The Facts Cannot Be Disputed
The last post for 2017 will deal with one of my favorite subject, which is how anti-creationists use reprehensible reasoning while asserting they have all the facts. Normally, articles by this author like the one linked below would be shared to The Question Evolution Project "as is", but I had a hankering to add some additional material.
Something that other biblical creationists and I emphasize is that facts are facts; there are no facts for atoms-to-atheist evolutionists and other facts for creationists. No, the disagreements occur on the interpretations of the facts. You have probably seen claims that there are "mountains of evidence" for evolution, but a bit of examination and logical thinking will reveal that the "evidence" is not based on facts, but interpretations, speculations, and opinions. You'll also get a passel of bad logic.
One sidewinder insists on lying outright, saying that Creation Ministries International denies facts that conflict with the Bible. He is hidebound to cling to his falsehood, even though I caught him and explained that they dispute interpretations of facts that disagree with the Bible. Atheists and evolutionists presuppose materialism and naturalism, and therefore reject divine revelation. Biblical creationists presuppose God's Word as the ultimate truth. Everyone has their starting point.
Atheists and other anti-creationists have a habit of misrepresenting Christians and creationists (such as in the example above). One thing they like to do is poison the well with loaded terminology, such as "biblical literalists". That has a negative connotation where believers put their think bones on the shelf and believe poetry, apocalyptic material, figures of speech, and so on as literal. Not hardly! We use the historical-grammatical approach as well as the same kind of sense where someone does not take the term "sunrise" literally. You savvy? Tim Chaffey wrote:
The following article shows us how an evolutionist used awful logic and manipulated the "facts" to bash creationists and prop up evolutionism. The author identified several logical fallacies, and although I disagree with a couple of his identifications, it is definitely worth reading. Twice, if you've a mind to. Even if people don't want to get into the specifics, the point I hope all y'all will get is that, with some thinking, you can see when evolutionists are trying to hoodwink us.
 |
| Background image furnished by Why?Outreach |
One sidewinder insists on lying outright, saying that Creation Ministries International denies facts that conflict with the Bible. He is hidebound to cling to his falsehood, even though I caught him and explained that they dispute interpretations of facts that disagree with the Bible. Atheists and evolutionists presuppose materialism and naturalism, and therefore reject divine revelation. Biblical creationists presuppose God's Word as the ultimate truth. Everyone has their starting point.
Atheists and other anti-creationists have a habit of misrepresenting Christians and creationists (such as in the example above). One thing they like to do is poison the well with loaded terminology, such as "biblical literalists". That has a negative connotation where believers put their think bones on the shelf and believe poetry, apocalyptic material, figures of speech, and so on as literal. Not hardly! We use the historical-grammatical approach as well as the same kind of sense where someone does not take the term "sunrise" literally. You savvy? Tim Chaffey wrote:
Bible-believing Christians generally follow a method of interpretation known as the historical-grammatical approach. That is, we try to find the plain (literal) meaning of the words based on an understanding of the historical and cultural settings in which the book was written. We then follow standard rules of grammar, according to the book’s particular genre, to arrive at an interpretation. We seek to perform careful interpretation or exegesis—that is, to “read out of” the text what the author intended it to mean. This is in contrast to eisegesis, which occurs when someone “reads into” the text his own ideas—what the reader wants the text to mean. In other words, exegesis is finding the AIM (Author’s Intended Meaning) of the passage because its true meaning is determined by the sender of the message, not the recipient.So, it's really not that difficult, and something that thoughtful readers of various genres engage in on a regular basis.
The following article shows us how an evolutionist used awful logic and manipulated the "facts" to bash creationists and prop up evolutionism. The author identified several logical fallacies, and although I disagree with a couple of his identifications, it is definitely worth reading. Twice, if you've a mind to. Even if people don't want to get into the specifics, the point I hope all y'all will get is that, with some thinking, you can see when evolutionists are trying to hoodwink us.
To finish reading, and I hope you do, click on "Indisputable Facts".In a section called Forum, in the January 2013 issue of Scientific American a one page article called “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable Facts,” written by a fifth grade schoolteacher, Jacob Tanenbaum, has an embarrassing number of factual, analytical and logical errors, misinformation and fallacious arguments.Besides the exaltation of science as a savior, it also exhibits a disturbing trend among materialists, that being the vilification of Bible believing Christians and the belief that they are a threat to our very existence.This post is an examination of that article in depth.The article was titled “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable facts,” but apparently there were second thoughts about the title and the online version was renamed “A Science Teacher Draws the Line at Creation.” There are indisputable facts on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. The status of evolution in our education system is that it is an indisputable fact and they do not want it to be open to debate. There are, however those that do dispute it and they are not just Creationists. His article centers around three things: