Common Creationist Canards

[Haven]

Creationists (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:

• 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.

Debate questions: Are these common creationist concepts coherent? Why or why not? Can such concepts be shown to be relevant to the natural world? Are these concepts biologically sound, or just meaningless canards?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 46 by Swrrws]

I agree with that generation given by the bible as a huge flaw to come to the age of the earth. However, if one were to go by an absolute literal translation of the biblical account that could give a decent approximation of the age of the earth even if it flies in the face of all observable data.(I don't think the generational method found in the bible can be used to find a precise age of the earth nor any method using the bible)

Really the bible is in the eye of the beholder and as such being open to interpretation there is no one with a gun requiring one to believe in said absolute literal translation.
Just take for instance yourself an Volbigrade holding two distinctly different positions yet based on the same scripture.

I am glad you have joined this site and I am always keen on gaining new insights and perspectives.

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 46 by Swrrws]

I agree with that generation given by the bible as a huge flaw to come to the age of the earth. However, if one were to go by an absolute literal translation of the biblical account that could give a decent approximation of the age of the earth even if it flies in the face of all observable data.(I don't think the generational method found in the bible can be used to find a precise age of the earth nor any method using the bible)

Really the bible is in the eye of the beholder and as such being open to interpretation there is no one with a gun requiring one to believe in said absolute literal translation.
Just take for instance yourself an Volbigrade holding two distinctly different positions yet based on the same scripture.

I am glad you have joined this site and I am always keen on gaining new insights and perspectives.

That is one of the reasons I love my faith. It is so challenging to try and reconcile others valid beliefs with what I have been given to know as true.

I come and go here as I am a long haul trucker by profession and this place steals my much needed sleep! Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate the genetics lesson.

[Volbrigade]

[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?

Please explain how the creation story in Genesis is the best explanatory account using the scientific evidence you alluded to.

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.

If I were saying any of the things you characterize me as saying, then I'd agree with you.

What you imply is that The Bible, when placed in its "proper" ministerial (i.e., subordinate) position in regard to science, contains some valuable truths.

It is actually the other way around.

Science, when placed in ITS proper ministerial position to The Bible, reveals truths in regard to the way God has constructed His creation.

The Bible is MAGISTERIAL (ruling) over "Science".

You may be interested in my little essay on the subject, here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24044

And if you're not familiar with it already, please check out this website -- it will answer a lot of your questions and doubts (outstanding search engine -- just type in what you interested in; e.g., "evidence of the flood"):

http://creation.com/

By the way -- Goat is wrong in regard to the bottleneck.

[Haven]

The Bible is MAGISTERIAL (ruling) over "Science".

If that is the case, then what is the point of even presenting scientific evidence; of even doing science at all?

If you believe the Bible is "magisterial" over the scientific method and empirical evidence from the natural world, then I respectfully see no point in continuing this discussion. We're truly at an impasse. You've taken a position of fideism, and no evidence I can offer can defeat that position because fideism is by definition impervious to evidence.

As someone who accepts the primacy of reason and science, all I can ever offer you is evidence. If you aren't interested in what the evidence says, then I have nothing more to say.

Be well, friend .

[Goat]

[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?

Please explain how the creation story in Genesis is the best explanatory account using the scientific evidence you alluded to.

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.

If I were saying any of the things you characterize me as saying, then I'd agree with you.

What you imply is that The Bible, when placed in its "proper" ministerial (i.e., subordinate) position in regard to science, contains some valuable truths.

It is actually the other way around.

Science, when placed in ITS proper ministerial position to The Bible, reveals truths in regard to the way God has constructed His creation.

The Bible is MAGISTERIAL (ruling) over "Science".

You may be interested in my little essay on the subject, here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24044

And if you're not familiar with it already, please check out this website -- it will answer a lot of your questions and doubts (outstanding search engine -- just type in what you interested in; e.g., "evidence of the flood"):

http://creation.com/

By the way -- Goat is wrong in regard to the bottleneck.

I have seen that website. If it is FULL of misinformation and prevarications.

Please, show me how anything on 'creation.com' is.. well, true.

[Ooberman]

If the Bible is "magisterial" over science, then we should close all the hospitals and pray over the sick.


Let's see how long Christians will stand for that...

[sfs]

By the way -- Goat is wrong in regard to the bottleneck.

Goat didn't say anything about the bottleneck; I did. And if you think I was wrong about it, present evidence.

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 53 by Volbrigade]

I searched creaton.com for a very simple question. The age of the earth. No answer was given. What I was given was several paragraphs attempting a logical dance with zero evidence and failing. The article, or more accurately, the rant assumes that there are no constants in the universe, at all, when there most certainly is. It states that because there are no constants we cannot truly know the age of the earth or really anything provided to us by the application of the scientific method. It then provides several links based on scientific research. You cannot have it both ways. A world view must be consistent or it is just fantasy and conjecture.

I have to agree with the others. This portion of the "debate" must end because of the stance you have adopted. I would challenge you to see this not as a victory, but as a chance to question why your world view must resort to the same sort of mental gymnastics and "doublethink" as that of those directly opposite you on the spectrum of ideas.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 53 by Volbrigade]

I searched creaton.com for a very simple question. The age of the earth. No answer was given. What I was given was several paragraphs attempting a logical dance with zero evidence and failing. The article, or more accurately, the rant assumes that there are no constants in the universe, at all, when there most certainly is. It states that because there are no constants we cannot truly know the age of the earth or really anything provided to us by the application of the scientific method. It then provides several links based on scientific research. You cannot have it both ways. A world view must be consistent or it is just fantasy and conjecture.

I have to agree with the others. This portion of the "debate" must end because of the stance you have adopted. I would challenge you to see this not as a victory, but as a chance to question why your world view must resort to the same sort of mental gymnastics and "doublethink" as that of those directly opposite you on the spectrum of ideas.

Is that so? Are you sure you had your reading glasses on?

http://creation.com/search?q=age%20of%20the%20earth

A world view must be consistent or it is just fantasy and conjecture.

Which is exactly what the microbes2men evolutionary myth is.

The article, or more accurately, the rant assumes that there are no constants in the universe, at all

Which is a position that is gaining more and more acceptance. If it is true that the speed of light is slowing down, it gives dramatic support to our universe as being a digital simulation of a higher reality (composed of indivisible units -- quanta).

This is what The Bible has stated for 3,500 years.

It implies that the heretofore "constants of the universe" are not constant at all (of course, they never were for Big Bangers, who for decades have resorted to ad hoc "inflationary" theories to solve the insurmountable problems with their ideas. But even a blind hog roots up an acorn now and again -- turns out, they were right! 186K mi/pr/sec is NOT "the speed limit of the universe"; light HAS exceeded [by categorical factors] in the past, just as they surmised! Just not the way, or for the reasons, that they do... ).

Your main problem with a straightforward reading of the Genesis account, if you accept Genesis 1:1 (if you don't, would you mind using another term to describe yourself besides 'Christian'? It's not just a noise that one makes with their mouth; but requires adherence to certain basic [fundamental? ] beliefs and principles), is the time element involved.

But whether God created the entire universe, fully formed, in a single instant; or over 6 days, 6,000 years ago; or the proposed 14 (or 16, or whatever -- they're always needing more time in order to make nothing explode in such a way as to result in human intelligence, through the random processes of entropy) billion years --

all are equally viable possibilities.

What remains, having accepted that premise, is to determine, by careful analysis, which one of those possibilities is TRUE.

One possibility can be dismissed, by the intellectually honest -- the parenthetic one, alluded to above -- the materialist, uncaused, unguided, particles2people Big Bang myth.

Regarding the three that stand, praise God there are brilliant scientists willing to take on the yeoman's job of countering the prevailing lies and misrepresentations manufactured by the God-hating (or "God indifferent" -- which is actually worse) secular hegemony.

For instance -- the interchangeable (all secularists are monotonously alike -- it is the saints who are "gloriously different" ) sfs -- not Goat -- claims there is no genetic bottleneck, which is conclusive evidence of the veracity of the Flood account.

Three worldwide strains of mitochondrial DNA, which is passed exclusively through the mother; three women of childbearing age aboard the Ark (there is some minor genetic drift from the three main strains, due to mutations over the last 4,500 years).

Sfs points to the torture of this evidence, in order to make it confess to the presumption of tens of thousands of years of uphill human development, from a monkey to a man. He leaves out that at the current rate of accumulated mutations within the genome, we should be extinct by now, if we had been a species for that long.

If you are more comfortable accepting the worldview of those who have created a mythic structure to explain our reality, without the need for a creator God; and shoe-horning Biblical truth into that paradigm -- I understand. I was, too, for awhile.

But long before I became a YEC, I came to understand (first) the unsatisfactory nature of microbes2men; and then the impossibility of it.

