Bad Creationist Arguments

[dannibear]

A lot of the articles I post in the evidence and Bible prophecy part of the forum come from CMI (Creation Ministries International) and they are a great tool to use in strengthening or defending your knowledge on Creation science. I wanted to post the link to the section I think is very important: poor arguments used by those who defend the Creation account. Please read the ones they share in this list to make sure that what you believe to be evidence is not a myth popularized by culture.

Q&A

 

[dannibear]

Some examples they write about in greater detail in that link:
“Women have one more rib than men.”
“Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.”
“Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin.”
“Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon.”

. . . and many more. I have heard about a couple of these and am glad I looked into them more.

 

[David777]

Hello dannibear.

Great to see you active, I must say you do post some
very interesting information.

Read the information and noticed one problematic
paragraph.

There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may
be 10,000 years old or even more.” This is not so. The language is clear that
they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father
at the birth of the next name in line. So the Earth is only about 6,000 years old.
See Biblical chronogenealogies for exegetical proof.

Jericho is considered to be one of the oldest cities in the world.

Traces of habitation from 9000 BC. Fortifications date to 6800 BC (or earlier),
making Jericho the earliest known walled city.

If Jericho is accepted by Biblical archeology at 9000 BC, then how
could the earth be 6000 years old?

Crunch, genealogies can not be used to date the earth!

What do you think dannibear?

 

[dannibear]

Hello dannibear.

Great to see you active, I must say you do post some
very interesting information.

Read the information and noticed one problematic
paragraph.

There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may
be 10,000 years old or even more.” This is not so. The language is clear that
they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father
at the birth of the next name in line. So the Earth is only about 6,000 years old.
See Biblical chronogenealogies for exegetical proof.

Jericho is considered to be one of the oldest cities in the world.

Traces of habitation from 9000 BC. Fortifications date to 6800 BC (or earlier),
making Jericho the earliest known walled city.

If Jericho is accepted by Biblical archeology at 9000 BC, then how
could the earth be 6000 years old?

Crunch, genealogies can not be used to date the earth!

What do you think dannibear?

That is problematic, I agree, and thank you for pointing that out. I sent them an email asking about it,
however, I doubt my email will be read for quite a long time. What age would you consider the age of the Earth to be David?

 

[David777]

The age of the earth is unknown dannibear.

 

[Stan53]

This of course depends on who you ask. Some scientists will say it's 4.6 billion years old and other will say based on the polar magnetic fields it is no older than 10,000 years old. There are two ages that pre-date pottery. Neolithic A and B which range from 10,000 to 6000 years BC.
There is much conjecture regarding the archeological records as there is about evolution. Dating methods seem to be all over the place and science may be able to date things we can confirm by other methods, but there is no way to confirm the actual year that mankind started because there are no outside records for corroboration, at least not any that science can use. As Christians, we believe the Bible and use it the best we can. From that record, the earth is about 6015 years old.

Quite the conundrum, but nothing I'm sure that God will not be able to explain.

 

[David777]

There are many different positions on creationism, here are some.

“God made everything pretty much as it is now in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago” - the so-called “Creationist” position.

“Day-Age Theory” - interprets the days of Genesis as geological ages.

“Gap Theory” - postulates that there is a gap between the initial creation (in Genesis1:1) and subsequent events (starting in Genesis 1:2). The gap is presumably billions of years long.

“Days of Revelation Theory” - postulates that the 6 days of Genesis 1 were the six days over which God revealed things to Moses.

“Theistic Evolution” and “Progressive Creation”.These are perhaps the most popular positions among scientists who are Christians. They say that things happen the way science says that they do, but that God is still in charge and able to intervene as he wills. There are many theories in these categories. Opinions differ as to when and how God intervenes.

“Intelligent Design” positions. Theistic evolution is pretty much the official position of the Roman Catholic church.

“Concordist Viewpoint” - Emphasizes areas in which the Bible and science agree and assigns different (Biblical or scientific) explanations to different things.

“Genesis is purely theological”.(i.e., it is not necessarily meant to relate what actually physically happened). This is a broad category covering a wide range of positions. I think this position takes a too low view of the Bible and I personally believe that the first few chapters of Genesis are vitally important theologically, but that there is more to them than that.

“Historico-Artistic Viewpoint” - emphasizes that we have to realize that the Genesis was addressed to people 3400 years ago in a form and in descriptive terms they would understand. Moses wouldn't have got very far if God had quoted from a modern introductory astronomy text to him!

