Friday, June 17, 2016

Question: "Old earth vs. young earth—what are the core issues in the debate?"



Question: "Old earth vs. young earth—what are the core issues in the debate?"
Answer: Both old earth creationism and young earth creationism seek to solve the apparent conflict between science and the Bible in regard to the age of the earth. What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000 years old. In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and the age of the universe around 14.6 billion years.

 The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.

 Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong. Generally speaking, both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word. What differs between these approaches is one’s view on what the Bible is, in fact, saying. It’s a matter of interpretation.

 Old earth creationists believe a strictly literal approach is not the correct way to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. They view Genesis 1–2 as being primarily symbolic and/or poetic. Young earth creationists interpret Genesis 1–2 as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe. Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently? Old earth creationists question why, if the Bible uses symbolism in many other books, can’t metaphor be used in Genesis?

 Young earth creationists contend that the scientific data supporting a billions-of-years-old universe is being interpreted incorrectly. They view old-earth arguments developed by naturalistic scientists as primarily being a defense for Darwinian evolution. They contend that the dating methods are flawed, at best, and are implemented by scientists with bias, presuppositions, and agendas. Old earth creationists view the scientific dating methods as being reasonably accurate and therefore accept that the earth and the universe are truly old. Also, a great number of old earth creationists reject Darwinian evolution.

 So, in the old earth vs. young earth debate, who is correct? As a ministry, GotQuestions.org definitely leans toward the young earth perspective. We believe that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are meant to be read literally, and young earth creationism is what a literal reading of those chapters presents. At the same time, we do not view old earth creationism as heresy. We are not going to question the faith or motives of our brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us on this issue. Ultimately, one can hold to views other than young earth creationism and still have an accurate understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith.

 As we interpret it, the Bible indicates that the earth is relatively young. According to secular scientists and those who accept an old-earth reading of Scripture, the earth is very old. Since neither viewpoint can be explicitly proved, we choose to side with a plain/literal interpretation of the Bible.


Question: "Is there any evidence for the Bible's view of a young earth?"
Answer: There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth. However, the old-earth perspective has held a monopoly in the public schools, in the major academic centers, and in the popular media for generations. It is no wonder then that most scientists share the old-earth perspective. It’s all they were taught growing up in school. It’s all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It’s what most of their colleagues profess. But there are dissenters among the scientific community, and their numbers are growing. Why? Because more and more scientists are confronting a growing body of evidence which challenges the old-earth paradigm.

This is not to say that everyone who examines these evidences will reject the old-earth perspective. Some who have pondered these evidences regard them as anomalous, yet-to-be-explained phenomena. Some believe they don’t stand up under close scrutiny. Some view them as deliberate misrepresentations of the facts by religious zealots.

There is no doubt that religious zealots have a tendency to distort facts when it suits their purposes. old-earth zealots have the same tendency when their careers and reputations are on the line. It’s human nature. It is also true that some of the young-earth evidences which have been proposed over the years have not withstood close scrutiny. But many others have, and the fact remains that a growing number of professionally trained scientists—experts in their fields—are accepting a young-earth perspective as being at least scientifically plausible, if not compelling. Here are a few of the relevant evidences for consideration:

Young Earth Evidence: Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains. The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years. At this rate, high-altitude, million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire geologic column would need serious revision (see our article on the Geologic Column).

Young Earth Evidence: Subterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.

Young Earth Evidence: Global Cooling. In the 19th century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the earth began in a white-hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today. Since then, old-earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. Young-earth advocates respond that, even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than old-earth advocates allow.

Young Earth Evidence: Lunar Recession. The moon is slowly moving farther away from the earth. This has to do with the fact that the earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in the late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and several other factors, physicists have determined that the earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years (you can review the mathematical equations involved at http://www.creationscience.com/). This is 3.4 billion years less time than old-earth advocates are willing to accept. Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.

Young Earth Evidence: Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. Helium is produced within the earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (uranium and thorium being two such elements). Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature. Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. This observation has a couple of implications.

First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common old-earth dating technique). Scientists believe that a billion years of uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past (see our article on Radiometric Dating). One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab, but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature. However, if billions years of uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the geologic column, currently accepted old-earth interpretations of the geologic column may need serious revision (once again, see our article on the Geologic Column). These and numerous other scientific evidences for a young-earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis.
Question: "How does the Cambrian Explosion fit within the framework of young-earth creationism?"

Answer: The earth's crust consists of many layers of fossil-bearing rock. It was once believed that the lowest layer of fossil-bearing rock was the Cambrian and that Precambrian rock was totally devoid of any fossil remains. It is now known that there are actually some, though very few, primitive fossils in the Precambrian. But it is not until the Cambrian layer that we find a sudden burst of life.

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the sudden appearance of most of the world's known animal phyla, all within a very brief period of geological time (by the conventional standard). The sudden appearance of so many of the major innovations to the basic structures of known animal forms has always been somewhat problematic for Darwin’s theory of gradual innovation. But how does the Cambrian Explosion fit with the framework of young-earth creationism?

The old-earth position is that the vast majority of earth's strata represent long epochs of time, typically millions of years, and that the fossils found in the lower layers evolved before those found in the upper layers. The young-earth position is that nearly all of the strata from the Cambrian period on up were deposited in relatively quick succession as the result of a catastrophic global deluge and subsequent natural disasters, and that the order in which fossils are found is a result of hydrological mechanics (hydrologic sorting for example, the phenomenon whereby dirt spontaneously settles into layers after being kicked up in water). 

The conspicuous presence of so many of the world's known animal phyla in the bottom layer does not prove or disprove one position or the other. So young-earth proponents rely on other physical evidences to make their case, including poly-strata fossils (that is, fossils that pass through multiple strata), misplaced and missing fossils and strata, the lack of erosion between strata, the deficiency of bioturbation, undisturbed bedding planes, the limited extent of unconformities, soft-sediment deformation, and well-preserved surface features between layers, etc.

There are, for example, plenty of out-of-place fossils. Sometimes rock layers containing what are thought to be older fossils are found above rock layers that contain what are thought to be younger fossils (the younger fossils should be on top). The solution for Darwinian geologists is to argue that the strata containing the misplaced fossils were shuffled out of order by some natural geological process. They then reorganize the discrepant fossils and rock layers logically using the assumed order in which the creatures were supposed to have evolved; i.e., this organism was supposed to have evolved before this one, so it goes here on bottom, while this organism was supposed to have evolved after this one so it goes here on top, etc. Darwinian biologists then turn around and use the evolutionary progression organized by the geologists as evidence for the evolutionary progression that the geologists used to organize the strata. This is, of course, circular reasoning.

To summarize, each viewpoint, whether young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, or Darwinian evolution, struggles somewhat with explaining the Cambrian Explosion. In no sense, though, is the Cambrian Explosion contradictory with young-earth creationism. In fact, young-earth creationism perhaps has the clearest explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, that of the global deluge. Whatever the case, the evidence for the Cambrian Explosion is no reason to doubt the veracity of Genesis’ account of creation (Genesis chapters 1-2, 6-8).


http://www.gotquestions.org/

 Copyright Policy: While all of the material on the GotQuestions.org website is under copyright protection, the only purpose of our copyright is to make sure people copy it right. As long as you always clearly reference and/or link to www.gotquestions.org as the source of the material, you have our permission to copy, print, and distribute our material.
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law.
 In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.
on No comments:

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Rise of Islam: The Truth of Taqiyya




Taqiyya



Taqiyya, in Islam, is generally known as “lying for the faith.” There are two basic uses of taqiyya: 1) disavowing one’s religious identity during fear of persecution (Shi’a Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims), and 2) active deceit during jihad against the realm of unbelief (Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb). This form of deceit is grounded in Islamic doctrine and is often depicted as being equal to, or superior to, other military virtues such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.
Former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut, Sami Mukaram, wrote in his book, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam):
Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.
His book clearly reveals the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya within Islam. Within Shari’a—the body of legal rulings that defines the appropriate behavior of Muslims in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations, it is often deemed obligatory. Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves because of verses in the Qur’an that forbid Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.
The writings of Qur’anic scholars detail the history of the authorization and use of Taqiyya. Sura 3:28 is used most often as the verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims:
Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.
In his Qur’an commentary, Muhammad ibn jarir at-Tabari clarifies verse 3:28 as follows:
If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them… [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.
Some Qur’anic scholars extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240) supported bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and exposing the weaknesses of fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy. Anything short of actually killing a Muslim is deemed acceptable: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity, even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”

Taqiyya and Islamic Public Relations

As this article is being written, two U.S. states have banned the practice of Shari’a law, twelve are in the process of drafting and approving legislation, and three have proposed legislation that failed to pass. For Islamic proponents of Shari’a in America, the battleground has been taken to a new level—the American billboard.
The slogan created by the Defending Religious Freedom campaign: Shariah: Got Questions? Get Answershopes to catch the attention of the American voter with hopes of educating us to stop the bans. For many analysts, the issue is not one of creating a backlash of Islamophobia, but the reality of the use of taqiyya in the education process and the reality of Shari’a in America.
Shari’a literally means “the path to a watering hole.” Shari’a is the law of the Qur’an that is comprised of five main branches: adab (behavior, morals and manners), ibadah (ritual worship), I’tiqadat (beliefs),mu’amalat(transactions and contracts), and ‘uqubat (punishments).
According to its proponents, these branches of Shari’a combine to create a society based on “justice, pluralism and equity for every member of society.” They would like for us to believe that Shari’a forbids that it be imposed on any unwilling person. In fact, they propose that the Prophet Muhammad himself demonstrated that Shari’a may only be applied if people willingly apply it to themselves—never through forced government implementation.

Shari’a

One of the primary reasons for the backlash against the practice of Shari’a in America is the growing public awareness of honor killings. Human Rights Watch defines honor killings:
Honor killings are acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by individuals within her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce—even from an abusive husband—or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that “dishonors” her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.
In her 2009 Middle East Quarterly article, Phyllis Chesler argues that the U.S. is far behind Europe in acknowledging that honor killings are a special form of domestic violence—a form of violence in which the perpetrators are protected by Shari’a law. While the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” the Qur’an states:
  • Sura 5:38 – Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from Allah.
  • Sura 24:2 – A raped woman is punished with the man: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes.
The complexities and the deceit of the Islamic Circle of North America’s Defending Religious Freedom campaign are meant to assuage fears of Islam and Shari’a. However, even the name of the campaign denies the truth. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion,” yet Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57)
In his book, What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an: A History of Islam & the United States, William J. Federer presents an exhaustive study of the truth of taqiyya in U.S.-Islam relations. In contrast to the First Amendment Federer states, “Islamic law (Shari’a) relegates non-Muslims to ‘dhimmi’ status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or Star of David.”

Truth

Sadly, in America, it does not matter if the “public relations campaign” is for the Islamic implementation of Shari’a law or the demoralizing implementation of humanism in every aspect of daily life, the result is the same—a life without the God-given freedoms and foundations established on our shores over two centuries ago.

Sources:

Koinonia House We freely allow other sites to post our articles, as long as:
1.The author is credited.
2.A link is made to the Koinonia House web site.  http://www.khouse.org/
3.The article is not edited.
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed thatthis constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes ofcriticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.
Christian News Service – Worthy News Link to worldwide Christian news organization
Link to  Net Bible Link to Net Bible Translation and Commentaries Link to Answers in Genesis Ministries
Link to CNS News


on No comments:

Monday, June 13, 2016

Creationists can’t be scientists? Really?

