Creationist "propaganda" true or false?

[easyboy201]

I just wanted to say hi! It's great to have a little section, just for us.
Especially when there's so much confusion and adversity out there perpetrated by those who are fighting against God (it's really all a spiritual war, isn't it?).

Anyway, I've found with debating that if I source any creationist work - like from ICR for example that it is falliciously discredited as being false and "propaganda" before people will even give a chance what the argument is.
Has anyone else come across this?
Does anyone else think that this tactic of abusing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority means that creationists aren't allowed to cite their own material and have it taken at face value?
Do you think this means evolutionists really just don't want to listen, the way they discredit something before giving it a chance?
Don't you think it's incredibly ad hominem for them to call Creationists and their materials "lies"?

*Just blowing off a little steam, but I'd love to hear from you guys!*

[KBertsche]

Anyway, I've found with debating that if I source any creationist work - like from ICR for example that it is falliciously discredited as being false and "propaganda" before people will even give a chance what the argument is.
Has anyone else come across this?
Does anyone else think that this tactic of abusing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority means that creationists aren't allowed to cite their own material and have it taken at face value?
Do you think this means evolutionists really just don't want to listen, the way they discredit something before giving it a chance?
Don't you think it's incredibly ad hominem for them to call Creationists and their materials "lies"?

*Just blowing off a little steam, but I'd love to hear from you guys!*

Just a few comments:

1) You are engaging in ad-hominem yourself, in that you are assuming that those who are not YEC are "evolutionists". You leave out OEC.

2) The "science" of ICR (and CRS and AIG) is extremely poorly done and at a very low level. Every one of their major "scientific' arguments for a young earth that I have examined is seriously wrong. Some rely on bad data, and others on bad analysis. They have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot do science properly.

In an ideal world, maybe ICR's opponents should examine each new ICR argument afresh. But based on their track record, the chance that ICR will stumble across a valid YEC argument is slim to none. There is not enough time for busy scientists to examine all of the kooky arguments that people put forth, hence the reaction that you notice.

Kirk

[easyboy201]

Just a few comments:

1) You are engaging in ad-hominem yourself, in that you are assuming that those who are not YEC are "evolutionists". You leave out OEC.

2) The "science" of ICR (and CRS and AIG) is extremely poorly done and at a very low level. Every one of their major "scientific' arguments for a young earth that I have examined is seriously wrong. Some rely on bad data, and others on bad analysis. They have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot do science properly.

In an ideal world, maybe ICR's opponents should examine each new ICR argument afresh. But based on their track record, the chance that ICR will stumble across a valid YEC argument is slim to none. There is not enough time for busy scientists to examine all of the kooky arguments that people put forth, hence the reaction that you notice.

Kirk

1) Not quite - I was placing OEC's in the same category. If someone isn't an evolutionist then they would believe in special creation, right? This isn't about the age of the earth. This is about defending God's version of things.

2) I keep hearing this but I am yet to see an example from anyone of it.

[KBertsche]

1) Not quite - I was placing OEC's in the same category. If someone isn't an evolutionist then they would believe in special creation, right? This isn't about the age of the earth. This is about defending God's version of things.

2) I keep hearing this but I am yet to see an example from anyone of it.

But if you put OEC in the same category as YEC, your comments don't make sense. OEC uses good science on age-of-the-earth issues, and does not garner the negative reaction that YEC does.

There are LOTS of disproofs of poor YEC "science"! Have you actually tried to find or study any of them?

For starters, go to the library (or Amazon) and find the book "Science Held Hostage" by Van Till, Young, and Menninga. They've got three chapters which examine three young-earth arguments (I believe they are dust on moon, salinity of ocean, and shrinking of sun).

Kirk

[KBertsche]

[QUOTE=easyboy201;1888025]1) Not quite - I was placing OEC's in the same category. If someone isn't an evolutionist then they would believe in special creation, right? This isn't about the age of the earth. This is about defending God's version of things.[QUOTE]

Another comment: if you're not trying to argue age of the earth, why not quote from real, accepted, peer-reviewed science rather than ICR's material? You would be starting from a basis which your opponents would more readily accept. The ID and OEC communities have been doing this with varying levels of success. For example, Hugh Ross' arguments for the extreme fine tuning of the cosmos are fairly strong, IMO.

Kirk

[easyboy201]

But if you put OEC in the same category as YEC, your comments don't make sense. OEC uses good science on age-of-the-earth issues, and does not garner the negative reaction that YEC does.

There are LOTS of disproofs of poor YEC "science"! Have you actually tried to find or study any of them?

For starters, go to the library (or Amazon) and find the book "Science Held Hostage" by Van Till, Young, and Menninga. They've got three chapters which examine three young-earth arguments (I believe they are dust on moon, salinity of ocean, and shrinking of sun).

Kirk

Actually, the comments do make sense - don't be fooled - I mentioned ICR because it was the first thing that came to mind - I could have quite as easily put a OEC reference in there.

I actually have seen some material disputing YEC material, but the fact of it is that YECs can easily attribute that information as God having already made the earth "mature" like Adam was, when it was made.