 

[dannibear]

Thank you for adding that, very informative post. I have my arguments for the gap theory and theistic evolution but that will be for some other thread. There were some on there I didn't even know about though. Like “Historico-Artistic Viewpoint”

 

[Boanerges]

Thanks for the post Dannibear, I enjoyed it.

 

[Peace Seeker]

This is a great thread and I enjoy all the comments in it. There are some intriguing arguments put forth by the "young earth" creationists, but one thing that troubles me about the young earth theory is the continental drift. I haven't seen a satisfactory answer to it, and contrary to creationist teaching, I don't think it occurred rapidly (not to mention unnoticed by those alive at the time).

I also don't get the emphasis by some that the earth, for some reason, needs to be the same age as Adam and Eve's arrival on it. After all, the earth was already there before they came on the scene, not newly created just for them. The bible doesn't say the earth was made on the first "day" - ie: 6000 years ago - it says the LIGHT was made on the first day.

So the question is, how long was the earth just sitting there in it's formless and void state before the creation in Genesis took place?

 

[David777]

Let's ignore the dinosaurs and the fossil records Peace Seeker.

Let's just be more mature in our faith and understanding.

To attempt to chronologically measure the age of the Earth
from biblical genealogies is absurd.

To speculate about the age of the Earth using the assumptions
of Science is also absurd.

Talk about a red herring "how old is the Earth".

It never was a question that had an answer.

Nor, does the age of the earth provide any information
of any use at all.

The Truth is Jesus Christ, that is the revelation that
surpasses all knowledge.

 

[Stan53]

This is a great thread and I enjoy all the comments in it. There are some intriguing arguments put forth by the "young earth" creationists, but one thing that troubles me about the young earth theory is the continental drift. I haven't seen a satisfactory answer to it, and contrary to creationist teaching, I don't think it occurred rapidly (not to mention unnoticed by those alive at the time).

I also don't get the emphasis by some that the earth, for some reason, needs to be the same age as Adam and Eve's arrival on it. After all, the earth was already there before they came on the scene, not newly created just for them. The bible doesn't say the earth was made on the first "day" - ie: 6000 years ago - it says the LIGHT was made on the first day.

So the question is, how long was the earth just sitting there in it's formless and void state before the creation in Genesis took place?

Continental drift is depicted in Gen 1:9-10. Whether this is satisfactory for you or not, it is still God's word, which I believe.
Gen 1:1 is the beginning. This is what God did first, he created the heavens and the earth. Put them in place and then went on to detail His work.
Moses starts verse 2 with the word NOW to detail what God does. People who support the GAP theory say there is a time frame of millions of years between verses 1 and 2, however that is conjecture and NOT supported in the actual scripture. Day one is everything in verses 1 - 5, as Moses was inspired to write.
The sentences are the same as Moses wrote, but he used different punctuation. The Bible doesn't SAY a lot of things, but using proper hermeneutical exegesis, we know what it says. Trying to imply the Bible doesn't say something because it doesn't use certain words or phraseology, just pits the person doing that against God because He didn't use words that they think He should have. That is a very dangerous position to have, making your reasoning better than God's words. Within the context of Genesis 1 and 2, God created the "heavens and earth" in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. I see no valid reason to doubt what God has said happened in Genesis, unless you don't believe Him.

 

[Peace Seeker]

Let's ignore the dinosaurs and the fossil records Peace Seeker.

Let's just be more mature in our faith and understanding.

To attempt to chronologically measure the age of the Earth
from biblical genealogies is absurd.

To speculate about the age of the Earth using the assumptions
of Science is also absurd.

Talk about a red herring "how old is the Earth".

It never was a question that had an answer.

Nor, does the age of the earth provide any information
of any use at all.

The Truth is Jesus Christ, that is the revelation that
surpasses all knowledge.

I wholeheartedly agree, DAVID777. Knowing the age of the earth gives us nothing we need. I couldn't care less whether it is old or young, God made it and revealed Himself to us, that's what matters.

 

[Peace Seeker]

Continental drift is depicted in Gen 1:9-10.

I see the appearance of land here, but no continental drift. Here are the verses :

Genesis 1:9-109 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Whether this is satisfactory for you or not, it is still God's word, which I believe.

Likewise, whether I agree with your take on it or not, I also believe Genesis, like the rest of the bible, is God's word.

Gen 1:1 is the beginning. This is what God did first, he created the heavens and the earth. Put them in place and then went on to detail His work.
Moses starts verse 2 with the word NOW to detail what God does. People who support the GAP theory say there is a time frame of millions of years between verses 1 and 2, however that is conjecture and NOT supported in the actual scripture. Day one is everything in verses 1 - 5, as Moses was inspired to write.