By 


9948-creating-life-from-nothing
How many times have we heard this refrain, “Creationists can’t be scientists”? When I taught freshman English as an adjunct faculty member at Asbury College in Wilmore, Kentucky, among our objectives was the development of the students’ analytical skills. To do this, I chose Philip Johnson’s book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Perhaps you can imagine my dismay when I, a mere English teacher in this Christian college, was asked by members of the science faculty to remove the book from my required reading list! Three science professors called me to meet with them so they could set me straight concerning the origin of man.
I had become convinced of creation independently from knowledge or resources provided by the various creation ministries. Based on personal investigation and reading, I knew the subject well enough to survive the onslaught of evolutionary arguments they threw at me. Dr James Behnke, however, caught me totally off guard when he said, “Did you know that creationists like Dr Steve Austin are not real scientists. He should have his degree taken away from him, because he does bad science.” I scarcely had heard the name before, but the accusation placed a question mark over the name which lasted for years. I had become victim to a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attack the man, rather than his arguments. Some 10 years later, I have still not discovered any of this alleged “bad science” practiced by Dr Austin, who, like me and millions of other creationists, actually believes that God meant what he said in Genesis 1–11!
So, creationists can’t be scientists? I guess that means that agnostics can’t be theologians either. Both are logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies pop up everywhere. What is a logical fallacy? It consists of misusing arguments for or against a topic under discussion, whether intentionally, or unconsciously. For example, when the Spanish public discovered that there are people who still believe in creation: “You can’t take these people seriously. They’re all just a crowd of ignorant, religious fanatics who know nothing about science,” the university professors glibly quip, thus avoiding all need to ever examine the case personally.
One promising future scientist, José, is studying science in a Spanish university. His classmates tried to get him expelled from the science program when he told them that there was solid, empirical evidence which denies the possibility of evolution.
In 2008, after universities in León and Vigo cancelled lectures on intelligent design, a Spanish medical doctor, Antonio Martínez, was invited to debate with an evolutionist, Manuel Soler, on the nationally broadcast TV program,Espejo Público (Public Mirror), about whether creationism should be given a public hearing or not.1
The evolutionist nonchalantly cycled through his parroted series of logical fallacies, including several false accusations attacking the credentials and intentions of practicing scientists, while the doctor, on the other hand, quoted fact after scientific fact. “I don’t understand why you insist on speaking about science since you’re not a biologist,” the evolutionist said accusingly. The creationist doctor calmly replied, “What do you mean I’m not a biologist? I spent 11 years studying biology to become a doctor. I get my livelihood from practicing science precisely. You, however, are free to speculate, but if I worked by speculation, I would risk going to jail!” When the evolutionist had spent his repertoire of fallacies, he dodged for cover and said, “I didn’t come here to debate science. I came to discuss whether or not creationists should be allowed to make presentations in public universities!” He clearly stated that they should not ever be given that privilege.
So, creationists can’t be scientists? I guess that means that agnostics can’t be theologians either. Both are logical fallacies. What is wrong with the logic in disqualifying people from certain professions because of their personal convictions? Because it’s not true! In fact there are thousands of real scientists who believe in creation, just as there are plenty of agnostic, and even atheist, theologians. The logical formula, termed a syllogism, being used runs something like this:
a is not equal to b.
c is equal to a.
Therefore, c can never be equal to b.
Now read the logical formula where a = religion, b = science, c = creation.
Superficially, this argument sounds solid enough until you begin to study logical fallacies and how they work. This one can be called a non sequitur because it makes a “statement that does not follow logically from what has just been said—conclusion that does not follow from the premises.”2 For one thing, how are “religion” and “science” defined? If “religion” means something believed in without being proven through experimentation, and “science” means evolution (e.g. monkeys turning into humans), then elements a and b would become exact equivalents, since evolution is merely believed without any empirical evidence!3 The first premise in the argument is thus incorrect and should read:
a IS EQUAL TO b!
Of course, this is not usually what people mean by this argument. Usually, they want to imply that someone who believes in special creation will never be objective and honest enough to practice operational science properly. His or her faith will always skew the results of the experiments. This is clearly false when we take into account that nearly all of the founders of the modern branches of science believed that they were merely discovering the facts build into the physical world by a loving Creator God (see Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator).
What are some other logical fallacies that are typically used to argue in favour of evolution?
1) The similarity between living beings, genetically as well as morphologically (in form), shows that they are all related to each other and evolved from a single original life form.
Begging the question (petitio principii): This fallacy consists of “implicitly using your conclusion as a premise” to prove your argument.4
Here the person assumes that evolution is true and then uses genetic and morphological similarities, which can also be explained by the existence of a single Creator/Designer, as proof that evolution is true. To be a valid argument, you would have to show how similarities canonly be the result of evolution, without making any prior assumptions.
2) Creationists believe in fixity (the immutability of species). Fixity has been shown to be false, therefore evolution is true and creation is false.
Straw man: Attack a misrepresentation of the target and then claim to have disproven the case.
3) Ernst Haeckel’s drawings from the 19th century, which show the similarity between various embryos of different species, are clear evidence of the common ancestry of all animals.
False analogy: Use reasoning which doesn’t really apply to the case to prove the point.
Besides the fact that Haeckel’s drawing were a deliberate fraud,5 the argument was a fallacy from the beginning. The claim was supposed to demonstrate common ancestry, but mere similarities in embryonic shapes could never demonstrate a common origin, mainly because the origin was not, and cannot be, directly observed by any scientist. It was a historic event which, whether by creation or evolution, cannot be repeated in a laboratory no matter how hard we might try, any more than Napoleon Bonaparte can lose the battle of Waterloo again. Animals either evolved originally or were created by God, so even if evolution were possible, these embryos still wouldn’t definitively prove that the origin was by evolution.
4) The geological strata, which were formed by slow processes, reveal the vast age of the earth. Thus, there was plenty of time for evolution to take place.
Suppressed evidence: Not all of the information is provided to the listener so that he or she has no options to weigh.
This argument begins by assuming, first, that evolution can take place, and secondly, that slow processes are the only good explanation for what we observe in geological settings. We are not told that, in fact, catastrophic geological events, which happen very quickly, are a much better explanation for the vast majority of cases.6
5) All real scientists agree that evolution is a proven fact.
How many fallacies are still circulating or stored in our subconscious without our even being aware of them? It behoves us to keep on our intellectual toes so that we are not taken in by the enemy of our souls.
Appeal to authority: Because the experts say so, it must be true.
Truth, however, doesn’t depend on people’s opinions, not even scientists! Vast majorities have often turned out to be completely mistaken (e.g. the Nazis in WWII). “Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, ‘So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging’.” (Romans 4:3, NRSV)
6) The existence of many different breeds of dogs, of several species of finches, and of a range of human ethnic groups around the world all show how evolution takes place.
Equivocation: Use “a single word in more than one sense”,7 so as to confuse the issue or make the argument appear correct.
The above affirmation offers us examples of “evolution”, in the sense of speciation and variation within the same kind, and then claims this proves “evolution”, in the sense of microbes-to-man, as if they were the same thing. They are most definitely NOT the same thing. One is a fact; the other just wishful thinking.
7) Punctuated equilibrium satisfactorily explains the lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record because, from time to time, evolution occurred so rapidly that these transitional forms were not preserved in the intervening strata.
Affirming the consequent: If a is true, then b is true. b is true, therefore a is true too.
This one is tricky. Not only does it begin by assuming that microbes-to-man evolution is a fact, it argues that, if intermediary forms of life evolve quickly, they will be missing from the fossil record. In fact, they are missing from the fossil record, so they must have evolved too quickly to be preserved. It becomes a type of circular reasoning, based on the assumed truth of that which has never been proven to begin with!
Logical fallacies are all around us and they are often subtle and hard to detect, such as the accusation against Dr Austin’s capability as a scientist, which, several years back, caused me to wonder. How many fallacies are still circulating or stored in our subconscious without our even being aware of them? It behoves us to keep on our intellectual toes so that we are not taken in by the enemy of our souls. Satan “was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44, NRSV)
 

