Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm going to list a number of common creationist arguments. If these arguments are correct, according to some creationists, evolution should be scrapped, or at least significantly reworked. Some arguments are so ludicrous that the well-known creationists actually advise against using them for fear of ridicule. Others make for interesting areas of research for scientists. I present them in a completely random order (using Random.org, so don't bother looking for patterns ).
What I want you to do if you're interested is to send me a private message (so that you don't influence other participants) in which you tell me first whether you're a young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist, theistic evolutionist, naturalistic evolutionist or anything else. Then rate each argument based on two criteria: logic (whether the argument does indeed show a flaw in the theory of evolution) and fact (whether the argument uses real or made-up evidence). Give each criteria a rating from 0 to 3 (i.e. "entirely false", "mostly false", "mostly correct", "entirely correct"). You can write a few words to explain your choices, though it's not mandatory. I'm particularly interested in the opinion of actual creationists, but anybody can participate.
Here are three trivial examples to show what I mean: Argument [example 1]: Evolution cannot explain why we all have a little sticker on the neck saying "made by God". Logic: 3. Indeed, that is a feature evolution is unable to explain, and that would put the theory in doubt. Fact: 0. That sticker does not exist.
Argument [example 2]: Evolution cannot explain why cats have a tail. Logic: 0. Tails provide an obvious evolutionary advantage, and are not particularly tricky to develop using gradual modifications. We have plenty of both fossils and living animals with a tail in various stages of development. So evolution can easily explain why cats have a tail. Fact: 3. Cats do have tails.
Argument [example 3]: Charles Darwin was Catholic. Logic: 0. The religious beliefs of Darwin have nothing to do with whether or not his theory, in its modern form, is true. Fact: 1. Darwin went to a Catholic school (well, Church of England really, so there's a bit of Protestantism in there too), and was a firm believers in his youth. But he later became agnostic (arguably atheist).
Once I have sufficient answers, I will post my own thoughts, interesting or hilarious answers I've received, average ratings and such.
Sounds fun? Let's begin.
The arguments:
Some fossils or living organism show similarities, but this is not evidence for evolution. Those similarities are just as likely to be evidence of a common designer.
The bacteria flagellum is astonishingly complex, and cannot function if you remove even one of its parts. Therefore, it could not have evolved by a serie of gradual modifications.
Evolution cannot explain how life came from non-life.
Research has shown that every living human has a common mother - the "mitochondrial Eve", who lived a few thousand years ago. This is solid evidence in favour of biblical creationism.
The eye is much too complex and purposeful to have been formed by random chance.
Mutations only damage the genetic code. Even though the damage may occasionally provide an advantage - a broken window may let the breeze in - it can only lead to decay.
Given the rate at which mutations occur, and the fact that very few mutations are useful, bacteria-to-man evolution could not have happened even if we accept that the earth is billions of years old.
The theory of evolution has become an unchanging dogma. No one, scientist or otherwise, is allowed to challenge it, and expressing any doubt is dangerous.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy in a closed system increases over time. Yet evolution causes increases in complexity. And in the words of Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (astrophysicist):
Quote:
The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
Evolution does not account for animals like the coelacanth, which (as fossil evidence indicates) haven't changed for millions of years.
Evolution predicts we should find fossils (or living organisms) in transition from one specie to another, like from ducks to crocodiles. Yet we find no such fossils.
Because evolution only tell about what happened in the past, it cannot be tested. Therefore, it is not falsifiable and thus not scientific.
Scientists interpret evidence to fit the theory of evolution, but it's only that - an interpretation. When you believe in creation, you simply interpret differently.
We have never observed a specie change into another specie (macro-evolution).
The belief in the theory of evolution leads to doubtful moral values. Eugenism and racism are natural consequences of the theory of evolution.
Evolution cannot explain speciation. For example, if humans evolved from apes, who did the first human take as a mate?
If we descended from apes, why are there still apes today?
Sexual reproduction cannot be explained by evolution. Who evolved first, the male or the female? How could one reproduce without the other?
The wing is irreducibly complex - it could not have evolved by a serie gradual modifications. After all, what is the use of half a wing? You'll still kill yourself if you try to fly.
The fossils of sea creatures have been found on top of mountains. This indicates that they have been deposited there by a massive flood, and is evidence for a literal reading of the bible.
We can know that there is a cause to the universe existing because the universe exists. But you can't get something from nothing. Therefore the universe must have had a first cause, i.e. God. (Added by kdbrich's request.)
If you're a creationist but find all arguments on my list to be flawed, I'd be interested in knowing your favourite arguments in favour of creation. I'll then add them to the list.
(Oh, and before you ask: I will not give any more details about any argument. Yes, sometimes I used poorly-defined words, but that's deliberate.)
Last edited by Roxolan; 05-28-2009 at 06:47 AM..
Reason: Added kdbrich's proto-argument.
Many of those arguments you posted are good. But how about the best one? you can't get something from nothing. This universe was created, life (and us) were created? We didn't evolve.
I'm fine with adding your argument to the list (and I'm particularly curious of your ratings), but could you formulate it more precisely? When you say "you can't get something from nothing", what "something" are you referring to?
I'm fine with adding your argument to the list (and I'm particularly curious of your ratings), but could you formulate it more precisely? When you say "you can't get something from nothing", what "something" are you referring to?
We can know that there is a cause to the universe existing because the universe exists. It had to come from something.