Still, milk is more comforting than meat. I pray that you continue to grow in grace and truth, until you develop a taste for the real stuff. And that you will develop an appreciation for the courageous and stalwart scientists at ICR, AIG, CMI, and elsewhere, who diligently pursue truth in the face of enormous opposition.

Someone said the science cited at CMI is "horrendous" -- but that is either the rankest of uninformed, unsubstantiated opinion; or just a bald faced (and damnable) lie.

[sfs]

Which is a position that is gaining more and more acceptance.

No, the position that physical constants have changed significantly in the last 10 billion years is not gaining more acceptance, except perhaps among a fringe of creationists. Since these are people who devote their lives to ignoring reality in favor of their preconceived ideas, their opinions on physical constants are of no interest to physicists.

If it is true that the speed of light is slowing down, it gives dramatic support to our universe as being a digital simulation of a higher reality (composed of indivisible units -- quanta).

Likewise, it's also true that if pigs have wings, it gives dramatic support to the idea of pigs flying.

It implies that the heretofore "constants of the universe" are not constant at all (of course, they never were for Big Bangers, who for decades have resorted to ad hoc "inflationary" theories to solve the insurmountable problems with their ideas.

Varying constants are not required for the Big Bang theory.

Your main problem with a straightforward reading of the Genesis account, if you accept Genesis 1:1 (if you don't, would you mind using another term to describe yourself besides 'Christian'? It's not just a noise that one makes with their mouth; but requires adherence to certain basic [fundamental? ] beliefs and principles), is the time element involved.

I don't accept Genesis 1:1 as a historical account of anything, and yes, I'd mind very much using a term other than "Christian" to describe myself. Sure, there are certain fundamental beliefs of Christianity, and one of them is that nothing, nothing at all, should be added to the gospel as a requirement for salvation. If you're adding a requirement to believe in Genesis 1:1, then you're the one who should find a different term for yourself, I'm afraid, because that's no Christian teaching.

For instance -- the interchangeable (all secularists are monotonously alike -- it is the saints who are "gloriously different" ) sfs -- not Goat -- claims there is no genetic bottleneck, which is conclusive evidence of the veracity of the Flood account.

The people in the Bible study I lead, the people I teach in Sunday School, the congregants I serve communion to, and the ministers who look to me for advice about scientific matters would all be surprised to learn that I am a secularist.

Three worldwide strains of mitochondrial DNA, which is passed exclusively through the mother; three women of childbearing age aboard the Ark (there is some minor genetic drift from the three main strains, due to mutations over the last 4,500 years).

This description bears no relation to the actual distribution of mtDNA haplogroups.

Sfs points to the torture of this evidence, in order to make it confess to the presumption of tens of thousands of years of uphill human development, from a monkey to a man.

No, I pointed to the real analysis of the real evidence by real scientists. That analysis made no presumption about the time involved -- that falls out of the data naturally, and doesn't have to be presumed -- and says nothing at all about monkeys. Of course, you would know this if you'd actually read the research, instead of simply inventing lies about it and me.

He leaves out that at the current rate of accumulated mutations within the genome, we should be extinct by now, if we had been a species for that long.

I leave it out for the obvious reason that it's false. I tend to leave out falsehoods. (I suggest you give that practice a try.)

If you are more comfortable accepting the worldview of those who have created a mythic structure to explain our reality, without the need for a creator God; and shoe-horning Biblical truth into that paradigm -- I understand. I was, too, for awhile.
But long before I became a YEC, I came to understand (first) the unsatisfactory nature of microbes2men; and then the impossibility of it.

Still, milk is more comforting than meat. I pray that you continue to grow in grace and truth, until you develop a taste for the real stuff. And that you will develop an appreciation for the courageous and stalwart scientists at ICR, AIG, CMI, and elsewhere, who diligently pursue truth in the face of enormous opposition.

Someone said the science cited at CMI is "horrendous" -- but that is either the rankest of uninformed, unsubstantiated opinion; or just a bald faced (and damnable) lie.

For someone who tells so many whoppers, you sure are free with the accusations of lying. (You're also awfully keen on telling God whom he should be damning. Are you positive he wants your advice? I mean, a Christian might think it was a tad arrogant to be telling him what to do that way.)

But just to be clear: the science cited at CMI is indeed horrendous. My opinion is very well informed, and can be substantiated by reference to the primary scientific literature, the same literature cited by CMI in its articles. And no, that's not a lie.