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 ...
Isaiah 64:8
Yet you, LORD, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.
Your argument is there is no difference between a lump of clay and what the potter turns it into.
So I’m arguing with a...theological tautological topologist. I need a drink.
No, we were discussing physics, not theology.
If you want to mix the two up, you’re not going to get any usable results.
Seems you’re missing the point of this thread.
No, I’m really not. The thread is about bad arguments made by creationists, and mixing theology with physics is a recipe for REALLY bad arguments. Whatever results from that won’t hold up either theologically or scientifically.
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.