Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)

I was watching the PBS doc about the Dover Trial a few weeks back, and one of the points raised in that was that the arguments creationists use against evolution have changed little since the 1950's

Indeed when you read any of the creationist or anti-evo threads on here you see the same ideas and the same points coming up time after time after time after time after time.

Have the fundies come up with anything new lately that I might have missed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am an atheist and am amused by, theist attempts to use advocate creationism & ID via logical arguments. They are ignoring one of the best arguments: god created a mature universe.

BTW: Note that to be consistent with my atheist beliefs, I do not capitalize god.

Theists who are fighting evolution & advocating Creationism/ID are giving up their best weapon (faith) & attempting to use logic at which they are not very adept (downright poor, might be more accurate).

Consider the mature universe argument.

• When god created the garden of Eden, there were trees which looked 100 or more years old. If Adam had cut one of those trees down, polished the stump, & counted rings, he would have had evidence that the tree was 100 or more years old, even though god had created it a few days or a few weeks earlier.
  
  
• When god created the stars, would it make sense for him to create them unseen by man for millions/billions of years? Why should he not also create light from those stars arriving at Earth about the same time as he created the Earth, Adam, Eve, the Garden, et cetera? Of course, modern scientists would come up with experiments & theories showing that the light took million/billions of years to get here even though god created the arriving light about the same time that he created the rest of the universe.
  
  
• Why try to claim that Noah’s flood carved the Grand Canyon, in 40-180 days? It is easier to claim that god decided to create the Grand Canyon about the same time that he created the Garden of Eden.
  
  
• Scientists use radioactive decay to date various historical events, proving that the Earth is millions/billions of years old. If god created the radioactive elements & their decay products a few thousand years ago, such proofs are without merit.

No logical argument can refute the Mature Universe Theory. All the scientific arguments alleged to prove that Earth is billions of years old & that the universe is even older are refuted by the Mature Universe Theory.

The Mature Universe Theory is a faith based argument. A theist can advocate it as based on faith alone & no atheist can provide a logical argument refuting it. An atheist can only claim that his belief in science seems more consistent with his interpretation of certain measurements & that he chooses to believe in science.

Believers in the Mature Universe Theory could believe that god created the universe last week or two years ago, complete with our memories extending decades into the past, libraries containing history books, radioactive materials & decay products, light from distant stars, et cetera. Of course, many Christian theists would prefer to a accept a creation about 6-10 thousand years ago consistent with the Old Testament account.

Believers in the Mature Universe Theory can amuse themselves by laughing at the scientists on whom god has played a marvelous practical joke. The can imagine god & his angels in heaven having conversations about the scientists who have been fooled by his creation of a mature universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's something to chew on:
-To fully populate the earth with the adam eve theory there would need to be incest

I'm Jewish, I believe in God, but I also give lots of merit to science. For instance: I believe in evolution and disregard much of the Torah.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In a sense you can say there are constantly new creationist arguments. Because “scientific” creationism proceeds from the basis of scientific fraud/dishonesty/disingenuity, any new scientific discovery can be distorted and deliberately misinterpreted to fit their pre-determined model. So, from their point of view, new evidence for creationism is discovered every week coming from the best academic institutions in the world.

 

Hi All
Creationist Arguments used by Creationists, either in favor of the creationist hypothesis, or, more usually, against the theory of evolution or other well-verified aspects of science. Arguments not dealt with here will almost invariably be dealt with, though perhaps rather briefly, in one of the sites listed in the Links subsection at the end of this article.

 

I remember telling a young earth creationist that for all we know, the earth is one day old - he told me "Now you're just being silly" :shrug:

 

Fraggle Rocker: Did you notice my stating that I am an atheist?

I did not intend to propose Mature Universe Theory as a proof or cogent argument supporting Creationism and/or ID.

For the theist, it seems to me to be a better approach to selling creationism than attempts to construct logical proofs or cogent arguments.

For a theist, faith is far more important than truth, logic, behavior, & reasonableness. Theists are not good at logic.

To me, it seems silly for the theist to try to use logic to support his POV rather than merely relying on faith. It seems equally silly for him/her to try to use logic to convince others.

Faith is the coin in the realm of the theist; Logic is not. The Mature Universe Theory is based on nothing but faith.

BTW: Did you ever hear the story of the boy who prayed for a bicycle? He was raised in a Fundmentalist Christian & was very poor. For years he prayed for god to give him a bicycle.

When he was about 10 or 11, he realized that he had not understood Christianity. He then knew that the Christian way to get a bicycle was to steal one & pray for forgiveness.

 

Dinasour wrote:-
Theists who are fighting evolution & advocating Creationism/ID are giving up their best weapon (faith) & attempting to use logic at which they are not very adept (downright poor, might be more accurate).

What you are forgetting is why Creationists invented ID. They hope that by rebranding their ideas with the word "Design" they can establish Creationism as a science and get it taught in schools along with the other sciences. It's only a ploy which had initial sucess in the US but is not so popular now they have been found out.

 

Yes, and the 'equal time to alternatives' reasoning was bogus too, as there are more alternatives than just ID. Schools would have to teach the views of a dozen religions in science class, and clearly that's detrimental.

Everyone knows ID is bullshit, even it's most of it's proponents.

 

I used to think that this was a reasonably logical argument if it was built upon the assumption that God existed in the first place. But then I realised how uneccessarily artificial it was. Why insist that God created something with the appearance of age instead of actual age, and is there any difference anyway?

Let's say you're God right, and with a metaphorical click of your fingers you bring the universe into existence. It's not like you'd have to sit around for a few billion years waiting until it was time to do the next significant thing now is it? God does not exist within time. A few billions years is the same as nanosecond. Creating a universe with the appearance of age is really no different than creating a universe which evolves to the same state. Creationists just don't seem to be able to appreciate how relative time is. They could save themselves a shit load of hassle if they did.

Anyway, I do of course appreciate that this is not actually your argument, but rather an argument, so you can consider my response a response

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You only say that because of the HUGE flaws with creationism if time applies to God.

You don't say it because there is sound reason, just that reason gives the God hypothesis a problem, so you invoke this excuse.

God is defined by the logical fallacies that apply to a creator entity therefore.

 

It was tried and found wanting.

Philip Henry Gosse proposed it in his 1857 book Omphalos. He was seeking to reconcile the clear evidence for the considerable age of the Earth with his faith in the literal truth of the Genesis account.

He expected it to be a triumph that brought together the apparently opposing views. In practice it was ridculed by both sides and largely fell out of favour.

 

On what basis was it ridiculed, anyway? Seems like a nice unverifiable position, as unverifiable positions go.

 

If I were a Creationist, I would like the mature universe theory because I would not have to spend time trying to disprove all the evidence for a universe which is billions of years old.

 

Im an atheist.

But why can't the creationist just use faith. God created the apple (forbidden fruit) to tempt man. God has create temptation all around, the world is full of it. Modern science is another temptation. God created the universe to look old to tempt the unfaithful into denial..

Easy, no need for creationist pseudoscience, just faith..

And we normal people dont have to deal with the creationist crap. :shrug:

 

Quite. Are you familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages? Worth a read.

 

Creationist arguments have to be new every day, by definition. After all, they have to keep up with scientific advancements...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!