The Curmudgeon’s Instant Rebuttal Project

This may never amount to much, but we’ve been tinkering with what may become a useful compendium of rapid responses to the most frequent claims of creationists. This isn’t intended to be a debate resource, because as you know, we believe that Debating Creationists is Dumber Than Creationism.

Also, this isn’t intended to be a response to every crazy claim a creationist might make. We have no intention of trying to duplicate the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. Nor is it as ambitious as our Common Creationist Claims Confuted, which discusses some relatively complicated issues (micro-macro, etc.). This is a list of quickies only.

What follows is only the beginning of the compendium — a brief collection of the most common creationist claims, followed by what we think is an appropriate rapid response. We welcome your suggestions for additions:

Claim: Atheistic science is an excuse for wickedness.
Response: Professional scientists are virtually absent from every compilation of prison statistics.

Claim: Darwin inspired Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
Response: Factually absurd — see, e.g.: Darwin, Churchill, and Hitler, and Marx, Stalin, and Darwin. Additionally, unlike science, religion has been a frequent excuse for aggression — see, e.g.: Inquisition, and Religious war, and European wars of religion.

Claim: The bible says the Earth is young (or some other assertion).
Response: It also says, dozens of times, that The Earth Is Flat!

Claim: You have no proof of (whatever).
Response: Either: (1) We do have evidence (citation); or (2) we’re working on it. Meanwhile, you have no verifiable evidence for any of your claims.

Claim: I’m trying to save you from the Lake of Fire.
Response: Thanks, but there’s no evidence that such a place exists, and your deity allegedly condemned me to go there before I was born.

Claim: The cause is supernatural.
Response: Supernatural means: outside of nature, unobservable, and incomprehensible. In other words, you’re clueless.

That’s all we’ve got so far; it may be all we’ll ever have. If you can suggest something additional — we’re looking for only the most popular creationist claims — we’d appreciate your input.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

26 responses to “The Curmudgeon’s Instant Rebuttal Project

  1. Lewis Thomason

    Looks like a great start.

  2. Earth is young…..Show me where it says so?
    Actually the book o’BS does not say anything about earth’s age! It was determined by some dimwit monk who thinks the buyBull did not leave any generation out and everyone lived for 600yrs!!!

  3. I suggest that one mention, not the Earth being flat, but rather the geocentric model of the universe. I suggest this, not because there is any lack of Bible proof-texts for the flat Earth, but because there is a long history of recognizing that that the Earth is a globe among readers of the Bible; and the evidence that the Earth is not flat (and, along with that, that there is no solid firmament, etc.) is clear to practically everybody today. By contrast, the geocentric model was defended for nearly 2000 years by everybody who read the Bible, so it is impossible to claim that geocentrism is one of those things which is obviously meant figuratively. Moreover, the evidence for helocentrism is not as obvious (or, at least, not before the beginning of the space age, or needs knowledge of physics at least at the college level). One can defend the shape of the Earth being flat as “obviously not meant literally”, whereas that is not as “obviously” in the case of geocentrism.

  4. Can I suggest that the Claims in the list be numbered, for ease of reference? For example, the response to the first claim here – ” Atheistic science is an excuse for wickedness” – could be expanded to note that the US prison population contains a negligible number of atheists–and is overwhelmingly Christian. But no one claims (nor should they) a correlation between Christianity and criminality.

  5. @L. Long
    I wouldn’t go that far. Archbishop Ussher was not a monk – he was married and had a legitimate daughter and grandchildren – and was not a “dimwit” – he actually did some scholarly work in his calculations. This sort of language tends to discredit the case, IMHO.
    One might make a better case that the Bible does not say a word against evolution, for the necessary concepts didn’t exist in Biblical time. There is nothing that suggests “baraminology”, a distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” being apparently a construction of the 20th century.

  6. IMHO it is vitally important that it be pointed out that there is no positive case made for an alternative account for the variety of life. There is no theory of creationism, whether YEC or OEC or ID. The maximum that is being said is that there is something fatally wrong with evolutionary biology and hope for a “false dilemma” or “contrived dualism” to pass for a valid argument.

  7. Megalonyx says: “Can I suggest that the Claims in the list be numbered, for ease of reference?”

    If the list grows, I agree the claims should be numbered.

  8. Re “Claim: Atheistic science is an excuse for wickedness.
    Response: Professional scientists are virtually absent from every compilation of prison statistics.” You might add, though our prisons are almost full of Christians.

