Somebody help me debunk this garbage!

[Cardinal]

@Mangetout

How many times does creationism have to be declared dead before it will lie down?

It won’t die any time soon, because the argument is not being made from real logic as you and I see it.

I am sure I am one of the most qualified people on this board to talk about how this happens, as I am an actual evangelical (pulls switchblade to ward off attacks from driveby posters with giant axe to grind).

The reason so much of the evangelical church wants to believe that evolution is not true is that they base their beliefs on the infallibility of the Bible. (Believe it or not “infallible” vs “inerrant” is an actual debate among the theological scholars, so pick your term.) If the Bible is inerrant or literal (I forget the strict definitions of the terms, and yes, it gets very picky), that means that one or some of the following is true, at least as they see it.

1. All of creation was made in six literal days.
2. Creation was made in six general stages.
3. All living things were made essentially as you see them now.
4. The earth is about 6K years old.

So either you can have evolution, or a strict adherence to the bible, is their view. I admit that they have a bit of a point, as evolution being true throws a big wrench into the first few chapters of Genesis, unless you can argue that Adam and Eve are not two individuals, but some sort of stand ins for all of humanity. There are some Christians whom I respect who seem to take this tack: the late M. Scott Peck, if I read him correctly.

What really grinds me is the hubris of almost all of these people. They decide that they can interpret the scientific data, when in fact not a single creationist that I’ve met personally has even a bachelors in any science. I consider it a travesty that Biola Univeristy’s (where I went) statement of faith says something like “evolution does not adequately account for the world as we find it” or whatever. Yeah, well, when the university board includes someone with a doctorate in geology, paleantology, etc, I’ll respect that opinion a bit more.

[LiveOnAPlane]

@Cardinal

It won’t die any time soon, because the argument is not being made from real logic as you and I see it…

What really grinds me is the hubris of almost all of these people. They decide that they can interpret the scientific data, when in fact not a single creationist that I’ve met personally has even a bachelors in any science. I consider it a travesty that Biola Univeristy’s (where I went) statement of faith says something like “evolution does not adequately account for the world as we find it” or whatever. Yeah, well, when the university board includes someone with a doctorate in geology, paleantology, etc, I’ll respect that opinion a bit more.

Good point!

Please allow me to add another one. Deciding/declaring is not even necessary, you see!

One the one hand, you have our God-given intelligence and reason.

But on the other hand, you can come at this from the standpoint that because God is able to do anything, He/She could easily arrange things so they seem to be millions of years old, while in truth they are only a few thousand years old.

OK, but WHY? No answer as to that, sorry. That is what God did, and we can’t question or begin to understand why.

So, you are left with trying to compare a scientific proposition with a pure black magic proposition. I am sorry, but the black magic folks are gonna win in their own mind every time. How can you lose when you can invent ANYTHING from “the mind of God?”

…And do not have to submit to reason or facts?

[appleciders]

@cited article

In other words, the decay of the parent radioisotopes was accelerated by different amounts, the decay of those yielding older “ages” (the alpha-decayers) having been accelerated more. Obviously, if radioisotope decay was accelerated, say during the Genesis Flood, then the radioisotope decay “clocks” could never be relied upon to “date” rocks as many millions of years old. To the contrary, the rocks could still only be a few thousand years old.

If you want a simple untruth to point out to your friend, the bolded text above is flat-out wrong. Nothing changes decay rates. Not heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, electric activity, nothing. It’s one of the safest bets in science.

[Cardinal]

@LiveOnAPlane

But on the other hand, you can come at this from the standpoint that because God is able to do anything, He/She could easily arrange things so they seem to be millions of years old, while in truth they are only a few thousand years old.

OK, but WHY? No answer as to that, sorry. That is what God did, and we can’t question or begin to understand why.

The “it’s really just fakey-old” argument is one of the more spectacular examples I’ve ever seen of dishonest logic just so you don’t have to abandon your point.