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Creacionismo contra evolución, en Antena 3, 19 ene, 2008; magonia.com, accessed 2015. Return to text.
  2. Hodges, J., et al., Hodge’s Harbrace Handbook, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, 1998, p. 418. Return to text.
  3. Arsuaga y Martínez, La especie elegida, Temas de hoy, Madrid, 2001, p. 57. Return to text.
  4. Hodges, ref. 2, p. 416. Return to text.
  5. Batten, D.(Ed), et al., The Creation Answers Book, Creation Book Publishers, 6th Ed., 2014, pp. 116–119. Return to text.
  6. Morris, H., Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Green Forest, 1996; Morris, J., The Young Earth, Master Books, 1994; Froede, C., Field Studies in Catastrophic Geology, Creation Research Society Books, St. Joseph, 1998; Woodmorappe, J., Studies in Flood Geology, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, 1999; and Austin, S., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, 1994. Return to text.
  7. Weston, A., A Rulebook for Arguments, Hackett Publishing Co, Indianapolis, 1992, p. 85. Return to text.
Creation Ministries International  Dear  Augustine: You are welcome to post CMI articles on the mentioned website, as long as you agree not to change any of the content and reference creation.com and the relevant authors, as you have indicated.
Kind regards,  Annalouise Bekker  Administration
Creation Ministries International (Australia)
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed thatthis constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.

Christian News Service – Worthy News Link to worldwide Christian news organization
Link to Net Bible 
Link to Net Bible Translation and Commentaries
Link to CNS News


on No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)