Yes.
It's a good article for a creationist to sharpen his or her approach.
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 ...
Sorry, but I don’t see how inflation solves the clear dilemma I pointed out. Only the models that posit an eternally inflating universe with no beginning can get around this issue, and those models have other problems.
There can be no scientific means of distinguishing between these two."
######################################
If I were a young earth creationist (I'm actually an Intelligent Design guy), I would claim that the Earth and the Universe were indeed created with the appearance of history. If God created the Universe (which he most certainly did), He could also create it with all the appearance of it being more than 6000 years old. I have put that forth in some Bible studies when we discussed creation just to see what people would say. The argument I usually get is that God would not create a deception like that. However, God *does* allow evil (Job 2), so that we would choose His good, and seek after Him (Acts 17). But I never hear the young Earth creationists put forth this argument or anything like it.
(1) Ummmmm, CMI does NOT endorse that theory.
(2) Please see their article and please practice safe reading comprehension skills.
No it isn't. The first thing He created is light. Adam was created with apparent age. The only reason for all of those galaxies is to show God's glory so of course He created light in transit. "Let there be light".
No, there are many alternatives, the one most likely is that your assumptions (those things that are considered 'given') are not true - For instance, tie time to the standard rate of decay - You will be amazed what that'll do to everything you point to.
[...] which makes out God as a liar.
Well, by the same token, YHWH is made a liar if the earth is older than He plainly says.
Yes.
It's a good article for a creationist to sharpen his or her approach.
“Dividing by zero gives strange results, but are still consistent with the normal laws of physics.”
Dividing by zero is a mathematical anomaly, it really doesn’t have anything to do with physics.
“Matter DOES spring forth from nothing.”
No it does not. “Virtual particles” always appear in pairs, particle and anti-particle, which effectively cancel each other out so no new matter is formed at all. Even if they do not annihilate each other, there is no net addition of matter to the universe by that mechanism.
“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.”
No you would not, because matter and energy are interchangeable, as demonstrated by relativity. You can no more crush all the energy of the universe into a single point than you could crush all the matter of the universe into a single point. You’d run afoul of the Pauli exclusion principle either way.
[[I would claim that the Earth and the Universe were indeed created with the appearance of history.]]
You don’t have to say something quite so vague- there are theories about time slowing down- There are several good videos on it on youtube-
Make of it what you will- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTlOVTDbNU&index=42&list=WL
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’ and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.”
“Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe.”
“NASA faked the moon landings.”
“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, why are there still apes 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.” Archaeologists have found skeletons (and footprints) of giant human beings.
Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from 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.”
‘Light was created in transit.’
“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 Noah’s Ark”
“Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible”
Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’.
“Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of 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 as tautology.”
“Evolution is just a theory.”
“There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.”
“Laminin: an amazing look at how Jesus is holding each of us together.”
“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.”
That absolute assertion depends upon certain assumptions and is contrary to much data. I happen to think the speed of "c" is decaying.
(A). GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM ALL DATA
Cordially,
“... the ancient writings of a goatherder”
What is this supposed to mean?
The Bible says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. It then describes the Earth as being “empty and void with darkness covering “the face of the waters”. We don’t know the length of time from the creation of the heavens and earth, until the time that God began to shape the Earth into its present form. We don’t know if the planet had other upheavals until God began to specifically act on the planet. We have Moses’ impressions as he wrote down or was shown how the planet came to be. From the time God began to act on our planet in the specifics mentioned in the Bible to our present time we can deduce a rough estimation. We don’t know how long men existed in their Edenic state until the fall by being tempted to take on a moral consciousness that we were not ready for! We know there is evidence of interferences by malevolent forces in what God was doing in the Earth and we know there is evidence of a general world wide flood!
Dating methods are suspect because they assume that the availability and deposition of the isotopes used in dating were always a constant. The problem of fossils, assumed to be millions of years old found in strata that are dated only at several thousands of years if dated by themselves unless funky algorithms are applied to the dating ,always amuses me!
