Creationsist say, "Don't use these arguments anymore&qu

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2005-10-03 11:51am

There's a webpage from answersingenesis.org that gives a long list of once used arguments that they no longer want creationists to use. I thought you may find the list interesing/amusing.

+http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-03 12:00pm

The funny thing is that ICR.org (Institute for Creation Research) dismisses most of the arguments used by AnswersInGenesis.Org with the same caveat: "creationists should stop using these arguments."

That's why it's so funny that creationists like to cite ICR.org as the most professional and scientific of the various creationist organizations; as a result of attempting to be more honest, they have ended up admitting that almost all of evolution is true. They even admit that evolutionary speciation is possible, but they (wait for this) claim that the existence of evolutionary speciation does not validate evolution theory. After all, they admit that evolution can produce species, but they insist that it can't produce all species, so evolution is still a lie

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2005-10-03 12:38pm

After reading that list, what exactly are they left with? Shouting "IT'S NOT TRUE, IT JUST CAN'T BE!!!"?

DaveJB · Post by **DaveJB** » 2005-10-03 01:02pm

Someone should E-Mail that list to Kent Hovind - last I heard, he was still claiming the Paluxy tracks as evidence of a young Earth, even though they were disproved twenty years ago!

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-10-03 02:30pm

DaveJB wrote:Someone should E-Mail that list to Kent Hovind - last I heard, he was still claiming the Paluxy tracks as evidence of a young Earth, even though they were disproved twenty years ago!

That's nothing. Hovind uses the "dust on the Moon" argument and, as I recall, even the second law of thermodynamics.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-10-03 03:35pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:After reading that list, what exactly are they left with? Shouting "IT'S NOT TRUE, IT JUST CAN'T BE!!!"?

I believe it's closer to "I may not know much about evolution, but I know what I like!"

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-10-03 04:17pm

DaveJB wrote:Someone should E-Mail that list to Kent Hovind - last I heard, he was still claiming the Paluxy tracks as evidence of a young Earth, even though they were disproved twenty years ago!

Read the site - he knows of this and tried to refute it. they have a response page for his response.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-10-03 04:20pm

Ender wrote:
DaveJB wrote:Someone should E-Mail that list to Kent Hovind - last I heard, he was still claiming the Paluxy tracks as evidence of a young Earth, even though they were disproved twenty years ago!
Read the site - he knows of this and tried to refute it. they have a response page for his response.

Link and link?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-10-03 04:21pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Ender wrote:
DaveJB wrote:Someone should E-Mail that list to Kent Hovind - last I heard, he was still claiming the Paluxy tracks as evidence of a young Earth, even though they were disproved twenty years ago!
Read the site - he knows of this and tried to refute it. they have a response page for his response.
Link and link?

READ THE ORIGINAL SITE!

Jesus, you guys are spouting off without looking at the original source evidence. Isn't that exactly what we hammer these idiots for?

DaveJB · Post by **DaveJB** » 2005-10-03 04:42pm

Here it is: Link

In all honesty I didn't think Hovind used any of those, other than the Paluxy bed one (hence why I never checked). But I suppose it's possible to give even someone like him too much credit...

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-10-03 05:54pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:After reading that list, what exactly are they left with? Shouting "IT'S NOT TRUE, IT JUST CAN'T BE!!!"?

Yes, but that's what they've always done. Nowadays they usually try to hide it though the use of the Magical Information Theory™ Card.

Anyhow, I've known about that list for some time, and I always find it amusing to direct creationists to it. Especially those who uses AIG as a source

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-10-03 06:26pm

‘Natural selection as tautology.’ Natural selection is in one sense a tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave the most offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The fittest.). But a lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised. There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in hand (e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can’t explain how motors work.) — it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something.

Funny that they don't understand that the assumption of the divine origin of the Bible is a tautology, since it is to be taken on faith based on what the Bible says - without external evidence.

‘There are no transitional forms.’ Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: ‘While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.’ See also Q&A: Fossils.

And they still don't get that all forms are transitional. This is a problem.

Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species. Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step (in his opinion, with which AiG obviously disagrees—see Darwin v The Eye and An eye for creation).

And yet they concede that beneficial mutations can and do occour - just not those that "increase genetic information".

‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information. See Q&A: Speciation.

This doesn't even make any sense. Clearly they are still hampered by this "within the kind" rubbish.

All in all: they are dodging. They appear to have backed down on numerous essentials, but they are mostly throwing up a smokescreen for their continued stubbornness.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-03 07:00pm

Actually debating over the phrase "survival of the fittest" is moronic, as the evolutionary theory is not based upon 4 words.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2005-10-03 10:08pm

Hmm... Also, those that are the fittest don't necessarily survive (freak accidents etc.).

