Information icon.svg Consider taking the RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 or see the results.

Conservapedia:Arguments creationists shouldn't use

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest, and not necessarily the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of religious fundamentalism and creationist claims.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the cover story articles or a random article.
Conservlogo late april.png
Conservapedia
Introduction
Newcomer's Guide
What is going on?
Commentary
Best of Conservapedia
Blatant plagiarism
Differences with Wikipedia
Hijacked articles
"SDG"
"TZB"
"Fab Five"
Sysops
Timeline
CP in the media
In-depth analysis
Active users
Illustrated guide
Fun
Article Matrix
Greatest Insights
Parthian Shots

More about CP

Answers in Genesis has an article on arguments creationists should not use because they are clearly fallacious or doubtful and may make creationists look a little silly.[1] A worthy ambition one would say as if there's one thing creationists are good at, it's looking silly.

Note that this inquiry makes no attempt to assess the relative merits of the arguments mentioned, merely to see whether Conservapedia uses them.

Foreword to the results[edit]

When beginning this inquiry, it was hypothesised that the results would show Conservapedia used arguments that other creationist websites would disavow, thus being an opportunity to ridicule Conservapedia more. The results have shown that, in the main, Conservapedia refrains from using the arguments AIG rejects. Thus the hypothesis has been largely discredited. It is still important to post the results of this empirical inquiry despite the results not matching the hypothesis as otherwise all the other critical "conservapedia articles" could be accused of having a confirmation bias. In other words, we would be dishonest if we only posted the results of inquiries that tended to ridicule conservapedia and refrained from posting the results that do not.

Astronomical[edit]

  • Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, thereby proving a young sun.

CP:Young Earth Creationism#Geology USED Point 28. "Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun."

  • Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.

NOT USED. No reference to this argument can be found at Conservapedia

  • NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” [Joshua 10] and Hezekiah’s sundial movement [2 Kings 20].

PARTLY USED. No reference to this argument found at Conservapedia, though in reference to Hezekiah, they do say, giving the sense of some astronomical correctness. "John D. Davis tried to connect it to a partial solar eclipse that, he said, occurred on May 6, 724 BC--earlier even than the Fall of Samaria[32] Ussher, who kept a strict account of astronomical manifestations, mentions no such eclipse in that year. Ussher also maintains that God accomplished a total reversal of time, so that the event did not leave any lasting sign other than contemporary records.[1]" CP:Hezekiah

  • Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.

NOT USED. No reference to this argument can be found at Conservapedia

Ad Hominem[edit]

  • Darwin recanted on his deathbed

CP:Charles Darwin NOT USED "There exists in hostile Darwin literature a story about a Christian called Lady Hope who visited and spoke with a dying Charles Darwin. This appears to be merely a legend, and there is no evidence that Lady Hope ever converted or even visited Darwin on his deathbed."

  • Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in a Creator.

CP:Einstein USED "Taken as a whole, it appears Einstein rejected the literal stories of God's personal involvement with the Hebrews, but he did believe in the existence of a higher power".

  • Ron Wyatt has found much archeological proof of the Bible

CP:Noah's Ark NOT USED "n 1977, Ron Wyatt promoted a site on the lower slopes of Mount Ararat which he claimed was the remnants of Noah's Ark.[2] However, his findings have since been discredited by a variety of sources including mainstream archaeologists and other Young Earth Creationists"

Geological[edit]

  • “Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.”
  • “The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in ‘old’ strata invalidate the geologic column.”

NOT USED No reference to this argument can be found at Conservapedia.

  • “Archaeopteryx is a fraud.”

Cp:Archaeopteryx. Mentions as "theoretical bird" and possible fraud.

  • “Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.”

CP:Out-of-place artifact Stated as fact. The Paluxy River tracks near Glen Rose, Texas, USA. Tracks of Tyrannosaurus rex and other dinosaurs are found side-by-side with human footprints. Some of these human footprints are giant sized.

  • “Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.”

MENTIONED AS A PLAUSIBLE THEORY CP:Tectonic plates "Genesis 10:25 says of Peleg that "in his time the earth was divided". Some creationists have seen this as referring to the tectonic plates moving[1]. However, many creationary scientists consider this verse to be referring to the division of the people at the Tower of Babel, and not to plate tectonics".

  • “Plate tectonics is fallacious.”

NOT USED CP:Tectonic plates and CP:Continental drift show no doubt as to the validity of plate tectonics.

  • “There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, so the earth may be 10,000 years old or even more.”

Evolution[edit]

  • “Dubois renounced Java man as a ‘missing link’ and claimed it was just a giant gibbon.”

No mention can be found in CP.

  • “The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.”

CP:Plesiosaur. Mentioned as "reputed".

  • “If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today.”

(Fortunately or unfortunately perhaps) the argument cannot be found at Conservapedia

  • “There are no beneficial mutations.”

CP:Natural selection Position a little unclear. Ends with: We see that variations only come to already-existing plans (DNA), and that changes to the plans produce nothing new.

  • “No new species have been produced.”

CP:Species This argument is not used by CP.

  • “Darwin mentioned the absurdity of eye evolution in The Origin of Species.”

Not mentioned in CP:The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection CP:Theory of evolution

  • “The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.”

Not used in Conservapedia

  • “Natural selection is a tautology.”


  • “Evolution is just a theory.”

AMBIGUOUS, no reference to the scientific meaning of "theory" in the article CP:Theory of Evolution. However there is no attempt to show the amount of consensus held by biologists and other scientists to evolution.

  • “There are no transitional forms.”

CP:Transitional form. This argument is used by CP: Creationists claim that there there are no transitional forms between the various created kinds.

  • “Gold chains have been found in coal.”
  • “Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.”

CP:Microevolution Mentioned, but not recommended.

See also[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. AIG - Arguments creationists should not use.