Get Answers Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research. Because there are so many good arguments for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches), we have no need to grasp at straws—arguments using questionable logic and tenuous or no evidence. Answers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible. Furthermore, there is little harm in avoiding questionable arguments—or, at least, stating that certain interpretations of evidence are doubtful—since there are plenty of valid arguments with well-documented evidences against molecules-to-man evolution, atheism, and the like. A final reason for avoiding flawed arguments is that it leads to faulty thinking. Arguments that should never be used
Studies in the History of Science Studies in the History of Science The Myth of the Flat Earth Jeffrey Burton Russell A paper by Jeffrey Burton Russell for the American Scientific Affiliation Annual Meeting August 4, 1997 at Westmont College summarizing his book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997) pb. How does investigating the myth of the flat earth help teachers of the history of science? First, as a historian, I have to admit that it tells us something about the precariousness of history. for three reasons: the good reason that it is extraordinarily difficult to determine "what really happened" in any series of events; the bad reason that historical scholarship is often sloppy; and the appalling reason that far too much historical scholarship consists of contorting the evidence to fit ideological models. Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. In my research, I looked to see how old the idea was that medieval Christians believed the earth was flat. Back
Reconciling Creation and Science Reconciling Creation and Science There are many ways in which Christians interpret the creation story in Genesis and reconcile it with modern science. IntroductionTheistic evolutionProgressive creationismOld-earth creationismYoung-earth creationismSecular evolutionGeneral questions and information Introduction In my opinion, each of the interpretations presented here (with the exception of secular evolution) is theoretically possible and at least somewhat plausible. Theistic evolution Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that evolution occurred, but was planned and guided by God. Creationists are often leery of theistic evolution because of fears that the opening chapters of Genesis will be interpreted too figuratively. Theistic evolution sites: Some of the questions for old-earth creationism also apply to theistic evolution. How is Genesis 2 to be interpreted? Progressive creationism Progressive creation articles/sites: Progressive Creation: An Overview by Dale Tooley
Omphalos hypothesis Support[edit] "Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like ... years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches."[3] Chateaubriand wrote in his 1802 book, Génie du christianisme (Part I Book IV Chapter V): "God might have created, and doubtless did create, the world with all the marks of antiquity and completeness which it now exhibits." Creationists still argue the same way. When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc. He does not extend this idea to the geological record, preferring to believe that it was all created in the Flood, but others such as Gerald E. This raises one more major point of difference, the handling of the Fall. Criticisms[edit] When did false history begin? A deceptive creator[edit] A consistent creator[edit]
Theistic Evolution Theistic Evolution An Essay (C) Copyright 2000 by Carl Drews Last update: March 15, 2014 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so.Genesis 1:24 A certain Christian brother has been the very first person outside my family to say to me, "I am interested in what you think"; instead of, "Listen to what I have to say - I'll set you straight," or "You've got to listen to this tape," or "Watch this video". Therefore I dedicate this document to his exemplary spirit of understanding between Christian brothers and sisters. Return to main Evolution page. Abstract Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. Contents:Credo - What I BelieveThe Age of the EarthThe Whole-Earth FloodOld Earth, Local FloodGenesisThe Possibilities of GenesisYomDeathIs the Bible True? Credo - What I Believe The Age of the Earth The Whole-Earth Flood Genesis
Young Earth, Old Earth, and Not Having To Know the Answer – Thinking Christian A Long-Standing DebateAt the Evangelical Philosophical Society conference last week I ran across a pair of exhibit booths, placed judiciously far from each other, promoting two different views of creation. One was for a young-earth creation society, the other for an old-earth group. My conversations with reps at these exhibits caused me to think back to my first debates on this question a long time ago. The lesson I learned then is still valid, and it might be encouraging to Christians who are confused about the question now. I was a music major at Michigan State University in the mid-1970s. Not Having To Know It AllThen one day it struck me: “I’m not a geologist, paleontologist, biologist, or cosmologist. Even with respect to the first chapters of Genesis, I realized there were technical questions that took specialized knowledge to judge. That’s when I gave myself permission to say, “I don’t know, and that’s okay.” We have God’s sure revelation, so there is much that we do know. P.
Alfred Russel Wallace Stephen C. Meyer Biologic Institute Darwin's Heretic