Are there any "Arguments 'Evolutionists' should not use" lists?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-10-03 11:01pm

Here's a paraphrase of conversation I had with a Fundie just last Friday:

Fundie: The Bible is completely literally true. Everything Jesus said must be taken as fact.

Me: What about when Jesus said to cut off your hand or pluck out your eye if they "offend" you?

Fundie: Well, that part isn't literal. But the rest is.

Me: So what about Jesus saying he is the "bread of life"? Was his body really made out of bread?

Fundie: Well, that part isn't literal either. But except for those two, everything else is.

Me: So what about Jesus' parable of God judging the sheep versus the goats? Is that literal? Will God really sit down and account for the behavior of barn animals?

Fundie: Well, those THREE parts aren't literal, but everything else is.

Me:...Well, you get the picture.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-10-04 12:19am

Ender wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Ender wrote:Read the site - he knows of this and tried to refute it. they have a response page for his response.
Link and link?
READ THE ORIGINAL SITE!

Jesus, you guys are spouting off without looking at the original source evidence. Isn't that exactly what we hammer these idiots for?

I'm sorry? You must have made that post intended for someone else saying something entirely different than what I said. Asking for the links to see the AiG/Hovind spat isn't even relevent for that hissy fit of yours.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-10-04 12:49am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Ender wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote: Link and link?
READ THE ORIGINAL SITE!

Jesus, you guys are spouting off without looking at the original source evidence. Isn't that exactly what we hammer these idiots for?
I'm sorry? You must have made that post intended for someone else saying something entirely different than what I said. Asking for the links to see the AiG/Hovind spat isn't even relevent for that hissy fit of yours.

Like fuck its not. Both of you clearly didn't read the damn site linked to in the original post, or else you would have seen the links you were asking for very clearly distinguished in blue, and he would have seen Hovind already knew about it and responded to it.

But hey, lets not let the little fact you didn't bother to read the original article stop the two of you from me tooing all over this thread.

DaveJB · Post by **DaveJB** » 2005-10-04 04:34am

Ender wrote:Like fuck its not. Both of you clearly didn't read the damn site linked to in the original post, or else you would have seen the links you were asking for very clearly distinguished in blue, and he would have seen Hovind already knew about it and responded to it.

But hey, lets not let the little fact you didn't bother to read the original article stop the two of you from me tooing all over this thread.

That link was located right at the end of several paragraphs of bullshit justifications of creationism. Hence, I skipped over the introduction (and the link to the Hovind page in the process) and went straight to the arguments. Fair enough, I should have checked it more thoroughly. But frankly, I've read enough creationist literature to know that 9 times out of 10, anything that starts by proclaiming the bible to be the infallible word of God is just not worth the time to read.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-10-04 11:38am

There are a few atheist arguments that shouldn't be used, or at least, are frowned upon in some circles (namely the "giant fucking rock" theory and other logical paradoxes). They tend to stifle debate and some people just want to get to the real science and show how dumb Creationists are without getting into metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2005-10-04 11:42am

Also, the "God, strike me down. I'm WAAAITING." argument is solidly dumb. Don't use that one either.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-10-04 12:07pm

drachefly wrote:Also, the "God, strike me down. I'm WAAAITING." argument is solidly dumb. Don't use that one either.

Aww...but it's so elegant! It shows that either God a)has a sense of humor, b) isn't paying attention, or c) doesn't exist!

...actually, if God really did have a sense of humor, He would drop a pile of fish or something on me if I did that.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2005-10-04 01:19pm

I hope you're joking... but someone who went to eteamrevolution.net wasn't, and it was highly embarassing.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2005-10-04 02:11pm

Molyneux wrote:Aww...but it's so elegant! It shows that either God a)has a sense of humor, b) isn't paying attention, or c) doesn't exist!

...actually, if God really did have a sense of humor, He would drop a pile of fish or something on me if I did that.

There's also secret answer d) God doesn't give a shit about proving you wrong.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2005-10-04 02:13pm

The Hovind review page is hilarious.

[quote= Hovind] The Mammoth was not designed to be a cold weather animal.[/quote]

They pretty much take him apart from the creationists side as completely as he gets owned by reality.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2005-10-04 02:18pm

Setesh wrote:The Hovind review page is hilarious.

Hovind wrote: The Mammoth was not designed to be a cold weather animal.
They pretty much take him apart from the creationists side as completely as he gets owned by reality.

Yes, the fur was used to increase surface area so the mammoth could live in the tropics and dissipate heat.

So, why do people pay attention to him?