Just noticed one that Behe uses in his book. Maybe seen it here, but it's hard to judge because the creationist actually has to have a defined position in order to use this one.
Make arguments against creationism (or ID, in Behe's case). The response you get is not a defense of ID or creationism, but "Well, that still doesn't prove why evolution is true." It may not, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is still a problem for ID.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
"Who changed the truth...." = appearance of design corresponds to invisible Designer.
"....into a lie...." = corresponds to mindless natural selection.
"....and worshipped and served the creature...." = corresponds to what Darwinists replace God with (animals are our maker). Notice how many evo avatars are of animals?
This verse was written in 58 AD and it fits the reality of Darwinism to a tee.
Premise 1: The bible is absolutely true Premise 2: That herepton's interpretation is the only one possible
If either of these premises are false the conclusion is invalid.
Seeing as all the geological evidence points to an absence at any time for a global flood, and especially that the Grand Canyon could not have been formed by such a mechanism, means that anyone who represents the evidence to portray this mythical flood is twisting the truth into a lie eh?
Seeing as the creation of god is what is being studied the denial of that evidence would qualify as changing the truth into a lie.
Given the number of creatortionista sites that have been shown to contain false representations of the truth, that would be evidence of changing the truth into a lie. The Lucy Knee issue is a prime example.
The conclusion rests on two fallen legs and cannot stand.
Appending, "...Which is exactly what the creation model predicts!" on to a non-controversial claim or one that was presented as evidence for evolution. Its a cute rhetorical flourish but good luck getting them to lay out this creation model once theyve played this card.
--edit to include an example
Ive seen it used with an allele argument recently. When presented with the logic that new alleles must have emerged since the creation event or the flood event a creationist claimed, "Of course, this is *exactly* what the creation model predicts". Inquiries about this wonderful model went unanswered.
Edited by but..what..of...lazarus?, : No reason given.
Click on the red arrow reply button for general reply, the green arrow button for specific message reply (also sends email to poster). Check the PEEK button to see how coding was done (can also be done during reply using PEEK MODE at the top right of the "message you're replying to"
An anonymous student (I assume) subscribed me to to the Good News newsletter, presumably to save my soul or to annoy me. Luckily I love reading this kind of material! This isn't directly creationist, but is representative of a tactic I have encountered before.
Well the Jan-Feb issue has a article in their "God, Science, and the Bible" section about the recent discovery of Philistine temples in Israel that confirm the story of Samson (or at least demonstrate it is an accurate desciption of such temples). I have no issue with biblical archaeology, in fact it is an interesting area.
However, the flaw they use here is to claim a 'recent' (1974??!!) discovery proved scoffers wrong. Apparently scoffers proved that Samson was a myth because no Middle Eastern temples used columns. This 'recent' discovery of two Philistine temples with columns.
Now, where are the scoffers who claimed this? Would a historian have to rely on presumed architectural design to disbelieve a story about a man with magic super-strength in his hair? It is the same argument that claims that historians doubted the Noah story because it predated ship-building, but the discovery of ancient ships proved Noah right.
Anyhow, it is an argument of supreme misdirection. In the creationist realm I remember Hovind claiming that a scientific prediction of creationism is fossils buried in multiple layers (as a similar argument to above). The implication is that evolution would not predict this so the 'subsequent' discovery of such layers is a fatal flaw to the theory.
Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
I've been looking for a forum like this for a week now. I spent several hours on this thread yesterday and I couldn't decide whether I should laugh or cry.
I have some experiences in this area and the posts on this thread reminded me of my own efforts - often in vain - facing similar difficulties.
I'd like to reply to the OP's post. One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning. This method is being used throughout the whole text of this article:
Belief in evolution—required for college admission? by Ken Ham, president, AiG–USA, February 5 , 2007
I give one example from the text:
"...The article continued:
One such textbook argues: 'Evolution is a concept that attempts to free man from God and his responsibility to his Creator.' Alters worries for the students who learn from such texts.
Yes, the secularists are worried. They are concerned because a minority of our young people — many of whom have shown they excel in their studies — are being taught that they are responsible to a Creator...and that evolution isn’t true..."