Argumentos céticos

De CriaçãoWiki, a enciclopédia da ciência da criação.
Translation Latin Alphabet.png
Este artigo ou secção está a ser traduzido. Ajude e colabore com a tradução.
Creation vs evolution.png

Alguns criacionistas publicaram uma lista de argumentos que eles acreditam que os criacionistas não devem usar.[1] Tanto quanto se sabe, anticriacionistas não fizeram nada semelhante. Ainda assim, tal lista é justificada, pois há muitos argumentos usados contra o criacionismo que nenhum anticriacionista que se preze deveria estar disposto a usar. Em muitos casos, esses argumentos são usados por anticriacionistas amadores que não têm uma idéia real do que os criacionistas acreditam, e, inversamente, muitos anticriacionistas mais bem informados evitarão usá-los. No entanto, até mesmo alguns que deveriam conhecer melhor sobre o assunto usarão alguns desses argumentos.

Argumentos do homem de palha

Os argumentos do homem de palha são onde os anticriacionistas criticam os criacionistas por guardarem ideias que, de fato, não sustentam. O que torna isso particularmente irritante é que na maioria dos casos os criacionistas freqüentemente negam o uso desses argumentos, mas os anticriacionistas continuam criticando os criacionistas por usá-los de qualquer maneira.

O Dilúvio de Noé cobriu o Monte Everest

Embora o Dilúvio de Noé seja descrito na Bíblia como cobrindo as montanhas mais altas, está claramente falando sobre as montanhas que estavam presentes naquele tempo. E os criacionistas acreditam—com o apoio de Salmos 104:8 que as montanhas subiram e os vales afundaram na época do dilúvio, levando a montanhas hoje mais altas que as pré-inundações.

Este não é um conceito novo, e anticriacionistas que afirmam que os criacionistas acreditam que o atual Monte Everest foi coberto pelo Dilúvio de Noé claramente nunca realmente leram o que os criacionistas dizem sobre o assunto.

Argumentos desatualizados

Às vezes, os criacionistas costumavam manter (ou não) uma ideia, mas desde então rejeitam (ou aceitam) essa ideia. É claro que pode sempre haver alguns criacionistas que ainda se apegam a elas, especialmente os criacionistas amadores que não se mantêm atualizados com as idéias criacionistas.

A velocidade da luz está diminuindo

Em um artigo na revista Creation Vol. 4 No. 1 (1981), o criacionista Barry Setterfield primeiro apresentou sua idéia de que a velocidade da luz havia diminuído a partir de uma velocidade inicial na criação de 1.5 x 1017 km/sec. Isso, portanto, resolveu o problema da luz distante das estrelas.[2]

A ideia foi desenvolvida e debatida em edições subsequentes da Ex Nihilo e depois no CEN Technical Journal, mas no final a maioria dos cientistas criacionistas rejeitou a ideia.

Apesar das alegações anticriacionistas de que os criacionistas não estão dispostos a considerar as evidências e a mudar suas ideias, este caso fornece um exemplo clássico de criacionistas que fazem exatamente isso. A ideia não é parte aceita do modelo de criação há muitos anos, mas muitos anticriacionistas ainda a levantam como um exemplo de que os criacionistas estão errados.

Nunca houve um super continente que se separou

Isso pode ser expresso dizendo que os criacionistas não acreditam na tectônica de placas, mas, independentemente disso, é errado.

Some creationists have rejected the idea, and in the early days of modern creationism it was not widely accepted, but the idea was actually proposed by a creationist (Antonio Snider) in 1859 partly on the basis of the creation account in Genesis. And creationist John Baumgardner is a leading researcher in plate tectonics.

Anticreationists who claim that creationists reject plate tectonics or an original supercontinent are simply not up to date with creationary thinking.

Criacionistas negam a especiação

Os criacionistas acreditam nos limites da mudança biológica, sendo esses limites os tipos criados originais, mas também acreditam em variação dentro desses limites. De fato, o modelo de criação o requer para explicar a variedade de criaturas descendentes daquelas que estavam na Arca de Noé. No entanto, a especiação observada é o resultado de uma separação ou eliminação da informação genética original, e não a criação de novas informações genéticas.

A negação da especiação foi feita por alguns criacionistas da época de Darwin, e alguns criacionistas amadores ainda fazem hoje, mas a especiação é aceita por todos os atuais cientistas criacionistas.

Errors of fact

Some arguments are simply wrong, but have gained a sort of "urban myth" status amongst the anti-creationist community. Again, however, creationists have frequently pointed out the error of these arguments, yet they refuse to die.

No scientists are creationists

This has never been true. Most founders of the various scientific disciplines were creationists, and today there are many thousands of scientists who are creationists. See lists (with qualifications and biographies) of selected creationary scientists on CreationWiki and on the web-sites of Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, and the Institute for Creation Research.

