Common Creationist Arguments

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/index.shtml ^

[Elijah27]

The Encyclopedia of Evolution, by Richard Milner

Yes, I did follow the link. But I also didn't respond with "I was a fish!". You stated that humans had gills during a stage of development, I simply responded with information regarding that statement.

Evolutionary theory is the framework that most scientists work through. Creation is another framework. Both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence, but they interpret it through these two differing frameworks.

There was something similar that happened in history, unfortunately in which the Church got a bad rap (but deservedly because they compromised their views). The Ptolemaic Theory of the solar system was the "Holy Grail" of the scientists of that day in astronomical theory.

Even when their own mathematical calculations didn't come out correctly, they put in "fixer-uppers" that would adjust the end result.

When their pet theory was put to the test by Galileo (inheriting his ideas from Copernicus), they viciously opposed Galileo (and convinced the Church that belief in an earth-centered solar system was Scriptural --- it isn't).

I've no problem with school's teaching and evolutionary framework, but I'd also approve of the addition of competing frameworks that have peer-reviewed scientific information supporting them. Let's be real: there're plenty of scientists who aren't creationists that point out difficulties with evolutionary theory.

There are also many scientists in astronomical, biological, mathematical, and other disciplines who are just as accredited, degreed, etc., that prefer the creationist/ID framework as those who prefer the evolutionary model. Personally, I'm tired of people getting angry with each other over this; the fact of the matter is, there are many creationists with valid reasons (both theologically and scientifically) for believing the way that they do. For perhaps similar reasons, there will be those who subscribe to the evolutionary model.

If someone from one camp prefers to continue viewing someone from another camp as ill-informed after debating the issues (not just slinging the "strawmen" that exist on both sides), fine. But be adult about it.

[tallhappy]

I saw this post and thought it was about Creationist arguments.

I see it is not but is simple anti-Christian bigotry and has nothing to do with creationist argument.

Pathetic.

[VadeRetro]

There was something similar that happened in history, unfortunately in which the Church got a bad rap (but deservedly because they compromised their views).

I've never seen Copernicus/Galileo versus the Catholic Church spun as you do. Scientists convinced the church that Ptolemy was scriptural? What were Copernicus and Galileo, farmers? Laymen can lie to the Pope about the Pope's job?

You say creation is a "framework." It looks more like blinders to me.

[Elijah27]

It was based on the appeal to authority in an area unfamiliary to many of the priests. One of my superiors has no computer literacy, thus depends on my "authority" to help him out from time to time. To him, I am a "computer guru" and because I have demonstrated some knowledge in this area he defers to me.

I expect much the same could be said of those tossing around calculations that may not have made much sense to the priests in those days. Do a Google search on Galileo or visit the local library and look through a few biographies of him.

I doubt any links to articles I provide you on this subject would really be considered "authoritative" to you given that I subscribe to a different framework than yourself. But if you find this information on your own, then I'd say you and I would have a better chance of agreeing, at least, on this one subject.

And I would suggest that those who are uninterested in honestly looking at the competing frameworks are the ones being blinded. I'd also guess that the majority of those reading responses that disagree with their own on this forum begin to formulate their argument before they've even finished reading the post...just because the first few words disagreed with their worldview.

Blind indeed.

[VadeRetro]

It was based on the appeal to authority in an area unfamiliary to many of the priests.

No question, in Galileo's day the scientific authorities were all but unanimous that Ptolemy was right and Copernicus was wrong. Their model was a little more complicated, but it had to be right because it was scriptural. (Moral: Never ignore Occam's Razor when it applies.)

That's the point where I can't let the Church off. Scientists didn't tell the Church to persecute heliocentrics as heretics. They can't do that. It's not their decision; not their job. Somebody might have suggested as much--can't prove it didn't happen--but the Church had to do it. That's their job, their call.

[Elijah27]

That's the point where I can't let the Church off. Scientists didn't tell the Church to persecute heliocentrics as heretics. They can't do that. It's not their decision; not their job. Somebody might have suggested as much--can't prove it didn't happen--but the Church had to do it. That's their job, their call.

You and I are in complete agreement on this point. In fact, it is exactly the point I try to make with people on this subject: the church, basing their interpretation of the Scriptures (And being helped along by cherry-picked verses of scientists; I suspect you'd agree with me that people can & do pull verses from all over the Bible, out of context, to prove whatever they want.) on what the Ptolemaic Theorists taught them as "truth-in-science", ended up following a terrible course of action. They compromised their views of Scripture, based on the supposed authorities in astronomy of the day. This is exactly the same kind of thing that people are calling on the church to do today.

