Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Watch this video and then read my replies to his argument below. Some of these are straw men arguments just trying to make evolutionists look smart, others misstate the creationist position, and others have nothing at all to do with creationism. Lastly I post real creationist arguments.

Check here if an error occurs

#1 “Carbon dating isn’t accurate” – It’s not just carbon dating that has a problem. Every form of radioactive dating has three problems which many evolutionists simply ignore: one) there is no way to determine how much of the parent and daughter isotope a rock or fossil starts with; two) the decay rates of elements are not constant over time; three) parent and daughter isotopes can be added to a rock or fossil during the decay process. No scientist who actually understands radioactive dating would ever claim to be able to tell that the earth is 4.5 billion years old based on radioactive dating methods. That’s just silly.

#2 “You can’t prove evolution” – To me this seems like a deliberate misstatement of the creationist position. It should be, “you can’t prove macro-evolution.”  Macro-evolution is change from one major kind to another, like a lizard evolving into a bird. Micro-evolution is variation within a species, such as different beak sizes in finch populations. Evolutionists make the mistaken assumption that just because micro-evolution (through natural selection) is scientific, so is macro-. But no one has been able to test, repeat, or observe any major kind changing into another…ever. If you want to postulate macro-evolution, that’s fine, but don’t say it’s been verified through scientific observation, testing, or repetition. It’s more like blind faith in evolution… or the “nothing” god.

#3 “If man evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys.” – This is not a creationist argument against evolution, but it is still a somewhat valid question. If Darwinian evolution teaches survival of the fittest and humans are more fit to survive than monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why does the “thinking atheist” just avoid the question instead of answering it? Sorry, but condescension does not excuse ignorance. It just makes you look like you’re trying to hide your lack of knowledge, and America and England have nothing to do with it.

#4 “The Human Eye is too complex to have evolved” – This is a valid creationist argument which was not answered by the “thinking atheist” and has not been answered by any evolutionist. Bringing the eye of an owl or octopus, or the Euglena antenna, into the argument is a rhetorical trick called a red herring, used to distract the attention from the original question. Give me some hard scientific data that demonstrates how an eye could have evolved. You won’t be able to because there is none. If you want to believe it evolved, that’s fine, just don’t call it scientific, call it “faith.”

#5 “Atheism is actually a religion” This is not an argument creationists use to disprove evolution, but I’ll respond to it anyway. Creationists are only pointing out that it is by faith that atheists believe that nothing created the universe, it is by faith that atheists believe that life popped into existence from nothing, and it is by faith that evolutionists believe that random processes with no mind of their own generated information that formed a human mind and became self aware and conscious. Maybe, atheists would like it better if we just said, “atheism isn’t a religion but it sure takes a lot of faith.”

#6 “Scientist X believes in God” – The “thinking atheist” first slams the creationist for a logical fallacy in which a person appeals to an expert, but the funny thing is, he then goes ahead and does it himself by listing respectable scientific establishments and making the statement that 93% of blah blah blah. That’s like saying it’s wrong to lie, and in the next sentence lying. History has shown the majority can be wrong, and so can experts. It’s best just to stick with the “scientific” facts. By the way, Dean Kenyon, the leading chemical evolutionist in the world, now says chemical evolution is impossible and he believes in God… but he could be wrong. ☺

#7 “You’re saying that everything happened by chance.” – Antony Flew, the famous atheist, recently became a deist because of this one. It’s been “scientifically” proven that statistically, there is zero probability of evolution actually working. Read this article on my blog by Robert Gerow about monkeys randomly punching on typewriters to write Shakespeare. Shakespearean Monkeys? Not in this universe!

#8 “America is a Christian Nation” – Why is this even in here? But briefly, George Washington requested to be sworn in on the Bible, the first session of Congress was opened with a Bible study, Thomas Jefferson ordered church services held in the White House and federal funding for missionaries to evangelize the Indians, and every single charter for American colonization puts the propagation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a main goal. For more on this one just go to Wallbuilders.org

#9 “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics” – This is a great argument against evolution. Part of the 2nd law says that all everything breaks down over time. The “thinking atheist” says the earth is an open system which is receiving additional energy from the sun, and therefore the 2nd law doesn’t apply. But adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically make evolution work. Look at what the sun’s energy does to the paint job on your car, or your upholstery or anything else. You’ve got to have something to organize that energy, like chlorophyll (more complex than a city), which didn’t organize itself and doesn’t even have a brain to think about organizing itself. So the atheist position is “just add sun, time, chance, and natural selection and you’ll get the spontaneous generation of amino acids which will organize themselves into DNA and proteins, which will organize themselves into cells, which will organize themselves into dinosaurs.”  Brilliant. Just don’t call it science, call it faith…in nothing.

#10 “Hitler was an atheist.” – Whether Hitler was raised a Catholic or not, the real lesson here is that evolutionary thinking can really mess up your mind.  If evolution is true, it raises the natural question, “which race is more evolved than all the others?”  It wouldn’t be good for the more evolved human races to breed with the less evolved races. This would prevent the human race from evolving further. Evolution is all about the survival of the fittest, right? Hitler isn’t irrelevant, as the “thinking atheist” would have us believe.  He’s just a very extreme example of someone who took evolutionary thought to its logical conclusion.

If you want some real creationist arguments, check these out and get back to me: : 15 Questions for Evolutionists

FREE REPORT: Five Facts the Bible Discovered Thousands of Years BEFORE Modern Science

Success! Check your email to get your free report.