The sentences are the same as Moses wrote, but he used different punctuation. The Bible doesn't SAY a lot of things, but using proper hermeneutical exegesis, we know what it says. Trying to imply the Bible doesn't say something because it doesn't use certain words or phraseology, just pits the person doing that against God because He didn't use words that they think He should have. That is a very dangerous position to have, making your reasoning better than God's words. Within the context of Genesis 1 and 2, God created the "heavens and earth" in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. I see no valid reason to doubt what God has said happened in Genesis, unless you don't believe Him.

Thank you for your conjecture and suppositions about what I said or believe. You may have missed the main point of my post, which was merely to invite anyone who has a better understanding of continental drift than I, to give me an explanation about it. I was not asking for dissertations about why someone believes Genesis 1 describes a young earth. In fact, to repeat, I clearly stated that I am very intrigued by the arguments put forth by the "young earth" creationists, so I was not bashing that belief!

 

[Stan53]

I see the appearance of land here, but no continental drift. Here are the verses :
Genesis 1:9-109 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

You appear to not understand geophysics. In order to have water gathered into seas and oceans, it would have to displace land, or land would have to move around to make room for the water. Notice verse 2 shows the earth as being a ball of water. Even the canopy of water God created in verse 7 was not enough to have the land show up.

Likewise, whether I agree with your take on it or not, I also believe Genesis, like the rest of the bible, is God's word.

So you believe it but ONLY as long as you can understand it? Only as long as you don't have to use your God given deductive reasoning?

Thank you for your conjecture and suppositions about what I said or believe. You may have missed the main point of my post, which was merely to invite anyone who has a better understanding of continental drift than I, to give me an explanation about it. I was not asking for dissertations about why someone believes Genesis 1 describes a young earth. In fact, to repeat, I clearly stated that I am very intrigued by the arguments put forth by the "young earth" creationists, so I was not bashing that belief!

I made no conjecture or supposition about your beliefs PS, I was talking about the GAP theory, which I brought up. Try not to be so defensive when reading my posts OK? I answered you query and you automatically dismissed it instead of even thinking about it. That seem to eminate from your personal feelings about my posts. This isn't the first time you've attacked my positions. Until now I did NOT feel you were bashing anything. I don't do dissertations...I leave those up to the scholars and theologians.

 

[Peace Seeker]

I made no conjecture or supposition about your beliefs PS, I was talking about the GAP theory, which I brought up.

Well, it's just confusing when you post comments to me about things I never mentioned, to wit, the gap theory. You wrote all of the below to ME personally, did you not? And by those words you were assuming you know how I approach the scriptures, were you not? Revisit your words below that I put in bold and tell me that you were not assuming a great many things about me.

The Bible doesn't SAY a lot of things, but using proper hermeneutical exegesis

so you do this implicitly, but I don't - assumption #1.

Trying to imply the Bible doesn't say something because it doesn't use certain words or phraseology

I didn't do that

just pits the person doing that against God

before you look at what you perceive to be the beam in another's eye you should take out the log in your own. Unless you think you're perfect in understanding and never pit yourself against God by what you believe.

So, That is a very dangerous position to have, making your reasoning better than God's words.

It is quite pompous for you to so unequivocally suggest that someone is going against God, is in a dangerous position, and that he is making his reasoning better than God's words, simply because he doesn't agree totally with you!

Within the context of Genesis 1 and 2, God created the "heavens and earth" in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. I see no valid reason to doubt what God has said happened in Genesis, unless you don't believe Him.

That's quite a stretch to suggest that someone doesn't believe in Him if he doesn't square with YOUR interpretation of Genesis. Are you qualified to make that judgment?!

Try not to be so defensive when reading my posts OK?

Do you feel that your posts should make me feel defensive? Please answer that carefully.

I'll let you know if I am ever feeling defensive, but to give you a hint, it hasn't happened yet. But to the contrary, a simple suggestion from me that you were making suppositions about me has you telling me I am being defensive. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Here's the thing, contrary to speaking face to face with a person, online discussions do not allow us to see body language, the tone of voice used, etc., so you have no idea of what state of mind I or anyone else is in, unless, of course, I throw a volley of swear words at you, or something like that, which would then make it obvious.

I answered you query and you automatically dismissed it instead of even thinking about it.

So to you, disagreeing is the same as dismissing. And how do you know I haven't thought about it? Your predilection for making assumptions about me is staggering! You sound like you think a mere sentence or 2 from you and I should instantly be lock-step with you in everything you believe. And if I don't, you say things like, "unless you don't believe Him". Come on now. Are you sure it is me, not you, that is defensive, and dare I say overly sensitive?