The other fun topic is on flat-earth. Isn't Scriptural, never was, and wasn't initiated by the church. As a matter of fact, Washington Irving, in his book on Columbus made up the whole story about Columbus and the Queen's conversation about "falling off the earth". However, we still see how the culture still accepts that story as true today, when in fact it is not.

I find it interesting the dogma created by those on both sides which is based on either bad interpretations of scientific evidence or faulty history or both.

[JediGirl]

OK, so you would have no problem with public school science classes also delving into the problems with macro-evolution, and the differences between the various evoltionary schools of thought? They seem to present it as a tidy package, all wrapped up and complete. They never cover the threads that do not connect, but just assume that they will, in time. It is not an exact science, even more in-exact (is that a word?) than human psychology.

At my high school in Louisiana, our Biology class didn't even discuss evolution due to the whining hissy fits the fundies throw over it. And your argument is totally flawed. See here

[Psalm 73]

"And your argument is totally flawed."

Evolution is NOT a complete science, an interesting theory, but not a complete science.
Just saying it is does not make it so, and slamming Christians who do not swallow the WHOLE evolution idea does NOT make you sound any more intelligent.
You have a bone to pick with christianity (yea, it shows), and it goes beyond Creationism vs (macro)Evolution theory.
It is noble for you to enter into discussions with those much older than you, but don't fall into the trap of being "intolerant" of other viewpoints.
People who do not blindly accept the gaps in Evolution theory are not morons - you pigeon-hole us into uneducated, unenlightened buffoons, hanging around the shack like in "Deliverence".
Show a little respect, we are lawyers and surgeons, we design combat aircraft and captain ships. We are Judges, educators, and law-enforcement officers. And Honor Society high-school kids, too.

[oldcats]

"I think that all theories of beginnings should be studied in school"
Would this include the American Indian belief that life was begun on the back of a turtle? How about ancient Egyptian theories..or Aztec...or the space seed theory...or any of the other thousands of "how we got started" theories?
Where do you draw the line of what is a credible theory? Popularity?
Oldcats

[Elijah27]

"I think that all theories of beginnings should be studied in school" Would this include the American Indian belief that life was begun on the back of a turtle? How about ancient Egyptian theories..or Aztec...or the space seed theory...or any of the other thousands of "how we got started" theories? Where do you draw the line of what is a credible theory? Popularity? Oldcats

Odd that you mention "space-seed theory". Isn't that one of the more popular beliefs in evolutionary circles? At least it seems to be more discussed as difficulties surrounding origins force theorists to push the beginning "out there" somewhere.

I stated that the frameworks that should be discussed within classrooms have reputable scientific data that support the contentions. The Creationist framework does indeed have such scientific data, and to my knowledge none of the other positions you have posted do.

Again, the strawmen abound in the statements you have made. The Bible contains unique claims about God, the world, and itself. Most archeological digs use its text as a starting point of discovery, and time and again it has been proven accurate (unlike many other ancient texts).

This in and of itself does not prove that other texts are invalid or that archeology should only focus on the information contained within the Bible. However, a collection of writings that has been shown to be extremely accurate historically is worthy of note when studying origins, especially when this otherwise-extremely-accurate text gives you information about those origins.

[oldcats]

You said..."The Creationist framework does indeed have such scientific data"
First we must set up some guidelines...What do you concider scientific data?
As for much in the Bible being "extremely accurate historically"...Hmmmm....where in ancient Egyptian texts are Jewish slaves mentioned, much less their exodus from slavery? No place. Where is the acheological evidence of the Tower of Babel..Noah's Ark?
Perhaps the reason that the archeological data matches what the Bible says is that the stories were written after the fact? Remember that even the oldest "copies" of the Old Testament are still much much younger than the actual events they portray.
Oldcats

[Virginia-American]

With so many pieces missing, paleontology is just a game of who can make up the most fantastic interpretation for the smallest evidence possible.

One of the things I find offensive is the cavalier way the anti-evolutionists dismiss other people's work. No, it not 'just a game' - there is a very large amount of study, work, and weighing evidence involved. People may come to wrong conclusions, but there are very few cases of outright fraud (and these were usually discovered because they went against evolution, not because a creationist found an error)

I guess it's almost a literal truth to some of the antis, but the devil is in the details.

PS, just why do whales have hipbones, and why is an occasional whale born with legs? Is there any explanation other than descent from terrestial ancestors?

PPS and why do chimps and people share the **exact same** (those devilish details again!) mutation that prevents vitamin C formation?

[Elijah27]

You said..."The Creationist framework does indeed have such scientific data" First we must set up some guidelines...What do you concider scientific data?

The evidence of creation, which is the exact evidence that evolutionists use. The study of plants, animals, geology, astronomy, nuclear physics, etc., all contain data which are used by scientists.

As for much in the Bible being "extremely accurate historically"...Hmmmm....where in ancient Egyptian texts are Jewish slaves mentioned, much less their exodus from slavery? No place.

