DougI

AIG is coming to town in a couple of months. Since the majority of Kansas is ignorant and apathetic my little Atheist group plans on being the loyal opposition. I'm preparing a handout but would like your input on the ten greatest problems with AIG's view of creationism. Since there are so many lies to counter and so little paper space I'll try for ten.

So far I've decided on their delusion that Neanderthal is simply a human with rickets and/or arthritis, and their claim there is no observed instance of species transition.

Thanks in advance.

Peez

Measurements of the age of the earth have to rate as perhaps the most damning evidence against YEC. The numerous problems associated with the idea that a world-wide flood occurred, and created all those fossils, deserves mention. The rates of evolution required to get so many species from a few biblical "kinds" might be worthy. Of course any of the evidence for common descent is good, particularly fossil (including so-called "transitional" forms) and DNA evidence. And exposing a few creationist lies always spices things up!

Peez

Oolon Colluphid

I'd mention my faves: the broken vitamin C synthesis gene, the genes in birds for making teeth and full fibulas, and where all the parasites and pathogens went during the flood.

And if you want to mention design (their arguments are usually of the "gee wizz that's amazing, it must have been created!" sort), go for our ear-wiggling muscles and the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

I've yet to have a half-decent reply on any of these.

Transitional fossils are great, and I guess you ought to get in straight away to counter the 'there aren't any' claim, but I'm not sure how useful they'd be in a little hand-out. Individual ones don't make the case as well as a chronologically-ordered sequence does, and they're best shown as pictures. Maybe just mention birds, reptile-mammals and whales, and give a reference or two for further info.

Oolon

Hastur

Go for the throat and hammer them on their "Top 10 LIES".
Misquotes, moon dust, hydrologic sorting, age of the Earth.
If you're limited to just ten items, make sure they stand out in the minds of the readers. Call a spade a spade and their lies, lies.
Put the idea into their heads from the get-go that AIG has an agenda to push which has zilch-o to do with truth or integrity.
It'll be all the more effective when the AIG idjit spouts precisely the same lies you've just exposed in your handout. You know he will, cuz they never change their seminars.
In fact, getting a copy of their seminar material and exposing the first ten items in it might not be a bad place to start...

DougI

Here is what Ken (almost as smart as an ape) Ham is going to lecture on:
<li>A Literal Genesis: the Key to Reclaiming America (probably a rant about how evolution is the cause of all misery in the world)
<li>Training Christians to Reach the Lost In Today's Secularized Culture (another ignorant testament to the evil Atheist conspiracy stealing kids away from true christian churches)
<li>The Origin of Races (beats the heck out of me)
<li>Six Creation Days - Foundational to Christian Education (probably an extended reading of Genesis)
<li>The Bible Explains Dinosaurs (the 'Fred Flinstone lifestyle' really existed argument)

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: DougI ]</p>

Jubal

How do cacti survive a flood? If you over-water them, they turn to mush! There is also probably a host of other plants that couldn't possibly have lived through such a flood, by any means. Aww, poor Noah; I hope he liked beetles, there had to have been a lot of them!

And the second law of thermodynamics! It's a good thing the wind doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics, or there wouldn't be any! And how fortunate for us that gravity doesn't pay it any heed, or this planet couldn't exist! I'm so glad cows are too dumb to understand thermodynamics, or we wouldn't have any protein! Wow, if refrigerators knew about thermodynamics our food would spoil and we'd all die of food poisoning! Shhh, keep it a secret!

I guess those scientists were lying about having cloned a sheep; this alleged "technology" did come directly from the non-science of evolution, right? They had to have been a bunch of liars!

What I can't stand is the hypocrisy of looking over evidence of millions of years of evolution, then pointing to an early trilobyte or something and crying "see! Only Gawd could have made that, so Genesis 1 must be true to the letter!" HORSESHIT! They're liars and hypocrites, plain and simple! Don't tell that to them directly, though, that's personal invective.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Swan-eater ]</p>

bynature

Speaking of cows: How did all those cows get "mad cow disease"?

Skeptical

There are obviously many, but the one argument against YEC that I find perhaps the most compelling is also one of the most simple: continental drift.