[easyboy201]

[QUOTE=KBertsche;1888381][QUOTE=easyboy201;1888025]1) Not quite - I was placing OEC's in the same category. If someone isn't an evolutionist then they would believe in special creation, right? This isn't about the age of the earth. This is about defending God's version of things.

Another comment: if you're not trying to argue age of the earth, why not quote from real, accepted, peer-reviewed science rather than ICR's material? You would be starting from a basis which your opponents would more readily accept. The ID and OEC communities have been doing this with varying levels of success. For example, Hugh Ross' arguments for the extreme fine tuning of the cosmos are fairly strong, IMO.

Kirk

Isn't Hugh Ross also deemed as biased because of his creationist standpoint? Do people really accept him more readily than ICR?
And yes... I find the biggest deal to be special creation, not the age of the earth.
Christians squabble too much between themselves.
Let's focus on taking out the others first so THEN we can squabble amoungst ourselves, huh? :D

[KBertsche]

Isn't Hugh Ross also deemed as biased because of his creationist standpoint? Do people really accept him more readily than ICR?
And yes... I find the biggest deal to be special creation, not the age of the earth.
Christians squabble too much between themselves.
Let's focus on taking out the others first so THEN we can squabble amoungst ourselves, huh? :D

His science is sound and mainstream, so is generally accepted. What naturalists don't like are the implications that he draws from the science (the existence of a designer controlling all of the fine tuning of the cosmos). So they try to find loopholes and to come up with speculative ways of explaining away the design implications.

[Weboh2]

But if you put OEC in the same category as YEC, your comments don't make sense. OEC uses good science on age-of-the-earth issues, and does not garner the negative reaction that YEC does.

I wouldn't doubt that OEC does exactly that.

[rogue06]

2) The "science" of ICR (and CRS and AIG) is extremely poorly done and at a very low level. Every one of their major "scientific' arguments for a young earth that I have examined is seriously wrong. Some rely on bad data, and others on bad analysis. They have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot do science properly.

Admittedly I have a negative knee-jerk reaction when someone quotes something from ICR, AiG... Not just because of their low quality science but also, at least in the case of ICR, because they require that their members and staff sign oaths that require them to disregard any evidence that contradicts their YEC views. That hardly constitutes science. Still, I try to make a point of reading their stuff whenever I come across it.

[burgy]

I just wanted to say hi! It's great to have a little section, just for us.
Especially when there's so much confusion and adversity out there perpetrated by those who are fighting against God (it's really all a spiritual war, isn't it?).
*Just blowing off a little steam, but I'd love to hear from you guys!*

Let's focus on this "fighting against God" idea.

A person who rejects ICR's arguments is not in that category (at least not for that reason).
A person who holds that evolution really happened is not in that category (at least not for that reason).

I'm not really sure just who IS in that category, unless it is a militant atheist such as Dawkins.

[easyboy201]

Let's focus on this "fighting against God" idea.

A person who rejects ICR's arguments is not in that category (at least not for that reason).
A person who holds that evolution really happened is not in that category (at least not for that reason).

I'm not really sure just who IS in that category, unless it is a militant atheist such as Dawkins.

Depends on what god they're fighting against... ;)
Personally, I'd stack the Word of God in with my usage of the word God. ;)

[KBertsche]

Depends on what god they're fighting against... ;)
Personally, I'd stack the Word of God in with my usage of the word God. ;)

I'm fairly new to this site, but I notice that Easyboy and most of the YEC folks here like to argue in circles, ignoring the difference between the "Word of God" and their interpretation of it.

Personally, I believe in the authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Scriptures, in the standard conservative Evangelical sense. OEC opposition to supposed "scientific" arguments for a young earth is in no way fighting against God or His Word. Rather, it is fighting against terrible science coupled with (as I'm recently realizing) poor theology.

[Alucard]

I'm fairly new to this site, but I notice that Easyboy and most of the YEC folks here like to argue in circles, ignoring the difference between the "Word of God" and their interpretation of it.

Personally, I believe in the authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Scriptures, in the standard conservative Evangelical sense. OEC opposition to supposed "scientific" arguments for a young earth is in no way fighting against God or His Word. Rather, it is fighting against terrible science coupled with (as I'm recently realizing) poor theology.

I can understand the terrible science, but enlighten me on the theology?

[KBertsche]

I can understand the terrible science, but enlighten me on the theology?

One simple example:

A typical YEC claim is that:
a) the original Creation was perfect, with no decay
b) it fell and began to decay as a result of Adam's sin
c) God will restore the Creation to its original state someday

The Bible teaches:
a) the original Creation was good, but not necessarily perfect
b) Adam's sin primarily affected him and his offspring, but did not necessarily change the operation of the Creation in any fundamental way. (Man does abuse nature as a result of sin, though.)
c) God will not restore this Creation; He will destroy it and create an entirely new heaven and earth.

Theologically, God's work with nature parallels God's work with man. The future state of man is not simply restoration to the state of Adam. When man is saved he is given a completely new nature which Adam didn't have, and promised a future in heaven with a resurrection body; this is much better than the original state of Adam in the Garden. Likewise, Creation will not be simply restored to its original state, but will be destroyed and recreated much better than the original.

Kirk