Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
AiG: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
Answering in Genesis (AiG) is a well-thought-out Creationist website. Wholly wrong, but well-thought out and at least carefully researched. The site points out that using worn-out, discredited arguments hurts the Creationists’ own cause!
Among the arguments that AiG recommends that Creationists NOT use are:
‘Evolution is just a theory.’
‘There are no transitional forms.’
‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’
‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’
‘There are no beneficial mutations.’
‘No new species have been produced.’
Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species. Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context.
‘Natural selection as tautology.’
I confess I get tired of dealing with these arguments, the “same old sh1t,” in comment after comment. If someone uses an argument that even AiG recommends against, then that is evidence of their:
- ignorance, definitely
- laziness, probably
- stupidity, possibly
This AiG list of discredited Creationist arguments may serve as a basis for banning, or at least ridicule. If any Creationist/ID proponent comes in here, and starts repeating stuff that AiG itself rejects, I’m going to point out the AiG link and this post. If they persist, then they are subject to banning, ridiculous comment-editing, lampooning, and general abuse.
Would Michael the Thumper, Bloodspite, RWSparkle, Carrick, or any of my other reasonable evolution debators concur with this policy?
(Note, in at least one instance, AiG recommends a different wording or a slightly different tack. I’m not telling. 
That’s the idea. If you want to argue this stuff, then at least do a tiny amount of research.)
Vatican: ‘ID’ not science
Superdelegates, Michigan, and Florida
I don’t care for either
The Wedgie Document
Cobb evolution stickers back in court