The layers of ice you mention...how do they determine years verses multiple layers of snow per year caused by multiple snowstorms that then get packed down into ice with each layer of snow storm deposited forming ice at a constant rate but at a differing start time?(hence a new layer for each major snow storm) A major glacial field might experience 10 or 15 major dumps of snow onto it’s pack a year(not counting squalls and drifting). Thus, unless thawing occurs, you might run into glaciers having 100000 layers but it might also mean 10 major dumps of snow per year; thus you might have to reduce your 100000 year figure by a factor of 10...or another words...”10,000years”. Now where did we run into 10000 years again?****
The argument in the end always centers around time. The aborigines always speak of the “dream time” before human consciousness. Time is fungible where God is
concerned...he says “a thousand years is as a day to me!” I acknowledge the questions posed by you but you have to acknowledge the other questions that point to a younger universe scenario as well.
****If you live in a Northern clime where it doesn’t thaw frequently between snowstorms or just a bit....find a log or perhaps an old picnic table with a with a huge layer of snow on it. Take a thin rod or blade and carefully peel away the side of a snow pile. You can see the different layers of deposition from that winter’s multiple snow storms with the lower layers more packed and thinner(by direct sublimation of ice into air and by slight melting due to the pressure from the top layers). Some of the layers may have been from snow storms that were slightly warmer so there was more water and the upper snow layers were heavier. Trying to date glaciers by counting their layers doesn’t impress me....water doesn’t behave like trees. You can’t count years in a glacier by layers like you can count rings on a tree. Now layers of impurities in ice glaciers is another matter but you don’t know if layers have slightly melted into each other due to pressure. You might be able to line up a major meteor event with impurities found in a glacial layer...to check your dating accuracy but that is about it.
There’s always the many-worlds which the inflaton field tends to support. An infinite number of universes out of touch of each other.
This is the “Last Tuesday” paradox (there is no evidence that can rule out the idea that the universe was created last Tuesday, complete with traces of a non-existent past). Scientists dismiss this sort of ad-hoc notion, not because they can definitively disprove it (they can’t), but because it’s a useless dead end.
You are missing the point...we have a ‘here and now” with everything, energy matter, light music photons. How did this “always here” steady state universe come to be? Your precious Pauli exclusion itself; how and at what point did conditions arise so that nothing runs a foul of such an equation?
God says “I AM THAT I AM”...in the third person it would be “GOD IS THAT GOD IS”. The term “IS” is the operational answer! Who puts the “IS” in all there “IS? God is the “Is’zzy” God”! He is the one who keeps the “is” in operation in the grand equation of “all there “is” that exists across the entirety of the universe!
God created simply the “is” and the “is” not.(scoff if you wish but even some quantum scientists have posited that the underlying quantum schema of the universe is theoretically, simple binary!)
“How did this “always here” steady state universe come to be?”
I never posited a steady state model, so there’s no point in asking me that question.
“Your precious Pauli exclusion itself; how and at what point did conditions arise so that nothing runs a foul of such an equation?”
The answer to that question is simply unknowable, which is unfortunate for Big Bang theorists. We know a “big bang” could never happen under current observed conditions, so they must assume prior conditions were different, yet they can never demonstrate such a thing. They simply posit it must have been so, because that is the only way they can force the physics to work with their model. Of course, that’s just bad logic and bad science.
The rest of your post isn’t physics, it’s theology, and mixing physics and theology is probably going to get you bad physics, bad theology, or both.
Thank you!
The many worlds idea isn’t science, because it only posits things that are unobservable, and therefore untestable.
In effect, it’s indistinguishable from positing a supernatural cause, so it can’t be naturalistic science.
Also, if there are an infinite number of universes, then they aren’t really universes, because they would fail to meet the definition. Thus this idea also simply moves the goalposts back instead of solving any problems.
They don’t really address that point because Young Earth creationists never have posited (at least as far as I’ve heard) that the entire universe can fit in 10,000 light years. So if they don’t make the argument, there is no reason for them to try and defend it, because it’s just a straw man.
YECs have proposed a number of other possible explanations for the “light problem”, but not that the universe is all squeezed into that small a space.
I wasn’t claming to be a great scientist or a great theologian...I was questioning you on what puts the “is” in all there is?
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.