The 18 December 1995 edition of Time magazine had on the front cover a picture of Moses holding a slab of stone, on which are the Ten Commandments, with the question splashed across the centre of the page asking, ‘IS THE BIBLE FACT OR FICTION’.

The article claims that there are

‘parts of the Old Testament where the evidence is contradictory or still absent, including slavery in Egypt, the existence of Moses, the Exodus and Joshua’s military conquest of the Holy Land … . Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated at Jericho for six years, found no evidence of destruction at that time’ (p. 54).

In fact, she claims that Jericho was uninhabited in 1400 BC, the Biblical date for the Exodus.

‘When the material is analysed in the light of our present knowledge, it becomes clear that there is a complete gap both on the tell and in the tombs between c.1580 BC and c.1400 BC.’

The expression ‘at that time’ is extremely significant. The fact is that there is plenty of evidence for slavery in Egypt, the existence of Moses, the Exodus and Joshua’s military conquest of the Holy Land. At Jericho, Professor Garstang uncovered toppled walls and a thick layer of ash all over the tell which denoted a fire that had been deliberately lit.

‘The outer wall suffered most, its remains falling down the slope … . Traces of intense fire are plain to see, including reddened masses of brick, cracked stones, charred timbers and ashes. Houses alongside the wall were found burnt to the ground, their roofs fallen upon the domestic pottery within.’

But it was not at the time archaeologists had allocated to the event.

‘It had been believed in the earlier excavations that the defensive walls of the Late Bronze Age town had been discovered, and that they had been destroyed by earthquake and fire. It became clear in the course of the recent excavations that these walls had been mistakenly identified. They actually belonged to the Early Bronze Age.’

From the information revealed in 1 Kings 6:1, the date of the Exodus can be calculated. It says, ‘And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD’.

Most historians agree that Solomon ascended the throne about 970 BC.4 His 4th year would be 966 BC, and 480 years before that would be about 1446 BC. According to the traditional dates accepted by most archaeologists, that would be during the rule of the 18th dynasty of Egypt.

Excerpt of "Searching for Moses", an article by David Down, Field Archeologist

Where is the acheological evidence of the Tower of Babel..

The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BC), saw it on his way through Babylon, and described it as having eight levels, and standing about 20 modern stories high. The internet and a local library are at your disposal. Feel free to double-check. As a side-note, the Tower of Babel is an excellent story for how different languages came to be.

Noah's Ark?

There are numerous reports relating to the ark that you can choose from; some more reliable than others. However, in absence of an actual decaying ark, using the Bible as the guide, John Woodmorappe wrote a book titled: "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" that provides detailed scientific answers to questions people such as yourself have about the ark.

Perhaps the reason that the archeological data matches what the Bible says is that the stories were written after the fact? Remember that even the oldest "copies" of the Old Testament are still much much younger than the actual events they portray. Oldcats

Are you serious? ALL history is written after the fact. Duh.

[Vercingetorix]

"Show a little respect, we are lawyers and surgeons, we design combat aircraft and captain ships. We are Judges, educators, and law-enforcement officers. And Honor Society high-school kids, too." -- Psalm 73

Yes, but are any of you evolutionary biologists or even gentlemen naturalists? It's fine to have an opinion on things with which you are only vaguely familiar. Unfortunately the bulk of the Creationist familiarity with the subject is drawn from a very few entirely worthless sources. Persistent misinformation alone drives Creationism.

Evolution is a necessity of life. Without the ability to change and adapt life could have been introduced to this planet in great abundance but would have shortly disappeared. There is no other aspect of life of which man is more certain than the fact of evolution.

[gore3000]

"With so many pieces missing, paleontology is just a game of who can make up the most fantastic interpretation for the smallest evidence possible. - me-

One of the things I find offensive is the cavalier way the anti-evolutionists dismiss other people's work."

You are wrong, I do not cavalierly dismiss the work of other people. I gave the reasons why I dismiss their work, allow me to quote myself:

Funny thing about evolutionists is that they admit the fossil record is inadequate themselves but they continue to make categorical statements proclaiming evolution to be true based on the very fossil record which they find inadequate!

Not only are there tremendous gaps in the fossil record, but also fossils tell us very little about a species. Fossils (except in very special circumstances which can be counted on the fingers of one hand) do not provide DNA. Fossils often do not provide a complete skeleton, just bits and pieces of the specimen. Fossils more importantly do not provide evidence of 99% of what makes up an individual, what makes each species, each individual different.

Now in my first paragraph I show a clear contradiction in the statements by evolutionists regarding the fossil record. Seems to me that they are saying heads I win tails you lose. Either the fossil record proves evolution or it does not, but this kind of double talk is totally unscientific.

