- Does Our Life Style and Conversation Reflect Our Christian Profession
- Urgent Communication for the Attention and Action of All Sheriffs, Attorneys General, and Governors
- Arizona Today – Just for Today
- An Open Letter to Vladimir Putin and the Russian People - Revisited
- Evert’s Electables
- Local Elections Matter More Than You Believe
- SC Upstate Political Leader’s Repeated Use of Lawfare Backfires
- NC Attorney General Josh Stein’s 2020 Judicial Rebuke on Election Rules
- Massive Immigration Wave Waiting for Kamala Election
- Kamala Seriously Misrepresents 2024 Border Bill
- North Carolina Soros Alert
- CIVILIZATION’S INTERREGNUM – PART 15
- Christians Nationwide Unite in Prayer for Divine Intervention in Upcoming Election and 'Expect God's Help'
- Religion, Region, and Politics
- Oreshnik Hypersonic Russian Missile Strikes Ukraine
Snakes with Legs
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One interesting example of a legitimate atavism is cases where snakes develop with legs. Now these legs are not functional and do not always grow from the right spots on their body, but they do exist. Evolutionists will claim that they are evidence of universal common descent with snakes evolving from four-legged lizards. However, interestingly enough this is one example where the Bible may have already given us an answer.
One of the difficulties associated with confirming this is the fact that there are way too many CGI pictures online. Sometimes, they are obviously fake but there are plenty of times when it is harder to tell.
Hind Limbs on Whales and Dolphins
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Some whales and dolphins have been discovered to have a set rear flippers. They are labeled as atavisms, based on the presupposition that whales and dolphins are descended from land animals that had hind limbs. However, from a creationist and design perspective there are two other possibilities.
It needs to be noted that these flippers do not have any bones. The rear bones in both whales and dolphins serve reproductive purposes. They serve as anchor points for reproductive structures and are different in males and females. However, it needs to be pointed out that these are flippers, not lags. They cannot be considered evidence that whales and dolphins descended from four-legged land animals.
Are Atavisms Evidence for Universal Common Descent Evolution?
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
An atavism is defined as the recurrence of an ancestral trait that has been missing for generations. They usually result from genetic recombination. They are claimed as evidence for universal common descent evolution however sometimes the labeling of such a trait as an atavism is based on the presupposition of universal common descent. This makes the argument a form of circular reasoning.
Two main types of features tend to fall under this category. The first is an actual reproduction of the feature in question, even if it is not fully functional, and one that may resemble something considered by evolutionists to be from the past but it is simply a malformation in the particular organism.
Does the Bible Teach the Earth is 6000 Years Old?
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The approximate 6000-year figure frequently cited as the Biblical age for the Earth is commonly criticized by those wanting to accept both the Bible and an old Earth. The claim is often made that nowhere does the Bible actually state that the Earth is 6000 years old. They then attack the chronological calculations that lead to this figure. So ultimately, the question of this article and what does the Bible say about the age of the earth and does that lead to a figure of about 6000 years?
What About Space Aliens?
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The idea of alien life in outer space is quite popular today. It is a very popular theme in science fiction. However, the notion is mainly a result of atheistic ideas on the origin of life and common descent evolution. The question of this article is whether or not space aliens can be compatible not only with Biblical creation but the Biblical concept of salvation as well.
Is Intelligent Design Scientific?
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the tactics used by evolutionists against intelligent design is to claim that it is unscientific. This claim rests on two main smaller claims. The first is that it is not naturalistic and the second is that it is unfalsifiable. What is interesting is that by attacking the scientific nature of intelligent design in biology they are attacking it in fields such as archaeology and criminal forensics.
The first claim is that intelligent design cannot be considered scientific because it is not naturalistic, and science can only consider naturalistic explanations. This is fundamentally untrue because there is nothing in the scientific method that forbids a supernatural explanation. It is only in institutionalized science where there is a priori commitment to naturalism. Such an argument does not exclude a possibility of some kind of natural designer. Ultimately the key to understanding this argument is a desire on the part of those making it to exclude God as a possible explanation for anything.
Are Polygenic Trees Really Evidence of Universal Common Descent?
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One thing often presented by evolutionists as evidence for universal common descent evolution is polygenic trees. However, what they often ignore is that they never have the alleged common ancestor between the branches. Furthermore, there does not need to be an actual relationship to be able to make such relational trees. All that is necessary is comparing patterns of what the objects being compared have in common.
