A question for Evolutionary Biologists? How would you respond to this Creationist?

http://www.icr.edu/genesis-science-practical-not-j...

Disclaimer: I'm sincerely not trying to troll. I accept the Theory Evolution by Natural Selection as fact, I just wanted to hear a rebuttal. I've had Christian creationists in my life tout this guy as a genius (he's an apologist as well).

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    1.  Genesis isn't science.  Biblical creationism isn't science.

    2.  The delay in studying soft tissue in dinosaur bones is partly because science hadn't advanced to the point where that was possible, partly because most dinosaur fossils aren't bones any more due to replacement by mineralization, and partly because we hadn't found the bones that hadn't been so thoroughly replaced.

    Creationism thinking would not have helped.

    3.  The author did not cite any sources for "carbon-14 found in diamonds."  Since he didn't, I can equally without cited source dismiss carbon-14 found in ancient material as being a result of modern contamination.  Check out talkorigins for a discussion.

    4.  Let's blame the people who were doing the overfishing for fishery depletion.  Creationism thinking would not have helped, and in fact may have hindered, e.g. "We can't run out of fish because G-d will create more, just like Jesus did in the New Testament."

    5.  I don't see the connection between these surgeries and evolution theory.  So medical science was wrong about the functioning of so-called vestigial organs.  How would Creationism have helped?

    6.  The bit about racism and slavery is dumb.  Check out the Bible.  Plenty of racism and slavery going on in the Bible, before people knew about evolution.

    Forget this author.

    The Earth is more than 6,024 years old (and counting).  By every measure the Earth appears to be way older than what the Genesis implies.  There's so much evidence for an old Earth that if Young Earth Creationism really were true, then HUGE amount of deceit went into that creation.  The Deceiver isn't the one who created the Earth, right?

    So take your family Bible, tear out the first two chapters of Genesis, then tear out the Noah story too.

  • 1 month ago

    Well, I believe that their opinion is blatantly wrong, but I respect it and don’t argue with them.

  • Paul
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    "Creationist" is not a correct term here. What you are referring to is a fundamentalist Protestant. All Christians accept the fact that God brought into existence (created) all else that exists. However, most Christians have no problem with biological evolution.

    born again Christian biologist

  • Tom
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Genesis consists of ALEGORICAL stories not literal and are subject to various interpretations from various interests.  besides, it is "against the rules" in the "game" of Science to develop theory from anything other than experience, observation and experiment.-----Saying "Goddidit" would NOT be  "Science".     

    We don't mix the rules of baseball and football.  They are separate games and would not be either if baseball had touchdowns.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Who
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    No point responding cos they aint interested in what you say

    just ask them to prove life was created otherwise you will stick with "evolution" (or see later)

    Their sole aim to keep demansding answers from evolutionists on the assumption there are only 2 answers as to how life originated

    1) evolution or 2) it was created when in fact there is a third 3 )I dont know

    so if they can get people to not beleive evolution then in their stupid ignorance 2) becomes the default answer

    when it aint -  "I dont know" is a perfect good answer

    (so in fact you COULD say you will stick with evolution OR "I dont know" if asked how orignated)

    Personaly I am NOT interested in defending "evolution" I AM interested in attacking  others who demand answers to their stupid questions and assumptions

     They wanna believe it was created is fine by -

     (PS I think YOU are a creationist and are doing exacty the same thing- YOU can claim NOT to be a troll as much as you like - it proves zero . the PROOF would be in NOT making your answeres "Private" then WE could see if you are a liar or not

    Care to prove you are NOT a liar?)

    (PPS - the answer you picked is WRONG

     3) you CANNOT contaminate anything with C14 without making it appear YOUNGER than it really is

      the OLDER something it the LESS C14 there is in compared to C12 - cos C14 does NOT decay to C12 it decays to nitrogen

  • 1 month ago

    He thinks carbon dating is used on fossils.   Carbon dating cannot be used on anything older than about 60- to 70,000 years old.  The "Institute for Creation Research" doesn't do any research. They try to poke holes in evolution, and they fail because they won't learn about evolution and get their assumptions wrong. Like this one.

  • CRR
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    This is just a 500 word introduction so he's not presenting a full argument. Consequently it's pretty easy to just dismiss that article with a wave of the hand. You would need to dig a bit deeper to get to his more substantial stuff. He's also a theologian, not a biologist, so you would have to expect most of his arguments to be based on theology rather than being strong on evolutionary biology.

    However there are many PhD scientists who can explain why the theory of evolution is false, with evidence from within their own discipline. E.g. Ron Neller holds a B.A. (Hons) and a Ph.D., both in fluvial geomorphology, and he can explain how that area of science supports the Genesis account, but he's not the best person to ask about genetics.

  • 1 month ago

    He has some examples of scientists allegedly being mistaken, but he doesn't even try to demonstrate that he has a better method, apparently for him it's simply an article of faith. Scientists (unlike creationists) generally don't claim to have perfect knowledge, so pointing out that they don't is a bit silly.

  • My question is how can you accept evolution by Natural selection with out facts

    It has been demonstrated that natural selection helps a species adapt to its environment, but there is no proof that it changes species

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.