Even a cursory glance at the continents shows that they fit together like puzzle pieces. There are different ways to fit them together, but I don't see how even the most staunch advocate of YEC can say that the continents were never part of the same land mass. (perhaps they do, but if they do so I think a picture of the continents is proof in and of itself for most people even allowing a cursory examination)

We have observed the rate of drift to be 1-15 cm per year. Based on this, we can arrive at a ballpark calculation for how long the continents have been drifting.

For example, AU is drifting away from Antarctica and is currently about 2900km away. Even assuming a constant drift of 15cm per year (it appears to be significantly less than this, but use 15 for "worst-case"):

290000000cm/15cm = 19,333,333 years = about 19Million years

This date is not accurate, according to other evidence its much longer, about 96Million years. However it's only important that the number is many orders of magnitude more than 6-10,000 years. It's also interesting to show the reverse, what if the earth is only, say, 10,000 years old:

290000000cm = 10,000 * x
x = 29,000cm = 290 meters per year = .8 meters PER DAY (it's also 3.3cm per hour, .06cm per minute)

This means, in a week, the continents would have moved away from each other by almost _6 meters_ to get to their present position. (if you use more accurate numbers, the rate is much faster, these are all best case numbers from the perspective of AIG, it cannot have been less than this, it can only have been more, making the AIG case more ridiculous)

6 meters a week of movement of continents, if it would not have caused the continents to break up entirely, would certainly have been noticed by even a casual observer, and many Egyptians, for example, were anything but casual observers.

One doesn't even have to go into the worldwide earthquakes, tidal waves and general constant upheaval this would have produced. Even without this, the falsity is self-evident from the total lack of any ancient peoples even mentioning or considering that the continents were moving. (or at least that the earth itself seemed to be moving all the time)

Any person with an ounce of sense can recognize immediately that the numbers simply cannot be true, no matter how much one may wish to believe in a creator.

And, as stated above, even a child can see that the continents once fit together like a puzzle, so there must be at least _some_ problem with the idea of a 10,000 year old earth.

No doubt someone from AIG could say, well perhaps the continents moved away from each other very rapidly at first, and then, (for no apparent reason) slowed down. Yes, and perhaps monkeys will fly out of my butt, but "it's not bloody likely!".

I can think of no even semi-reasonable refutation to observed continental drift and the observed rates.

One can deny the continents were ever part of the same land mass, or one can deny that the excessive rate would not have caused any harm or been noticed, but anyone who would accept either of these explanations is not likely to be swayed by any other arguments either, no matter how convincing

Jamie_L

A good, short read on science vs. creationism from the National Science Foundation can be found here:

<a href="http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/creationism/" target="_blank">http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/creationism/</a>

If you've got more time, the Talk.Origins archive is the place to go.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html</a>

Jamie

MrDarwin

My suggestion would be to take specific claims from the AIG website, then counter them with very specific and easy-to-understand examples. People don't understand radiometric dating, but things like tree rings, layers of ice, and varves (when explained in simple language) make sense to most people.

It never hurts to pick out specific examples of creationist claims that have been definitively refuted (and some would say mendacious)--maybe claims of dinosaur and human footprints being found together.

Hit them hard where they are absolutely the most vulnerable: age of the earth and the geologic record. Young earth claims are by far the most ridiculous and easily refuted of the YEC claims.

It's always important to point out that there is nothing about evolutionary theory that makes any claims about the existence or nonexistence of god(s)--this is one of the cornerstones of creationist objections to evolution, but is a red herring. If he brings this up you might want to ask why so many Christians who are not fundamentalists see no conflict between their belief in God and evolution, and why evolution is part of the official teachings of the Catholic church (and see if he really wants to get into some Catholic bashing!).

Finally, don't try to get into a verbal debate with the guy. These guys know the arguments better than you do, they generally know exactly what you're going to say and exactly how to respond. I would suggest typing up a "fact sheet" about AIG and its claims, making lots of copies and making them freely available. I'm sure you could get II members to proofread it and comment on it. Keep it short, but be sure to give URLs to good websites like talkorigins.org (and isn't there a "No Answers in Genesis" website?); people are not going to read an entire book on the subject, but this will give them a way to look up the information themselves if they care enough.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>