Bad scientific arguments against evolution: Part 2

[Tristen]

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, I have.

Also, I consider Christians that accept a YEC viewpoint are my brothers and sisters. My brotherhood in Christ is much more important to me than our differences in creation beliefs. CMI and I have the same interest in preventing Christians from using arguments that are, as you admit, silly. We make the same argument, and for same basic reason (avoid ridicule from non-Christians), but mine is somehow objectionable.

Reply if you wish, but this is not an argument I am interested in continuing.

You are playing off the whole 'we are all “brothers and sisters”' angle, but in context, you are an old-earth creationist telling young-earth creationists that they should stop using an argument that makes them look silly to outsiders. I'm simply trying to explain that, from our YEC perspective, that is you denigrating our position - a perception amplified by the fact that we don't actually use the argument you are attributing to us. Whether that was your intent is beside the point. In the opening post of this thread you adopted the position of presuming to correct these ignorant "hicks" (@Abdicate's word) of their error.

So what we have is someone from an antagonistic viewpoint misrepresenting young-earth creationists as commonly holding to a position that we don't actually believe, then telling us to stop using that argument because it makes us look silly. Surely you can understand why we might find your approach objectionable.

But either way, I agree that young-earth creationists should not use the argument; “If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” - as does every other moderately informed young-earth creationist.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Tristen

[Hawkins]

On 9/4/2018 at 11:07 AM, one.opinion said:

These scientists propose that modern humans and modern monkeys share a common ancestor.

They have a reason to assume so. However the proposal itself is a 'bad' argument. It only means that under the circumstance we have to make a bad argument scientifically because it's all we humans can do!

 

Liger is a hybrid of lion and tiger. However after one million year from nows what ToE can come up with is that liger is a result of evolution. In a strict scientific sense, it only means that ToE itself is not falsifiable. ToE thus is not a science in a strict sense. We (our scientists) have to propose so simply because that's all we can do. We can't scientifically reproduce the case, such that "proposing so" remains "what we can do". This proposal however can be just as 'bad' as any argument you are trying to refute here. Plus that the 'bad' is a kind of deception (i.e., appears to be scientifically sound but 'bad').

Edited September 7, 2018 by Hawkins

[one.opinion]

On 9/7/2018 at 9:40 AM, Hawkins said:

ToE thus is not a science in a strict sense. We (our scientists) have to propose so simply because that's all we can do. We can't scientifically reproduce the case, such that "proposing so" remains "what we can do".

I acknowledge this argument. When looking at past events, scientists are limited to tools available in the present. But just like forensic scientists use science to analyze clues at crime scenes that they did not witness first-hand, scientists today use science to analyze clues on the planet to piece together what has happened in the past. It is my belief that both can piece together past events with a high degree of accuracy.

[one.opinion]

On 9/7/2018 at 9:40 AM, Tristen said:

So what we have is someone from an antagonistic viewpoint misrepresenting young-earth creationists as commonly holding to a position that we don't actually believe

As much as I really want to avoid a pointless discussion, my curiosity it getting the better of me. If the argument is not common, why do you think CMI addressed it?

[Tristen]

I don't think it's "pointless". Communication is a two-way process. The point of my engagement in this thread is that I don't think you've considered how you might be coming across to those you are talking to. I'm not trying to mess with your mojo.

I'm not sure why you'd assume that CMI addressing an issue on this web-page means it has to be "common". The appearance of arguments on this particular CMI page means that they are not representative of the informed creationist position. So my expectation is that the arguments on this page would tend to be obscure, rather than common. There is, for example, a "Moon-Dust" argument on this page - that was presented to me over two decades ago when I first became aware of creationism - but which I haven't come across (apart from this web-page) since that time. There are many arguments on this page that I have never heard from creationists - and would be completely unaware of the existence of such arguments if I hadn't read them on this page.

The point of this CMI web-page is to correct error. Whether or not the error is common is irrelevant.

I provided another possible motive in a previous post; that is, to correct misrepresentations of creationism by antagonists (i.e. to show explicitly that we don't actually believe what is falsely being claimed by some of our detractors).

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't think it's "pointless". Communication is a two-way process. The point of my engagement in this thread is that I don't think you've considered how you might be coming across to those you are talking to.

I made my point. You claim to understand my point and even agree with it, but you think it must be disingenuous because I don’t share the YEC view.

However, I believe what we do share is more important than what we don’t share. We are followers of Christ and value his holy name. I don’t want to see a brother or sister in Christ mocked for using poor arguments, even though I may not share the same view. First, I don’t want to see a sibling attacked. Second, I don’t want Christ’s body slandered.

You think this is a rare argument, but I have read it literally dozens of times in various contexts. It is true that I have never seen this argument here, but I have read worse arguments, so I’ve attempted a preemptive approach. Perhaps a thread here will prevent the argument from being used elsewhere.

Maybe you could post a series of threads on scientific evidence supporting the YEC view or stronger arguments against evolution.

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I made my point. You claim to understand my point and even agree with it, but you think it must be disingenuous because I don’t share the YEC view.

However, I believe what we do share is more important than what we don’t share. We are followers of Christ and value his holy name. I don’t want to see a brother or sister in Christ mocked for using poor arguments, even though I may not share the same view. First, I don’t want to see a sibling attacked. Second, I don’t want Christ’s body slandered.

You think this is a rare argument, but I have read it literally dozens of times in various contexts. It is true that I have never seen this argument here, but I have read worse arguments, so I’ve attempted a preemptive approach. Perhaps a thread here will prevent the argument from being used elsewhere.

Maybe you could post a series of threads on scientific evidence supporting the YEC view or stronger arguments against evolution.

“You think this is a rare argument, but I have read it literally dozens of times in various contexts”

And you should, of course, correct the error where you find it – but you didn't find that argument here. The problem with your “preemptive” approach is that it is highly presumptuous; and therefore disrespectful. I know that was not your intent, but you are presuming to know and refute our arguments before we have had a chance to present them.

You claim you don't want to see us “mocked”, “attacked” or “slandered” for using this poor argument, but we didn't bring this argument to the conversation. You are the one who brought attention to the silly argument, then presumptuously attributed it to us.

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

The problem with your “preemptive” approach is that it is highly presumptuous

I can definitely see your point. If I had not seen multiple people in the site that believe in a flat earth with a solid dome raqia, and believe that the second law of thermodynamics proves evolution wrong, then I would likely feel that my presumption was misplaced.

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I can definitely see your point. If I had not seen multiple people in the site that believe in a flat earth with a solid dome raqia, and believe that the second law of thermodynamics proves evolution wrong, then I would likely feel that my presumption was misplaced.

And I would have no problem with you addressing those arguments as you find them. Then you don't have to be presumptuous at all.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Abdicate said:

When you chose evolution.

I posted this in another thread to try to make me view clear.

1. God alone is the Creator of all things.

 2. God created humanity specifically and imbued a spiritual aspect capable of communing with Him.

3. Humanity (and the entirety of creation) is cursed with sin and doomed to spiritual death after Adam's deliberate choice to disobey God.

 4. God set a plan in motion in which the perfect Jesus Christ would become incarnate and pay the penalty for the sin of all mankind.

This is obviously different from what you think I believe. I’m not sure why you think differently when I never said anything of the sort and very clearly explained what I do believe, instead. Would you like to comment on what I actually believe?