In the second paragraph I point out what not many are aware of:
1. that DNA, the one thing which can open up dead species to fairly precise examination is almost never found in fossil digs.
2. that bones are a very small part of what makes an individual. The bones do not tell us anything about numerous important characteristics that need to be passed on from generation to generation if evolution is to be proven true.
3. that paleontologists make decisions about new species with very, very little bone evidence. Many so called dead species only consist of a few bones out of the hundreds in each individual. Yet, that does not stop paleontologists from making outrageous claims for each new find. A good example of this is the famous Lucy which pushed back the hominid species a few million years into the past. The face of Lucy is pure make believe, it is more plaster than bone. How could it be determined to be human like if they do not even know what the head really looked like? It is an outrage.

So in view of the above, I think all can see that I did not reach the conclusion you quoted in haste or without a strong basis for it. In case you need more proof of paleontological games, see the next posting.

[gore3000]

PALEONTOLOGICAL FRAUD

A great example of paleontological fraud is Eosimias. Eosimias was trumpeted by evos, by so called scientists and by the press 'the missing link of human evolution'. Here's Eosimias:

Time Magazine's Eosimias illustration
The Evolutionary tree showing Eosimias's place in it

This must be quite a find indeed! The whole history of man, the missing link, finally found! A great new specimen found!

There are many links to the pictures above, however you will have to look for a long time for the pictures of the bones showing this fantastic find. I found a site which showed the bones and guess what, they were from those totally unscientific folk called creationists. Imagine the nerve, the total gall of these people of showing the evidence, the bones, upon which those gorgeous drawings were made! How unscientific can they get?:

Alas! Here's the picture! The proof of macro-evolution, the proof that Darwin was right! The proof that God does not exist!

From:Evolution in the News - September 2000
In case you missed it, the "evidence" is in the case being held by the man, the bones are two, just above the white ruler.

However, this is not the only evidence for Eosimias of course, Here's the story of the lower jaw of Eosimias:
In a separate article in the journal Nature, the group reported on more fossils from a previously discovered third primate called Eosimias centennicus. They had discovered its teeth and jaws in the mid 1990s. Now they’ve got ankle bones, which they say backs up their controversial claim that Eosimias is an early ancestor of humans.
from:A Shrew Size Primate

Note that the jaw bones had been found some 10 years earlier in a part of China hundreds of miles away from the ankle bone find. One may ask how the jaw bones and the ankle bones were determined to be of the same creature? What scientific explanation could there be for such a determination?

No doubt they were genetically linked through evo supermollecular retro-dna analysis to each other (this is a wonderful new invention which can trace non-existing DNA back hundreds of millions of generations). From this awesome evidence they made the drawings, the articles, the missing links and a whole new family tree for mankind! And the best part about all this is that your taxes paid for this wonderful discovery!

[gore3000]

Without the ability to change and adapt life could have been introduced to this planet in great abundance but would have shortly disappeared.

You cite that as a proof of evolution, I would cite that as a proof that life was created. Let's look at the simplest form of life known, a single celled creature. It is such a complex system (and very ingenious) which it is totally impossible to believe it arose by chance. Two DNA strands, each the mirror image of the other for backup, RNA to tranduce the code into proteins, a feedback system to correct for errors, millions of these DNA base pairs working together to provide the functions of nourishment, reproduction, excretion, growth, etc. necessary in every living being. And all this is a small part of a being of which you can fit a trillion of them in a spoon! To ascribe such a complex, interrelated system to chance is totally ridiculous.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

There's an excellent magazine (IMHO) called "Biblical Archaeology" where they review digs in the Holy Land. There are many instances of archaeology confirming Biblical texts. They usually have great pictures of the Temple Mount and the dig sites.

I'll caveat with the comment that it may have too much of a naturalistic slant for some folks on this thread. But they do call it archaeology.

[Psalm 73]

"There is no other aspect of life of which man is more certain than the fact of evolution."

I don't believe any of us do not believe in micro-evolution, that is a verifiable fact, that we all have witnessed.
It is the macro-evolution theory that we have a difficult time with.
It is not a complete theory, not all wrapped up nice and tidy like a Birthday present.
Besides being no verifiable proof that one distinct species can become another entirely new species, (all viewable evolution is within species),
There are gaps and differing scientific views on mechanisms - with the scientific belief that these gaps and views will be smoothed over and proven given enough research.
Essentialy science has FAITH that this will take place. Creationism also take a degree of faith, too.
So if we are talking degrees of faith...
And the sentence on careers was just to illustrate that we are not all rejects from the set of "Deliverence" - we are not mental defectives or morons, despite what we read on FreeRepublic about ourselves.

[Elijah27]

Thanks! I'll check it out!