Arguments creationists should not use

Arguments creationists should not use (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

cih92 -> Arguments creationists should not use (9/10/2008 12:40:13 PM)
I found a web page on the Answers in Genesis website that discusses the arguments that creationists should not use. Here is the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

DanJames -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/10/2008 6:14:03 PM)
It's good stuff. It's like Snopes or Myth Busters for Creation apologetics.

iluvatar -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/11/2008 1:18:45 AM)
The link in the OP really should be www.answersingenesis.org, but I suppose you have to start somewhere. -Dan.

cow451 -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/11/2008 3:22:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames It's good stuff. It's like Snopes or Myth Busters for Creation apologetics. LOL

drmark -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/13/2008 9:49:47 PM)
Why should creationists argue the authoritative, inerrant, factually accurate narrative account of origins anyway, cih92? Does God's Word need any apologetic defense from us?

iluvatar -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/13/2008 9:53:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Why should creationists argue the authoritative, inerrant, factually accurate narrative account of origins anyway, cih92? Does God's Word need any apologetic defense from us? It helps if you want people to believe that it's scientifically valid - that it's consistent with the evidence found. -Dan.

drmark -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/13/2008 10:08:55 PM)
There is no "scientifically valid" observational data to confirm the origin of the universe. Only interpretations, theories, and inferences based on preconceived assumptions and worldviews are possible for a one-time event witnessed by no living person. One can make the evidence "consistent" with whatever faith-based paradigm desired, as readily seen on these S&O threads. The fact remains that creationists use the only reliable Eyewitness account of origins available for the basis of their paradigm. Interestingly enough, there is ZERO observational evidence to date which contradicts that historical record. There are tons of observations which contradict the uniformitarian naturalists' paradigm.

cih92 -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/14/2008 12:25:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Why should creationists argue the authoritative, inerrant, factually accurate narrative account of origins anyway, cih92? Does God's Word need any apologetic defense from us? 1 Peter 3:15 says that we should be always ready to give an answer for our hope. Knowing about science can help you refute the claims of the evolutionists.

drmark -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/14/2008 6:00:28 PM)
quote: Knowing about science can help you refute the claims of the evolutionists. Ahh, but evolutionism is not really about science; it's about a worldview of humanistic naturalism. Evolutionists are not much interested in claim refutation. Rather they want to justify their worldview. So I'm not sure how science can help us in that department, cih92. How would you say knowledge of scientific facts makes us better prepared "to give an answer for our hope" as commended by Peter?

Veritas -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/14/2008 9:04:50 PM)
I don't know why AiG bothers. Creationists still use those arguments, and will continue to do so. I've seen many of them on used on this board. What AiG should do is remove some of the blatant dishonesty from their own site.

DanJames -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/14/2008 11:58:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas I don't know why AiG bothers. Creationists still use those arguments, and will continue to do so. I've seen many of them on used on this board. What AiG should do is remove some of the blatant dishonesty from their own site. Someone that isn't going to go too far out of their way to find out what the right arguments are may use this list to sharpen their arguments. Though some may still use the arguments, I'm sure there are plenty who have stopped as a result of this list.

cow451 -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/15/2008 12:03:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas I don't know why AiG bothers. Creationists still use those arguments, and will continue to do so. I've seen many of them on used on this board. What AiG should do is remove some of the blatant dishonesty from their own site. But what would be left?[:D]

DanJames -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/15/2008 12:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas I don't know why AiG bothers. Creationists still use those arguments, and will continue to do so. I've seen many of them on used on this board. What AiG should do is remove some of the blatant dishonesty from their own site. But what would be left?[:D] You can't possibly be of the opinion that all of the information contained in the Answers in Genesis website is "blatant dishonesty". I personally can't see that any of the information was conceived and published with unscrupulous motives. If I started a new thread, would you be willing to explain what makes the two of you think that any of the information is dishonest?

cow451 -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/15/2008 6:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas I don't know why AiG bothers. Creationists still use those arguments, and will continue to do so. I've seen many of them on used on this board. What AiG should do is remove some of the blatant dishonesty from their own site. But what would be left?[:D] You can't possibly be of the opinion that all of the information contained in the Answers in Genesis website is "blatant dishonesty". I personally can't see that any of the information was conceived and published with unscrupulous motives. If I started a new thread, would you be willing to explain what makes the two of you think that any of the information is dishonest? J-O-K-E I'll rephrase: blatant unfacts.

cih92 -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/15/2008 7:09:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Knowing about science can help you refute the claims of the evolutionists. Ahh, but evolutionism is not really about science; it's about a worldview of humanistic naturalism. Evolutionists are not much interested in claim refutation. Rather they want to justify their worldview. So I'm not sure how science can help us in that department, cih92. How would you say knowledge of scientific facts makes us better prepared "to give an answer for our hope" as commended by Peter? Evolutionists give evidence of evolution by saying that there is a 3% difference between a monkey's DNA and a human being's DNA, that viruses can become resistant to drugs, that Neanderthal man had both ape-like and human-like features, that domestic dogs and wolves share a common ancestry and have separated from each other a long time ago, and so on. Knowing about science would help you to refute the claim that the evidence mentioned above justifies a belief in the theory of evolution.

drmark -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/15/2008 8:58:28 PM)
quote: Evolutionists give evidence of evolution by saying that there is a 3% difference between a monkey's DNA and a human being's DNA, that viruses can become resistant to drugs, that Neanderthal man had both ape-like and human-like features, that domestic dogs and wolves share a common ancestry and have separated from each other a long time ago, and so on. But the problem with this, cih92, is that all of these are true facts (except that we may quibble about what "a long time ago" means) which have merely been misinterpreted by evolutionists to support their religion of naturalism. One must attack the false assumptions underlying evolution, not the evidence being misinterpreted. quote: Knowing about science would help you to refute the claim that the evidence mentioned above justifies a belief in the theory of evolution. While I do agree that scientific knowledge (observation of data) completely fails to support evolutionary theory, the authoritative and inerrant Eyewitness account of human origins is the only valid way to refute evolution, because its adherents will claim any and every interpretation that justifies their faith-based belief system.

