to reconsider (unless you’ve already discarded them.)
would you synopsize, please ?
Is that one of those mega-church places?
What scientists forget is that uniformitarianism and catastrophism are axioms, not fact.
Scientists assume that the physical laws of the universe are universal, and apply in exactly the same manner across all of space and time.
This is something that simply cannot be proved, it’s assumed to be true a priori.
There is clear evidence, here on earth, that contradicts the young earth theory. There are lakes with layered sedimentation, where we can observe layers being created annually, that have more than 30,000 layers present. There are glaciers where we can see ice layers being created annually, where we can see more that 100,000 layers.
There are only two possible explanations for these - either the physical processes that operate on these lakes and glaciers have been the same, for the last 100,000 years, and they really are that old, or there was a change in the physical processes, and when they were created, they were created with the appearance of history.
There can be no scientific means of distinguishing between these two.
Cosmologists tell us the ENTIRE Universe suddenly sprang from a infinitesimally small single point called the ‘Singularity’. We call it ‘The Word of God’.........................
Have to admit - I’ve never heard a creationist argue that the moon landings were fake (or if someone was a creationist, it wasn’t in that context).
My current favorite sore point:
‘Light was created in transit.’
There is an enormous problem with the Young Earth theory (for convenience, we’ll use 10,000 years): what we see in the sky at night _cannot_ fit in a universe with a mere 10,000 light year radius.
The Milky Way alone wouldn’t fit, much less the whole of what is seen by merely looking up at night.
I’ll not detail the physics in a mere post, but upshot is it all has to fit in the visible universe. Numerous practically irrefutable factors would have to be clearly and profoundly refuted for all we see to fit in such a small space: sizes, gravity, redshift, parallax, light speed, etc; those being preposterous to refute (think about it until you agree), the only alternative is the light must have been created “in transit” which makes out God as a liar.
I’m amazed that CMI types haven’t addressed this point _at_all_. They have to, as it’s devastating.
Meh, it is impossible for the universe to have sprung from a singularity.
If all the matter of the universe was in one point, that point would be a black hole from which nothing could escape. Scientists know that, so they have to assume that the normal laws of physics did not exist at that point, in order to make the hypothesis even seem possible. However, if the normal laws of physics did not exist, then it becomes impossible to speculate any further, since we can only extrapolate if the conditions remained similar to what we observe today.
So the “Big Bang Theory” disproves itself.
The one thing that causes me to immediately dismiss the arguer as a dimwit, regardless of subject, is when they state something to the effect of “well, you can’t DISPROVE x, so I win”.
the person making the claim must provide the evidence. Period. I refuse to acknowledge as rational anyone who doesn’t start from that precept in any discussion.
Look up the inflaton field.
My other sore point, which I don’t like:
‘This doesn’t make sense after just a few seconds of ignorant thought, therefore anyone who believes it after much study is stupid.’ (Not listed, but should be.)
Creation-based astronomy curriculum for children does this, to my great irritation. “Venus spins the wrong way, therefore anyone who says the universe was an accident is absurd!” is absurd, but in the textbook nonetheless. Ditto many other comments about “Big Bang” and evolution: just the declaration of the premise (say, Venus “spins the wrong way”) belies great ignorance about how stuff naturally forms over time.
I’ve spent a lot of time studying cosmological origins, and frankly most of it makes a lot of sense. What doesn’t make sense is detractors who obviously don’t understand even the basic principles involved, rejecting scientific method just because the consequences don’t fit a genealogy timeframe.
I consider myself a pragmatic creationist, holding God created the universe - and did so however He did, which is not how ignorant moderns misinterpret the ancient writings of a goatherder. I see what is, I see how it interacts, I see how it probably worked together to get from however it started to how it is now; imperfectly, yes, but a whole lot better than what CMI et al contend (largely in the form of naysaying and not constructive contributions to the issue).
There are lakes with layered sedimentation, where we can observe layers being created annually, that have more than 30,000 layers present.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Polystrate fossils.
Then, there’s the London Hammer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer
Hypothetical field.
"...what we see in the sky at night _cannot_ fit in a universe with a mere 10,000 light year radius.The Milky Way alone wouldn’t fit, much less the whole of what is seen by merely looking up at night.
I’ll not detail the physics in a mere post, but upshot is it all has to fit in the visible universe. Numerous practically irrefutable factors would have to be clearly and profoundly refuted for all we see to fit in such a small space: sizes, gravity, redshift, parallax, light speed, etc;..."
Boogieman:
"If all the matter of the universe was in one point, that point would be a black hole from which nothing could escape. Scientists know that, so they have to assume that the normal laws of physics did not exist at that point, in order to make the hypothesis even seem possible..."
If scientissts are able to theorize that all the matter and energy in the universe was once in one very tiny, dense state then what's the problem with everything fitting into such a small space? What is there to say that light speed and time are not relative in an expanding universe over the age of the universe?
Cordially,
That’s why it’s a “singularity” (if you understand the scientific meaning of the term). Dividing by zero gives strange results, but are still consistent with the normal laws of physics.
Matter DOES spring forth from nothing. Happens all the time, just on a very small scale and with meaningful consequences being statistically very rare (but not zero!). Yes, it’s been observed. Particles & anti-particles do appear, and typically don’t get far before they rejoin their partner and annihilate back to pure energy. Once in a while something else interferes, allowing the particles to continue existing.
If you took all the matter out of the universe and squished space down to a point, you’d have a speck of pure concentrated energy - without form, and void.
That speck would expand, given the concentration of energy, and give room for that energy to chaotically vary between concentrations and absence of electromagnetic waves - separation of light and darkness.
As noted above, that energy would spontaneously form into particles, which in close proximity would interact and start separating into viable matter - void from uni-phase matter one could colloquially call “water”.
Matter would start separating into various states - gas from fluid from solid.
Over a long time, as the space expanded and matter congealed & (in some case) cooled, gravity would start forming what we see now, discernible celestial bodies would emerge, and on the vastly enormous scale of chemical interactions, reproductive bodies would form & grow - plants (broadly defined) would arise.
Of note, one moderate-sized star’s system formed an orb unusually conducive to this chemical process, and a moderate-sized rock orbited it - the Sun, Earth, and Moon.
Over time another kind of life emerged on this planet - wild animals of various kinds.
Eventually, God (involved somehow in all of this) directed the emergence of a creature mirroring Himself - mankind.
And in all this, God - being timeless and seeing a day as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day - viewed all of this as being in six phases He called (insofar as our puny minds can grasp His thoughts) days.
And it all turned out pretty darned well.
Works for me. I don’t see the problem.
More heat than necessary is generated when proponents of differing world views resort to ad hominem. The evidence supports manifold interpretations, yet that does not mitigate or detract from objective truth. Every observer begins and operates with a set of ground rules which, when applied consistently, work well with the evidence in both directions. Assertions may be made about history, but there soon comes a moment those assertions are subject to question. One’s assumed source of authority may easily engender a false sense of certitude. Materialist science is loath to admit its dependence on philosophy, let alone metaphysical matters. It is both intriguing and depressing to witness the back and forth between those who accept the biblical texts literally at face value, and those who reject such an approach out of hand.
This is a helpful article. I’ve made these mistakes myself in arguments.
We’ve looked for such speed-of-light variations, and haven’t found any. “c” is an absolute.
And everything I referred to lines up the way it does, pretty much fitting our models thereof to a very high (albeit still imperfect but improving) precision. Extrapolate what we do know, and you work back to “the Big Bang” pretty easily; add the requirements Boogieman, CRI, et al impose and what we see couldn’t possibly exist as is, much less extrapolate back to any sensible beginning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.