It is therefore incorrect to refer to the beliefs of scientists as being distinct from the beliefs of creationists, as the former group includes some of the latter group.

Creationists deny natural selection

Natural Selection is not synonymous with evolution. Natural Selection is an observed process that was described by a creationist (Edward Blyth) in 1835–7, before Darwin. Creationists consider Natural Selection to be a conservative process, not an innovative one.

Creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed journals

It is often difficult to know just what this claim amounts to. It could be any of the following, and sometimes changes from one to another as each one is debunked.

  • Creation scientists do not publish in peer-reviewed journals
  • Creation scientists do not publish in mainstream peer-reviewed journals
  • Creation scientists do not publish creation research in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

In each case, however, the charge is false, although creation scientists do find it very difficult to publish creation research in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. See Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? for a refutation of this claim.

The Earth is 4,000 years old

You would think that this one would be easy for anticreationists to get right. But no, some of them are so ignorant of the creationist position that they can't even get the age of the Earth right. Young-Earth Creationists believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old,[3] not 4,000 or some other such figure. Some have argued for an Earth 6,000 to 10,000 years old, but most these days go with the 6,000 year age. Of course this means that the Earth was created around 4000 BC, which is probably where they get the "4,000" from, but it is still very sloppy.

The Flood lasted 40 days (and 40 nights)

Like the last one, this shows that the anticreationists are just not familiar with the model that they profess to know is wrong.

The Bible records that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, but also says that some (much?) of the water was from subterranean sources ("fountains of the deep"), and that the flood waters rose for 150 days, and the total time that Noah and his family were on the ark was one year and twelve days (including the seven days before the flood started).

There is not enough Water to Flood the whole earth to the highest mountain

Recent research of the minerals found in the upper mantle of the earth has revealed that a mineral called wadsleyite holds 3% water by weight. According to the estimate of how much of the mineral exists in the upper mantle, this works out to around 30 oceans worth of water. More than enough water to to flood the earth to the highest moutain. This also presents a problem for the old earth model. What would create enough pressure to get the water into that mineral without boiling off? Over 14 miles of water would raise the boiling point to over 500 degrees F.Predefinição:Reference There is no other source for such pressure to achieve this.[4]

Kinetic Energy caused by the rain of the Flood, would have broiled the earth

The kinetic energy generated by the rain during the flood would broil the earth. But the clouds for the rain during the flood would have totally blocked the sun for 40 days. So the kinetic energy would have to match the sun's energy, to replace loss of energy, to even maintain the temperature. Then it would have to be multiplied several times to even raise the global temperature 1 degree in 40 days. So this claim is impossible. In fact the kinetic energy produced during the rain of the flood, made enough heat to keep the earth more livable when Noah got off the boat.

Arguments that don't acknowledge the creation model

Some evidence offered by skeptics in support of evolution fails to actually support evolution over creation. This generally indicates that the skeptic has little idea of the creation model.

Similaridade (homologia) apóia a evolução

The argument from homology is that evolution predicts that there will be similarity between different living things because they have a common ancestor. Thus observed similarity is used to demonstrate that evolution is correct. However, the creation model also predicts similarity between different living things because they have a common Creator.[5] Thus observed similarity is consistent with both points of view and therefore cannot be used to support one over the other. (However, a more-specific form of the argument may be able to make the required distinction.)

Transitional forms support evolution

Evolution predicts transitional forms between related living things, and these are observed.[6] Therefore, the argument goes, evolution is shown to be correct. But this ignores that the creation model also predicts transitional forms between different varieties of living things of the same created kind, so evidence of transitional forms between living things cannot be used to support one over the other unless it is also demonstrated that they are transitional between different created kinds.

Referências

  1. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use by Creation Ministries International
  2. The Velocity of light and the age of the universe by Barry Setterfield Creation 4(1):38–48. March 1981
  3. Give or take a few years. If there are gaps in the genealogies, this date might be higher, but not much more. Creationists generally accept that the age of the earth is at least 6,000 years.
  4. If this is true, then it might help to explain the discordant heat values in Dr. Baumgardner's Runaway Subduction model (it predicts two orders of magnitude more energy added to the oceans than would make the water boil). If the high pressure and boiling point led to wadsleyite being created as described above, then it would vindicate Baumgardner's model.
  5. Note also that DNA is directly related to form and function. If something has similar anatomical requirements to another creature, then their DNA would be similar because it is what enables them to fulfill those requirements. Similarity of DNA, then, is directly indicated by physical similarities. Assuming that something is related because it is similar to something else is begging the question.
  6. Read that carefully. Note that a transitional form between a dog and a wolf is nothing more than a variation of the Dog-Wolf kind. This paragraph is not talking about fish-to-amphibians transitional forms.