That seem to eminate from your personal feelings about my posts.

This is where you're really getting ridiculous. I haven't even thought about that interaction I had with you, but you obviously are holding on to it and have a grudge about it, and now you are using that thread against me because I don't agree with you. Scripture tells us to not have ought against another when we are praying to God.Mark 11:25. Please think about that.

In my whole existence on TJ I chatted with you in ONE thread, and because I disagreed with you, from that, you presume that I have taken it upon myself to, for all time, have (negative) "personal feelings" about all of your posts? I take posts as they come, one at a time, and I don't dismiss or have preconceived notions about a person's future posts just because I had a disagreement with one or more of his in the past. Is that how you operate? If Peace Seeker is wrong, in your mind, in one post, he is wrong in every other?

Would it make a difference to you if I said I do not have "personal feelings" about you? Because I don't. I have personal feelings about God, my wife, animals, my job. But I don't know you, so you aren't even a blip on my radar when it comes to my "feelings". So please get over yourself and quit the finger pointing and complaining.

This isn't the first time you've attacked my positions.

Attacked? That's quite overstated. This is ridiculous that I have to spend most of a post rebutting your preconceived opinions of me. I disagreed with you, and in ONE thread. Do you feel attacked whenever people disagree with you? Difference of opinion is not attacking.

You are clearly holding a grudge towards me, one that I am not holding toward you. By the way, why did you initially respond to my post in this thread if you think I have "personal feelings" against you and am only out to attack you? Try a little humility in your posts, instead of your, "I know best, and if you disagree with me, you don't believe in God and are hermeneutically-challenged approach.

 

[Stan53]

PS, what you've done here is pull the topic away to self justification. I am not going to get into a he-said, he-said battle with you. My words are written and people can read them. I must point out as I have done before, that you should indeed change your user-name, because you do NOT seek peace. You seek confrontation. Changing what I say into your own confrontational wording is apparently your style and although in a worldy setting, I would be more than happy to take you on and straighten you out (if that is even possible ) this is a Christian forum and I have agreed to it's ToS, to not do so.
If you have a direct response to deal with what I posted then please do, but picking apart my response to make it say something it didn't and trying to deflect the issues doesn't work on me.

 

[Peace Seeker]

PS, what you've done here is pull the topic away to self justification. I am not going to get into a he-said, he-said battle with you. My words are written and people can read them. I must point out as I have done before, that you should indeed change your user-name, because you do NOT seek peace.

You seek confrontation. Changing what I say into your own confrontational wording is apparently your style and although in a worldy setting, I would be more than happy to take you on and straighten you out (if that is even possible ) this is a Christian forum and I have agreed to it's ToS, to not do so.
If you have a direct response to deal with what I posted then please do, but picking apart my response to make it say something it didn't and trying to deflect the issues doesn't work on me.

Okey dokey. Your childishness is amazing, and your threat was a nice touch. Remember what I said to you about holding grudges when you're doing your prayers.

 

[Chad]

All bickering ceases right now. Each person is accountable to their own attitude, responses and words spoken.

 

[dannibear]

David, they answered me back and this was their response

A staff member has replied to your question with the following response:

Dear Danielle,

When someone says that something is many thousands of years old, we have to ask, "where did those dates come from?" And in this case, the dates come from carbon dating. See http://creation.com/<wbr>images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.<wbr>pdf for some of the problems with trying to date thins that are many thousands of years old with carbon dating. Simply put, carbon dating assumes a certain ratio of two isotopes of carbon, C12 to C14, and assumes it is essentially the same as is found in living things today. And when carbon dating is used to date something that's centuries old, or a couple thousand years old, it's pretty accurate. But we have good reasons to think that, during the Flood, volcanic activity spewed lots of C12 into the atmosphere. This is important because plants absorb the carbon available to them in the atmosphere during the time they live. With higher relative levels of C12 immediately after the Flood, any plant alive at the time would have absorbed a lower percentage of C14, making it appear older today than it actually is because it has less C14 than expected for soething of its age.



In a biblical timeframe, we believe that Jericho was originally settled soon after the dispersion at Babel. It was inhabited until the time of Joshua, when it was destroyed and left desolate for 500 years. When looked at through the lenses of a biblical worldview, Jericho actually corroborates the Bible's history. See http://creation.com/the-<wbr>walls-of-jericho.



I hope this is helpful.


Sincerely,


Lita Cosner
Information Officer
Creation Ministries International (US)