DanJames -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/16/2008 12:39:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas I don't know why AiG bothers. Creationists still use those arguments, and will continue to do so. I've seen many of them on used on this board. What AiG should do is remove some of the blatant dishonesty from their own site. But what would be left?[:D] You can't possibly be of the opinion that all of the information contained in the Answers in Genesis website is "blatant dishonesty". I personally can't see that any of the information was conceived and published with unscrupulous motives. If I started a new thread, would you be willing to explain what makes the two of you think that any of the information is dishonest? J-O-K-E I'll rephrase: blatant unfacts. I think the fact that they have such articles as "Arguments creationists should not use" speaks to the fact that they are interested in only the truth being used as argument. Were it not for Stephen J Gould, you'd be hard pressed to hear someone saying that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" is an argument that lay evolutionists should not use. Despite the fact that it is as unfounded as "the devil put the dinosaur bones in the dirt", it thrives. I think articles such as these speak to the fact that Creationists such as Ken Ham are interested in scientific endeavors such as research and debates being a search for the truth, rather than a search for evidence for one's own position.

cow451 -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/16/2008 4:39:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas I don't know why AiG bothers. Creationists still use those arguments, and will continue to do so. I've seen many of them on used on this board. What AiG should do is remove some of the blatant dishonesty from their own site. But what would be left?[:D] You can't possibly be of the opinion that all of the information contained in the Answers in Genesis website is "blatant dishonesty". I personally can't see that any of the information was conceived and published with unscrupulous motives. If I started a new thread, would you be willing to explain what makes the two of you think that any of the information is dishonest? J-O-K-E I'll rephrase: blatant unfacts. I think the fact that they have such articles as "Arguments creationists should not use" speaks to the fact that they are interested in only the truth being used as argument. Were it not for Stephen J Gould, you'd be hard pressed to hear someone saying that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" is an argument that lay evolutionists should not use. Despite the fact that it is as unfounded as "the devil put the dinosaur bones in the dirt", it thrives. I think articles such as these speak to the fact that Creationists such as Ken Ham are interested in scientific endeavors such as research and debates being a search for the truth, rather than a search for evidence for one's own position. The road to Sheol is paved with good intentions. At least Mr. Ham appears to be putting money into something he believes will benefit others in as opposed to Mr. Hovind.

DanJames -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/16/2008 5:09:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 The road to Sheol is paved with good intentions. At least Mr. Ham appears to be putting money into something he believes will benefit others in as opposed to Mr. Hovind. I don't think you even know what you're talking about. But yes, Ken Ham puts the donations that he receives to good work for the edification of the Church.

cow451 -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/16/2008 5:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 The road to Sheol is paved with good intentions. At least Mr. Ham appears to be putting money into something he believes will benefit others in as opposed to Mr. Hovind. I don't think you even know what you're talking about. But yes, Ken Ham puts the donations that he receives to good work for the edification of the Church. IOW, Ken Ham's good works and intentions don't make his endeavor scientific or accurate.

Consecrated2God -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/16/2008 6:05:33 PM)
Would anyone like to actually discuss the things in the link, so I don't have to nudge for being off-topic? One of the ones I hear a lot is the one about if we all came from apes, why are there still apes? I think it's kind of a funny thing to say, but I'm suprised that people think it's a serious argument against creationism.

Veritas -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/17/2008 3:17:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God Would anyone like to actually discuss the things in the link, so I don't have to nudge for being off-topic? One of the ones I hear a lot is the one about if we all came from apes, why are there still apes? I think it's kind of a funny thing to say, but I'm suprised that people think it's a serious argument against creationism. It is not supposed to be an argument against creationism. It is too often used by creationists to argue against evolution. It's been used on this board by creationists to try to use against evolution. AiG recommends that creationists refrain from using that argument. If my ancestors came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

KaseyTom -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/17/2008 5:25:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God Would anyone like to actually discuss the things in the link, so I don't have to nudge for being off-topic? One of the ones I hear a lot is the one about if we all came from apes, why are there still apes? I think it's kind of a funny thing to say, but I'm surprised that people think it's a serious argument against creationism. The reason why it's a bad argument to support Creationism is that evolutionist do not claim we came from apes. They claim that hominans (including us) and apes share a common ancestor from about 5-8 million years ago. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Hominintree4.gif

Consecrated2God -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/17/2008 8:18:37 AM)
quote: It is not supposed to be an argument against creationism. It is too often used by creationists to argue against evolution. Sorry, that's what I meant to say.

Veritas -> RE: Arguments creationists should not use (9/20/2008 11:25:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: It is not supposed to be an argument against creationism. It is too often used by creationists to argue against evolution. Sorry, that's what I meant to say. Ah... That makes more sense. Creationists use that argument and other bad arguments. It was posted that Darwin recanted on his deathbed earlier this year on this board. The second argument creationists shouldn't use is: "Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon." We've seen that argument used recently in this forum.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI