Our critic this week, Peter, is not a critic of Christianity. Rather, he has criticized my previous article in which I show the difference between vicious (arbitrary) circular reasoning and virtuous (rationally necessary, or “spiral”) circular reasoning. Peter has an unargued philosophical bias that all circular reasoning is wrong / fallacious, and that the presuppositional method used by Bahnsen and Van Til does not employ circular reasoning.
Our critic this week is David, who is so adamantly against biblical creation that he recommended protesting one of my speaking engagements. Interestingly, David professes to be a Christian and yet strongly opposes our defense of biblical creation. I found his comments to be highly ironic as he is basically criticizing Christians for teaching what the Bible says.
Today’s conversation is a continuation of the previous one. Recall, Rubin had complained that the article was mistaken and that the conclusion that the Bible teaches a spherical Earth that hangs in space, etc. was based on “translation tricks.” Here is the rest of our conversation.
Our critics this week have commented on the recent article on the History of Astronomy in which we examined the biblical texts that touch on astronomy. The first critic, Rubin, has clearly been influenced by the near-eastern mythology view…. The other critic, Peter, was also uninformed on the issue, and was far less coherent.
The critics for this week have posted on the Biblical Science Institute Facebook page in response to the geology articles here and here. I will use only their first name in the response. The critic’s comments are in violet text, with my response in black.
Our critic this week responded to my recent article on radiometric dating. He made a number of assertions. Does this critic make any good, rational points? Or does he exhibit the typical ignorance of science and creation technical literature along with fallacious reasoning?