The same argument applies to the subject of life. A basic tenet of science is that you can't get life from non-living things. Abiogenesis is impossible--and science knows it and teaches it...but if the alternative is to believe in a creator, people would rather believe in that which has already been determined to be impossible.
Ok, the second bit is already in the list (n°3), so I'll just add the first bit. As I said, I'm not going to discuss it myself before I collect enough answers.
All true or rated at a 3, except 16 and 17 which do not make sence from either an evolutionary point of view or a creationist point of view. I don't understand the quote at #9, but entrope is a problem for the evolutionist. (Of course I may word these points differently or expound on them, if your use these arguements as they are you may be setting up some kind of straw-man arguement).
I'm going to list a number of common creationist arguments. If these arguments are correct, according to some creationists, evolution should be scrapped, or at least significantly reworked. Some arguments are so ludicrous that the well-known creationists actually advise against using them for fear of ridicule. Others make for interesting areas of research for scientists. I present them in a completely random order (using Random.org, so don't bother looking for patterns ).
What I want you to do if you're interested is to send me a private message (so that you don't influence other participants) in which you tell me first whether you're a young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist, theistic evolutionist, naturalistic evolutionist or anything else. Then rate each argument based on two criteria: logic (whether the argument does indeed show a flaw in the theory of evolution) and fact (whether the argument uses real or made-up evidence). Give each criteria a rating from 0 to 3 (i.e. "entirely false", "mostly false", "mostly correct", "entirely correct"). You can write a few words to explain your choices, though it's not mandatory. I'm particularly interested in the opinion of actual creationists, but anybody can participate.
Here are three trivial examples to show what I mean: Argument [example 1]: Evolution cannot explain why we all have a little sticker on the neck saying "made by God". Logic: 3. Indeed, that is a feature evolution is unable to explain, and that would put the theory in doubt. Fact: 0. That sticker does not exist.
Argument [example 2]: Evolution cannot explain why cats have a tail. Logic: 0. Tails provide an obvious evolutionary advantage, and are not particularly tricky to develop using gradual modifications. We have plenty of both fossils and living animals with a tail in various stages of development. So evolution can easily explain why cats have a tail. Fact: 3. Cats do have tails.
Argument [example 3]: Charles Darwin was Catholic. Logic: 0. The religious beliefs of Darwin have nothing to do with whether or not his theory, in its modern form, is true. Fact: 1. Darwin went to a Catholic school (well, Church of England really, so there's a bit of Protestantism in there too), and was a firm believers in his youth. But he later became agnostic (arguably atheist).
Once I have sufficient answers, I will post my own thoughts, interesting or hilarious answers I've received, average ratings and such.
Sounds fun? Let's begin.
The arguments:
Some fossils or living organism show similarities, but this is not evidence for evolution. Those similarities are just as likely to be evidence of a common designer.
The bacteria flagellum is astonishingly complex, and cannot function if you remove even one of its parts. Therefore, it could not have evolved by a serie of gradual modifications.
Evolution cannot explain how life came from non-life.
Research has shown that every living human has a common mother - the "mitochondrial Eve", who lived a few thousand years ago. This is solid evidence in favour of biblical creationism.
The eye is much too complex and purposeful to have been formed by random chance.
Mutations only damage the genetic code. Even though the damage may occasionally provide an advantage - a broken window may let the breeze in - it can only lead to decay.
Given the rate at which mutations occur, and the fact that very few mutations are useful, bacteria-to-man evolution could not have happened even if we accept that the earth is billions of years old.
The theory of evolution has become an unchanging dogma. No one, scientist or otherwise, is allowed to challenge it, and expressing any doubt is dangerous.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy in a closed system increases over time. Yet evolution causes increases in complexity. And in the words of Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (astrophysicist):
Evolution does not account for animals like the coelacanth, which (as fossil evidence indicates) haven't changed for millions of years.
Evolution predicts we should find fossils (or living organisms) in transition from one specie to another, like from ducks to crocodiles. Yet we find no such fossils.
Because evolution only tell about what happened in the past, it cannot be tested. Therefore, it is not falsifiable and thus not scientific.
Scientists interpret evidence to fit the theory of evolution, but it's only that - an interpretation. When you believe in creation, you simply interpret differently.
We have never observed a specie change into another specie (macro-evolution).
The belief in the theory of evolution leads to doubtful moral values. Eugenism and racism are natural consequences of the theory of evolution.
Evolution cannot explain speciation. For example, if humans evolved from apes, who did the first human take as a mate?
If we descended from apes, why are there still apes today?
Sexual reproduction cannot be explained by evolution. Who evolved first, the male or the female? How could one reproduce without the other?
The wing is irreducibly complex - it could not have evolved by a serie gradual modifications. After all, what is the use of half a wing? You'll still kill yourself if you try to fly.
The fossils of sea creatures have been found on top of mountains. This indicates that they have been deposited there by a massive flood, and is evidence for a literal reading of the bible.
We can know that there is a cause to the universe existing because the universe exists. But you can't get something from nothing. Therefore the universe must have had a first cause, i.e. God. (Added by kdbrich's request.)
If you're a creationist but find all arguments on my list to be flawed, I'd be interested in knowing your favourite arguments in favour of creation. I'll then add them to the list.
(Oh, and before you ask: I will not give any more details about any argument. Yes, sometimes I used poorly-defined words, but that's deliberate.)
That is far too much work for something so unimportant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
