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?
We have been exploring the misrepresentations and logical fallacies in the evolutionist article entitled “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.” Finally, in part 3, the critic mentions some actual scientific evidence. But unfortunately for him, the evidence confirms biblical creation and challenges Darwinian evolution.
In part 1 we began exploring the misrepresentations and logical fallacies in the evolutionist article entitled “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.” We have seen that the critic is very unfamiliar with what creation scientists actually teach. In part 2, we see that this trend has continued.
Recently, someone sent me a link to an article appearing in Scientific American – a popular science magazine. The article was extremely revealing, but not in the way the author probably intended. The article exhibited a very common problem we often see among evolutionists: ignorance of creation literature.