When presenting alleged evolutionary transition evolutionists will frequently simply provide a list of animals comprising a list of the animals comprising the alleged transition series. The impression given by such a series is that there is a direct ancestor-descendant relationship between these animals. However, never do such transition series represent actual ancestor-descendant relationships even according to evolutionists.
Is intelligent Design an Argument from Incredulity?
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the common claims made by atheists against intelligent design is that it is an argument from incongruity. While sometimes, people do use this type of argument when arguing for intelligent design, the idea is actually based on we observe not personal belief or understanding. It is the arguments against intelligent design that are mainly arguments from incongruity.
An argument from incongruity is an informal logical fallacy where a person argues that something must be true or false based on their understanding or belief about it. An argument from incongruity has two main forms.
The Ultimate Problem with Materialism
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The philosophical mindset of institutionalized science is that of absolute atheistic naturalistic materialism. It is fundamentally naturalistic because only naturalistic causes will be considered. It has almost become a determination to force naturalistic explanations on everything. It is atheistic because it fundamentally excludes God as demonstrated by the reaction to intelligent design. It is fundamentally materialistic because only materialistic causes are considered. This is done despite quantum mechanical evidence to the contrary.
The Truth of Geocentrism
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The conflict between geocentrism and heliocentrism with regards to the solar system goes back to Nicholas Copernicus around 1514 A.D. This was not out of any religious conflict but out of conflict with intellectuals of his day that insisted on Aristotle’s geocentric system. To some degree this conflict still continues today as there are some who still strongly hold to an absolute geocentric model.
The irony is that there is no need for any kind of conflict because under General Relativity both models are actually just a choice of a frame of reference. In other words there is no actual conflict between the two, each one is just a result of a choice of coordinate systems.
Naturalism of the Gaps Argument
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Evolutionists often accused creationists of using a God of the gaps argument that is filling in gaps in our knowledge with God. However, that's exactly what they do with naturalism because no matter what the evidence says they will always jump to the conclusion that there has to be a natural explanation for it regardless of what probability or known laws of nature indicate.
The point is that evolutionists always will fill in something they do not have an answer for by insisting that there is a naturalistic explanation. They may rely on the vague idea that there has to be a naturalistic explanation. They will sometimes put a label on that so-called explanation without actually providing an explanation. This is most common when they are trying to deal with it in an official scientific context such as a paper.
God of the Gaps Argument
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Creationists are frequently accused of using a God of the gaps argument. Such an argument boils down to we don't know therefore it must be God. While this kind of thinking has been used in the past and there are some Christians who do use it. It is not used in creation science.
The accusation of making a God of the gaps argument is frequently made by evolutionists anytime a creationist claims that the evidence actually points to God. Now sometimes the accusation is deserved but there are many times when it is not.
Modifying a Theory Beyond the Point of Falsifiability
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
In science when a theory is close to the data it is often possible to modify it so that it better fits the data. However, there is a danger in doing this and that is modifying the theory to the point where it is no longer falsifiable. When this happens, the theory ceases to actually be science and can easily become dogma, being pushed as science.
As long as the modifications are small adjustments that maintain the theory’s testability it is not a problem. However, the danger comes when the new elements make no real predictions but simply exist to patch the current theory. When this is done a theory or group of theories can easily become dogma rather than science because they lose all falsifiability.
Invoking Miracles from God in Creation Science
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the criticisms commonly throwing that creationists is that creationism cannot be considered scientific because we can always invoke miracles to solve any problems. While this is true in principle you need to remember that creationism itself is not an alternative to evolution but an alternative to naturalism. Consequently, like naturalism, creationism is a philosophical starting point for producing scientific theories not a scientific theory itself.
The Heat Problem
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Without question the biggest problem that young earth creationists face is called the heat problem. It results from speeding up a geological process during periods such as the creation week and the Genesis Flood will naturally produce large amounts of heat. Not only would this heat be enough to melt rock but at its extreme, it could even vaporize the entire planet. Unfortunately, no firm solution has been produced yet, however, several possibilities keep it from preventing the Biblical account from being true.
The Mud Problem
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The mud problem is based on a paper recently published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly entitled “The Clay Consolidation Problem and Its Implications for Flood Geology Models” by Scott L. Dunn. The paper claims that it would take too long for the mud laid down during the Genesis Flood to turn to the rock we observe.
The key to his calculations is the coefficient of hydraulic conductivity which shows how fast water can be removed from solid material. The tenancy however for it to increase with particle size. This is one way in which he's assuming normal erosion conditions. However, the conditions of the Flood would have tended to erode out larger particles possibly increasing this factor.
Browse by the Top Tags ...
