From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 18:09:32 EST
What's so wonderful about the list of arguments which shouldn't be used?
Especially when they were only published in 2002. Perhaps it does show that
if you argue long and hard enough truth will begin to prevail.
What I look forward to is their rejection of any arguments for a young
earth, because they are all false.
No this book does not fit the bill.
AIG is still pushing out fairy-tales as when you read the account of the
Willis-Wieland debate of Aug 2003 on their site.
Back to Paul Nelson. Is he any better than a biblical flat-earther who
believes the earth is flat because of the only reasonable interpretation of
Gen 1 6-8, Ex20, 4 and Isaiah 40 22? I cant see how he can accept biblical
arguments for a young earth unless he goes for a flat earth as well. (Please
no khug-khugging!)
Michael
> I have copies of Jonathan Sarfati's (I apologise for the typo in spelling
> Sarfati's name in my orginal post) books Refuting Evolution (1999) and
Refuting
> Evolution 2 (2002). The second book is a sequel to the first, rather than
a
> second edition. Thus the weaknesses of the first book have not been
corrected.
> What is interesting is that RE2 has an appendix on "Common arguments that
should
> not be used", with subsections "Some arguments creationists should avoid"
and
> "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?" and explanations
of why
> they should not be used..
>
> In the first list are "Darwin recanted on his deathbed", "Moon dust
thickness
> proves a young moon", 'The Japanese trawler Zuiyo-maru caught a dead
plesiosaur
> near New Zealand in 1977", "Women have one more rib than men", "Woolly
mammoths
> were snap-frozen during the flood catastrophe", "The 2nd law of
thermodynamics
> began at the Fall", "Archaeopteryx was a fraud", "Dubois renounced Java
man as a
> 'missing link' and claimed it was just a giant gibbon", "The phrase
'science
> falsely so-called' in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution", "If we
were
> evolved from apes why are there still apes today?", "NASA computers, in
> calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes,
> proving 'Joshua's long day' of Joshua 10 and Hezekiah's sundial movement
of 2
> Kings 20."
>
> The second list reads: Canopy theory, "There was no rain before the
Flood",
> "Natural selection as tautology", "The speed of light has decreased over
time",
> 'There are no transitional forms", "Gold chains have been found in coal",
"Plate
> tectonics is fallacious', "Creationists believe in microevolution but not
> macroevolution", "The gospel is in the stars".
>
> Sarfati prefaces the lists by saying that "Christians should not become
alarmed
> when they find out creationist researchers have overturned their favorite
> arguments. Rather, they should refocus on the main issue, the authority of
the
> Word of God, the 66 books of the Bible, not the theories of fallible
humans
> whether creationist or evolutionist. ... The authority of the Bible is the
main
> emphasis of Answers in Genesis. We don't try to 'prove' the Bible with
science;
> rather, we accept the Bible's propositions as true without proof, i.e. as
axioms
> or presuppositions."
>
> RE2 is a response to two things:(1) the PBS-TV series Evolution (2001),
(2) the
> Scientific American cover story by John Rennie, "15 Answers to Creationist
> Nonsense" (2002). A lot of the arguments in the book are not explictly for
YEC.
> For example, there is a chapter on Irreducible Complexity.
>
> I suggest that it is important to distinguish recent AiG literature from
other
> YEC stuff.
>
> I would like to think that Sarfati's sojourn in NZ broadened his view --
even if
> only marginally ! :-)
>
> Don
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 29 2003 - 18:16:26 EST