- Information: An ill-defined concept typically used when discussing genetics. Creationists often claim that evolution can't produce "new information," by which they generally mean "new genetic material." This is false. Also, "information" is not a scientific term and it has no standing in biology.
Irreducible Complexity: A claim that certain features of (usually animal) life, such as eyes, limbs, and wings, could not have evolved because said features would be useless in a less-than-fully-formed state. This concept is useless because no features of life have been found to be irreducibly complex.
Kind: Another ill-defined concept that essentially means whatever the creationist wants it to at the time. May be equated with species, genus, order, or something completely novel or incoherent. Generally, it's meant to draw the line between "microevolution" (changes within a "kind") and macroevolution (the change of one "kind" into another "kind"). Creationists should kindly provide a definition of this concept or it is useless.
Macroevolution and Microevolution: Unscientific terms meant to divide the unitary process of evolution. As mentioned before, microevolution is said to be changes within a "kind" and macroevolution is said to be changes between "kinds." Without a coherent definition of "kind," this doesn't get off the ground.
Common Creationist Canards
Moderator: Moderators
-
Haven
- Guru
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
- Location: Great Barrington, MA
- Has thanked: 205 times
- Been thanked: 209 times
Common Creationist Canards
Post #1Creationists (especially of the young-Earth variety) tend to use several ill-defined, unscientific, and flat-out erroneous terms and concepts when arguing in favor of creationism or critiquing evolution. These include, but are not limited to:
Haven
“Reserve your right to think.†- Hypatia
“A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence†- David Hume
“Reserve your right to think.†- Hypatia
“A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence†- David Hume
Post #41
The mitochondrial DNA research is actually quite old now. Whole-genome data, which is vastly more informative, has been available for several years, and it conclusively rules out a narrow bottleneck for the entire human population.Swrrws wrote: In fact even recent mitochondrial DNA research points to a narrow bottleneck of the human race in our distant past. I am assuming the well read posters here know the research.
Different analytical methods, using somewhat different types of whole-genome data, have drawn a consistent picture of the overall demographic history of the last hundred thousand years or more, and it doesn't include a bottleneck. Methods based on allele frequency (most notably the program dadi from Carlos Bustamante's lab) have found no bottleneck in African populations, while methods based on single genomes find a very modest decrease in population within Africa (see figure 3 in this preprint, for example). Both methods can easily detect pronounced bottlenecks in non-African populations.
In short, a global flood that reduced the human population to a handful has not happened within the last several hundred thousand years, based solely on human genetic data.
Post #42
[Replying to post 41 by sfs]
I did not know that. I thought that the "mitochondrial eve" thing was still accepted. You seem to know what you are talking about so I will defer to you on the subject. I don't know if language was developed enough to share a consistent story from over 100,000 yrs ago. I would guess not. I do still find some of the common threads interesting although I admit much of that information comes from sources looking for those threads.
It is a fun exercise to think about what events in pre-history genesis may be referring to and how it shaped what we read today. At the very least it is a link to extremely old ideas that we can hold in our hands today. It is unfortunate that so much emotion is tied up in a couple of pages of the OT. Christianity could reach so many more people if there weren't people running around saying fossils were the devil's work.
I did not know that. I thought that the "mitochondrial eve" thing was still accepted. You seem to know what you are talking about so I will defer to you on the subject. I don't know if language was developed enough to share a consistent story from over 100,000 yrs ago. I would guess not. I do still find some of the common threads interesting although I admit much of that information comes from sources looking for those threads.
It is a fun exercise to think about what events in pre-history genesis may be referring to and how it shaped what we read today. At the very least it is a link to extremely old ideas that we can hold in our hands today. It is unfortunate that so much emotion is tied up in a couple of pages of the OT. Christianity could reach so many more people if there weren't people running around saying fossils were the devil's work.
Post #43
[Replying to post 40 by Goat]
I have an open view on Genesis. You will not get an argument from me on anything relating to its historical claims. I find it to be an intriguing book. I wonder what possibly it is referring to when it speaks of the men of old and the nephilim or giants. I want to know why there seems to be other people when Adam and Eve arrive after exile. I want to know who was going to attack Cain. The book is written as though the audience already knows the answers and so there seems as though there must be or have been answers. It is interesting and fun to contemplate.
I have an open view on Genesis. You will not get an argument from me on anything relating to its historical claims. I find it to be an intriguing book. I wonder what possibly it is referring to when it speaks of the men of old and the nephilim or giants. I want to know why there seems to be other people when Adam and Eve arrive after exile. I want to know who was going to attack Cain. The book is written as though the audience already knows the answers and so there seems as though there must be or have been answers. It is interesting and fun to contemplate.
-
Volbrigade
- Banned
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm
Post #44
[Replying to post 37 by Swrrws]
Here's the deal: people are always asking "what evidence do you have to support the claims made in/by The Bible?"
My answer: ALL the evidence does.
That is: what we now understand about time, space, matter; the geologic and fossil records; the properties of DNA (the death knell of microbes2men evolutionism) -- all of it lines up with the Biblical narrative. And since we can trust it in that regard, we can also trust it in regard to the fallenness of our condition -- which is self evident.
You say the creation story as written "is compatible with the knowledge at the time of its writing". Indeed it is. And it is even more compatible with the knowledge we have now. Which is exactly what we would expect from a book that was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and is intended for the instruction and enlightenment of all men, in all times, in all places.
Scientists have been looking for a "unified theory", that explains everything, for generations. The problem is, they want to leave out God as the source and ground for it.
It's like looking for a unified theory of the solar system that leaves out the sun and its gravity. But even that's not nearly preposterous enough to use as an example: which is why modern science has degenerated into a ridiculous mystical religion, complete with a priesthood (Note: "Science"; not technology, which utilizes known scientific principles to engineer useful products. Technology is totally divorced from speculations about cosmic origins, or microbes turning into men).
The Bible IS the unified theory.
As for the OP -- all of those terms are completely valid, in terms of dismantling the microbes2men myth. The real objection to them is, that is precisely what they do.
The problem with elaborate theories that seek to explain origins, and cosmic, geologic, and biological history, apart from the Creator God that made it all (theories which will be posited today, rejected tomorrow), is that once accepted, one will live their life as though God doesn't exist.
Once that stance is adopted, it becomes NECESSARY for God not to exist. And all evidence must be made to conform to that necessity; which becomes an unspoken (and unchallenged) presupposition.
If by "friend", you are referring to me -- thanks.Sorry if this is a wishy washy opinion post but I wanted to help our friend provide what flood "evidence" there is without fighting a battle over origins/TOE.
Here's the deal: people are always asking "what evidence do you have to support the claims made in/by The Bible?"
My answer: ALL the evidence does.
That is: what we now understand about time, space, matter; the geologic and fossil records; the properties of DNA (the death knell of microbes2men evolutionism) -- all of it lines up with the Biblical narrative. And since we can trust it in that regard, we can also trust it in regard to the fallenness of our condition -- which is self evident.
You say the creation story as written "is compatible with the knowledge at the time of its writing". Indeed it is. And it is even more compatible with the knowledge we have now. Which is exactly what we would expect from a book that was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and is intended for the instruction and enlightenment of all men, in all times, in all places.
Scientists have been looking for a "unified theory", that explains everything, for generations. The problem is, they want to leave out God as the source and ground for it.
It's like looking for a unified theory of the solar system that leaves out the sun and its gravity. But even that's not nearly preposterous enough to use as an example: which is why modern science has degenerated into a ridiculous mystical religion, complete with a priesthood (Note: "Science"; not technology, which utilizes known scientific principles to engineer useful products. Technology is totally divorced from speculations about cosmic origins, or microbes turning into men).
The Bible IS the unified theory.
As for the OP -- all of those terms are completely valid, in terms of dismantling the microbes2men myth. The real objection to them is, that is precisely what they do.
The problem with elaborate theories that seek to explain origins, and cosmic, geologic, and biological history, apart from the Creator God that made it all (theories which will be posited today, rejected tomorrow), is that once accepted, one will live their life as though God doesn't exist.
Once that stance is adopted, it becomes NECESSARY for God not to exist. And all evidence must be made to conform to that necessity; which becomes an unspoken (and unchallenged) presupposition.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #45
[Replying to post 42 by Swrrws]
Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam are just really bad names for what that concept is trying to explain. None of the M Eve or Y adam theories support a bottleneck. Now often places like Answers in Genesis will latch on to something like this and claim it is scientific evidence for an actual adam and eve or Noah claim but several key factors are important
Y Adam and M Eve likely never met nor reproduced together. Some figures even have them at least 100,000 years apart.
Y Adam and M Eve are not a fixed individual.
They were not the only Homo Sapiens during their lifetimes.
Also many nuclear genetic studies have shown that the human population has not dipped below 20,000 individuals. The Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve represent the most recent common ancestor to which all lineages can be traced. As populations die out the individuals change.
I generally am tired of arguing about M eve and Y adam as it becomes a semantics game and requires a sickening level of manipulation of the actual data to support the position that it represents an actual adam eve or noah scenario
I would also like to point out that from Adam to Jesus their at most is only 76 generations putting the age of the earth from Adam to now at roughly 4-6000 years. None of that remotely lines up to any Y chromosome adam or Mitochondrial eve.
Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam are just really bad names for what that concept is trying to explain. None of the M Eve or Y adam theories support a bottleneck. Now often places like Answers in Genesis will latch on to something like this and claim it is scientific evidence for an actual adam and eve or Noah claim but several key factors are important
Y Adam and M Eve likely never met nor reproduced together. Some figures even have them at least 100,000 years apart.
Y Adam and M Eve are not a fixed individual.
They were not the only Homo Sapiens during their lifetimes.
Also many nuclear genetic studies have shown that the human population has not dipped below 20,000 individuals. The Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve represent the most recent common ancestor to which all lineages can be traced. As populations die out the individuals change.
I generally am tired of arguing about M eve and Y adam as it becomes a semantics game and requires a sickening level of manipulation of the actual data to support the position that it represents an actual adam eve or noah scenario
I would also like to point out that from Adam to Jesus their at most is only 76 generations putting the age of the earth from Adam to now at roughly 4-6000 years. None of that remotely lines up to any Y chromosome adam or Mitochondrial eve.
Post #46
[Replying to post 45 by DanieltheDragon]
Cool. This is an area I know nothing about. Now a little less than nothing! I think it is fascinating how we can find this stuff out.
As for the generations idea being a way to understand the age of the earth there is a huge flaw. It was commonplace, and still is when claiming provenance in places of Title such as England, to skip large swaths of ancestors and only hit the well established highlights. For example if it is well known and legally established that G family is descended from A family then B-F wouldn't be mentioned. Also any ancestor that may have been dishonored would also be removed.
In the Gospels it was certainly the authors objective to write a succinct account and link Jesus to the royal bloodline of David. Not give a formula for the age of the earth.
Cool. This is an area I know nothing about. Now a little less than nothing! I think it is fascinating how we can find this stuff out.
As for the generations idea being a way to understand the age of the earth there is a huge flaw. It was commonplace, and still is when claiming provenance in places of Title such as England, to skip large swaths of ancestors and only hit the well established highlights. For example if it is well known and legally established that G family is descended from A family then B-F wouldn't be mentioned. Also any ancestor that may have been dishonored would also be removed.
In the Gospels it was certainly the authors objective to write a succinct account and link Jesus to the royal bloodline of David. Not give a formula for the age of the earth.
Post #47
[Replying to post 44 by Volbrigade]
I will agree with all the evidence points to God as a fellow Christian. I cannot however intellectually marry a world that is proven, not theory, to have been created in more than 6 days. I cannot defend a flood that there is no evidence of beyond human story telling. I can say that Genesis establishes foundational beliefs about the truth of our world and our condition. I will also not say that man arose from slime or that life just happened. But I won't deny all of TOE just because it asks questions of my faith. Indeed it makes it stronger.
Of course the Bible is truth. But there is truth in science and it is no less valid because what it studies is the creation of God and the physical processes used to bring this world about. Yes. To some science is their religion. This does not mean that Christians should take the opposing stance and fight against it automatically. Can't we use this gained knowledge to point out the beauty in the vastness and complexity with which we are confronted? Instead of shouting that God made that bird the way it is why not marvel at how He chose to do it? I understand the dangers of permissiveness and that is not what I am advocating. In order to reach the world we cannot stoop to its level, but certainly we can bring it up, with its knowledge, to Gods.
I will agree with all the evidence points to God as a fellow Christian. I cannot however intellectually marry a world that is proven, not theory, to have been created in more than 6 days. I cannot defend a flood that there is no evidence of beyond human story telling. I can say that Genesis establishes foundational beliefs about the truth of our world and our condition. I will also not say that man arose from slime or that life just happened. But I won't deny all of TOE just because it asks questions of my faith. Indeed it makes it stronger.
Of course the Bible is truth. But there is truth in science and it is no less valid because what it studies is the creation of God and the physical processes used to bring this world about. Yes. To some science is their religion. This does not mean that Christians should take the opposing stance and fight against it automatically. Can't we use this gained knowledge to point out the beauty in the vastness and complexity with which we are confronted? Instead of shouting that God made that bird the way it is why not marvel at how He chose to do it? I understand the dangers of permissiveness and that is not what I am advocating. In order to reach the world we cannot stoop to its level, but certainly we can bring it up, with its knowledge, to Gods.
Post #48
[Replying to post 44 by Volbrigade]
I would also suggest watching out for unsubstantiated biblically based claims in these open forums not dealing with doctrine. They do not fly and are technically against the rules. There are some incredibly intelligent people who inhabit these pages and they expect outside evidence to support your claims. I try and stick to apologetics since as you have seen I am no scientist.
I would also suggest watching out for unsubstantiated biblically based claims in these open forums not dealing with doctrine. They do not fly and are technically against the rules. There are some incredibly intelligent people who inhabit these pages and they expect outside evidence to support your claims. I try and stick to apologetics since as you have seen I am no scientist.
-
Volbrigade
- Banned
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm
Post #49
[Replying to post 47 by Swrrws]
As Christians, our primary concern is truth. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life.
"All who are of the TRUTH hear my (His) voice."
If it was TRUE that God generated a Big Bang, 16 billion (or whatever) years ago; and used gradual evolution to bring about the formation of man; and that Genesis is a colorful explanatory fable; then we have to accept that.
But that is not the case.
The truth is, the Biblical account is the best explanatory account, from the standpoint of the scientific evidence.
Of course, you will never hear that from those deny God. Or from those that want to compromise with them.
They will say things like "there is no evidence for catastrophic global flood." Which is utter nonsense -- and a lie to boot ("the truth is not in them").
Believe in the microbes2men myth if you must -- I did, for many years, thanks to my lifelong indoctrination -- it is not a soteriological issue.
But it is a TRUTH issue. Jesus referred to the veracity of the Genesis account several times -- was he deceived?
Did God pronounce millions and millions of years of death, disease, and carnivory "very good"?
Or does it make any difference, to Christians, what the Bible says at all? Is Christianity so elastic that it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean?
Is there no difference between Christianity and mindless secular Whateverism?
As Christians, our primary concern is truth. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life.
"All who are of the TRUTH hear my (His) voice."
If it was TRUE that God generated a Big Bang, 16 billion (or whatever) years ago; and used gradual evolution to bring about the formation of man; and that Genesis is a colorful explanatory fable; then we have to accept that.
But that is not the case.
The truth is, the Biblical account is the best explanatory account, from the standpoint of the scientific evidence.
Of course, you will never hear that from those deny God. Or from those that want to compromise with them.
They will say things like "there is no evidence for catastrophic global flood." Which is utter nonsense -- and a lie to boot ("the truth is not in them").
Believe in the microbes2men myth if you must -- I did, for many years, thanks to my lifelong indoctrination -- it is not a soteriological issue.
But it is a TRUTH issue. Jesus referred to the veracity of the Genesis account several times -- was he deceived?
Did God pronounce millions and millions of years of death, disease, and carnivory "very good"?
Or does it make any difference, to Christians, what the Bible says at all? Is Christianity so elastic that it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean?
Is there no difference between Christianity and mindless secular Whateverism?
Post #50
Please explain how the creation story in Genesis is the best explanatory account using the scientific evidence you alluded to.Volbrigade wrote: [Replying to post 47 by Swrrws]
As Christians, our primary concern is truth. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life.
"All who are of the TRUTH hear my (His) voice."
If it was TRUE that God generated a Big Bang, 16 billion (or whatever) years ago; and used gradual evolution to bring about the formation of man; and that Genesis is a colorful explanatory fable; then we have to accept that.
But that is not the case.
The truth is, the Biblical account is the best explanatory account, from the standpoint of the scientific evidence.
Of course, you will never hear that from those deny God. Or from those that want to compromise with them.
They will say things like "there is no evidence for catastrophic global flood." Which is utter nonsense -- and a lie to boot ("the truth is not in them").
Believe in the microbes2men myth if you must -- I did, for many years, thanks to my lifelong indoctrination -- it is not a soteriological issue.
But it is a TRUTH issue. Jesus referred to the veracity of the Genesis account several times -- was he deceived?
Did God pronounce millions and millions of years of death, disease, and carnivory "very good"?
Or does it make any difference, to Christians, what the Bible says at all? Is Christianity so elastic that it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean?
Is there no difference between Christianity and mindless secular Whateverism?
Jesus was not deceived. If the Bible spoke of the Big Bang and the accretion of planetary bodies over time not only would no one know what He was talking about, but today faith would be replaced with knowledge of God. Everyone would know the Bible was truth. Everyone would be saved. Yet it is only for the elect. "He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." Matt 13:11
What evidence is there beyond the prevalence of a loosely shared story of a world wide flood?
I believe man was created apart. I do not wish to say more on the subject because a war will rage and this site has beat that dead horse into a fine mist.
Christianity cannot exist intellectually separate from the world. It must marry science and philosophy together with theology and doctrine to have a seat at the table of ideas. In the words of a famous apologetic," Let my people think!".
Also your assertion that science and religion somehow exist in parallel dimensions is erroneous. Many of the greatest minds in the history of humanity were Christians.
