notMichaelJackson

"Arguments Creationists should not use"

‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’. For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either). See also Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (Technical).'

'The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’. This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

Others at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp

Aren't these guy shooting themselves in the feet? They just claimed that the best arguments from their side should not be used.

Valentine Pontifex

Actually these are not their best arguments. If anything that is one of the easiest arguments to debunk in a way that anyone can understand and that debunking is fairly well-known to everyone in the debate. Hence to use meteoric dust argument is really just helping our side and not AiG's.

tgamble

"Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse."

How does an embryo to an adult increase disorder?

Jobar

Now, if we could just figure out how to get them to shoot themselves in the head...

Doubting Didymus

Now thats just mean.

Besides, considering average brain capacities they have a good chance of missing.

tgamble

Considering their intelligence it would just through one ear and out the other. Maybe clunk around in that big empty space where only a single note can be found.

Dear cretinist

I.O.U. one brain

signed God.

Phanes

Well it does decrease order, just not from the human being. In order to grow you need energy after all, and to get energy you need food (plants and animals), which in turn needed energy to grow... all the way back to the sun, which ultimately provides most of the energy on earth (I think). Really, your construction required huge amounts of energy to be lost forever. You ungrateful thief.


Just further proof that the Sun is our divine Lord and Savior.

Strawberry

Arguments Creationists should not use:

1. The WORLD was created in 7 consecutive 24-hour days by an omniscient, omnibenevolent GOD who LOVES YOU and will send you to HELL if you do not believe in HIM.

SanDiegoAtheist

It's interesting to note that every one of the arguments that they list on this page were actually USED by AIG up until a year or two ago.

I think they got tired of getting hit over the head with facts.

The arguments listed on this page are ones that typically were refuted the first time a Creationist used them (often, as in the case with the moon dust argument, 40 or more years ago), or are based on misconceptions of science made by laymen completely uneducated (or at the least undereducated) in the fields they are trying to make a case with.

I particularly enjoyed the moon dust argument, as it was trivial to demonstrate the dishonesty of the Creationist side within it, simply by producing the original estimates "made by an evolutionist" and showing that not only did they take the UPPER boundary of this pre-spaceflight estimate (the lower boundary was far closer to what was actually found), but that they then proceeded to INFLATE that upper boundary by a factor of a thousand, and had the nerve to then suggest that the Apollo lander was designed with this "sea of dust" in mind (oddly thinking somehow that a lander foot a couple of feet wide could somehow support the lander's weight a la snowshoes as if dust had the consistency of snow - in fact, the lander would've sunk to the bottom of a 'sea of dust') - all of which were without basis in fact (at the time the lander was designed, the magnitude of meteorite infall had been more accurately measured, and was thought to be no more than a few inches, which perfectly matched with what they found on the moon).

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Coragyps

About a zillion years ago I saw this little thought experiment nicely laid out to answer this very question: Imagine a brand-new baby elephant placed inside a huge bell jar at birth, with all the requirements for a full life somehow already in there. Now just imagine how much disorder a growing elephant could cause in a few years.....