    Re “Claim: I’m trying to save you from the Lake of Fire.
    Response: Thanks, but there’s no evidence that such a place exists, and your deity allegedly condemned me to go there before I was born.” The “Lake of Fire” did not exist in the Old Testament, so God didn’t invent it, Jesus did. Nice guy. “Believe in me of your own free choice or burn forever.”

  9. Claim: The Theory of Evolution is a leftist political agenda promoted by libtard communist abortionist SJW snowflake cucks in order to bring about dictatorial world government, compulsory same-sex marriage, cannibalism in schools, mandatory gender reassignment surgery for white people, and the universal heartbreak of psoriasis.
    Response: Our very own Sensuous Curmudgeon.

  10. Michael Fugate

    Humans are unique, exceptional, etc.
    So is every other living thing.

  11. SOrry TomS but when someone reads a long book of ‘history’ with only a few select descendants called out and almost no girls mentioned, the dude aint too bright to accept the genealogies as stated. Although I admit he had his buyBull glasses on! So all the impossibilities are accepted.
    And based on his knowledge of the time and buyBull glasses he probably was fairly bright….its the 20th century dimwits that commit the famous ID-10-T error.

  12. I just added one more, but it’s not enough to start numbering yet:

    Claim: The cause is supernatural.
    Response: Supernatural means: outside of nature, unobservable, and incomprehensible. In other words, you’re clueless.

  13. Charles Deetz ;)

    Claim: Archaeopteryx is just a bird
    Response: A bird with a bony tail and teeth?

    Claim: Archaeopteryx is just a dinosaur
    Response: A dino with a feathers and a wishbone?

  14. Ross Cameron

    Claim: Jehovah/Jesus are kind/loving
    Response (1): Why did they create 33,000 diseases affecting humans?
    Response (2): There are no “Js” in Aramaic/Hebrew

  15. @Charles Deetz;
    There are non-avian dinosaurs with feathers. And with a furcula (wishbone). There were birds with teeth.

  16. Mark Germano

    @TomS, I don’t think a creationist would agree that birds are part of the dinosaurs’ clade.

  17. But do creationists accept that some of the dinosaurs, animals which they call dinosaurs, have feathers and wishbones? Or that some birds had teeth?

  18. Charles Deetz ;)

    @TomS, thanks for correcting, I was shooting off the top of my head, and some of the features are hard to discuss in the instant rebuttal project format. I guess it ain’t that easy.

  19. The cause is supernatural.
    Response:
    That’s impossible. The supernatural domain–an imaginary term that for the sake of argument I will now generously stipulate exists–is separate from the natural world (non overlapping magisteria) and therefore BY DEFINITION can’t interact with it.

  20. Dave Luckett

    Claim: Life is too complex to have evolved.

    Response: Complex things have evolved. Macroeconomics, for instance. So where lies the boundary beyond which evolution cannot increase complexity?

  21. Claim: Scientists have been wrong about things in the past, ergo they are wrong about things now.
    Response 1: The distinguishing feature of science is precisely its mechanisms for self-correction and improvement; science finds its own errors, fixes them, and continues to reliably expand our knowledge
    Response 2: Fixed dogma of Oogity-Boogity absolutism can only inhibit, not extend, human knowledge

  22. Christine Janis

    @TomS. ” —-evidence that the Earth is not flat (and, along with that, that there is no solid firmament, etc.) is clear to practically everybody today”

    Just check out the tsunami of “flat earth” books on Amazon. Most of them also want to tell you that you’re a victim of a government/NASA scam.

  23. @Christine Janis
    I don’t know what to make of this: the #1 flat Earth book on Amazon has no 1-star reviews. Is it that nobody thinks it worth their time to bother with a really bad review?

  24. Megalonyx offers: “Scientists have been wrong about things in the past, ergo they are wrong about things now.”

    Yes, that does come up all the time, but a satisfactory response about the nature of science, which should also deal with Hambo’s “operational vs. historical” dichotomy, requires more than a quickie response. I need to think about this.

  25. As far as the nature of science (or knowledge), as anyone brought up, “How do you know, were you there?” When the need for science, and its strength, is in telling us about what goes on about that which is difficult or impossible to access directly – that which is too far in space or time, too small or big, too fast or slow, etc.

  26. winewithcats

    I would likely respond with “So have you”, but that’s probably far too subtle.