미 창조과학 주류연구회 중의 하나인 Answer In Genesis의 [Arguments we think creationists should NOT use]

[Clairedfield]

자료 소스는 최상은님이 올려주신 글을 바탕으로 찾은 것입니다.

제가 영어 실력이 딸린 관계로 대충 읽고 골자 항목만 의역했을 뿐이니 참고만 하셨으면 합니다.

이 글의 출처는

Answer In Genesis : http://www.answersingenesis.org

원문 소스 : http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

이곳은 미국 창조과학의 주류를 이끌고 있는 곳중의 하나입니다.

이미 이 곳까지 이제까지 여러 창조과학회의 글들이 쪽팔린지 이런 것까지 목록으로 만들어놓을 정도이죠

그러니 앞으로 창조과학회의 글을 퍼오시는 분들 좀 여기 목록이라도 보면서 퍼오길 바랍니다.

밑은 최상은 님의 말씀입니다. 창조과학을 맹신하는 님들은 이 글을 참조하기 바랍니다. 하나의 과학단체라고 칭하는(저한테는 사기집단일 뿐입니다만) 스스로 신을 대변한다는 자들의 단체에서 나온 거짓말이 얼마나 많으면 스스로 인용하지 말라는 목록까지 만들었을까요? 과연 이런 거짓말들을 양산하는 곳이 과학단체, 신학단체라고 할 수 있나요?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

최상은 님의 말씀 :

나는 2003.6.24. 12594호로 창조론자들이 하지 말아야 할 주장과 하지 않는 것이 좋은 주장에 관하여 미국 창조론 본산인 answersingenesis의 지령사항을 인용하여 소개한 적이 있었다.

그런데 그 뒤에 잘못된 주장이 계속되고 있음을 안타깝게 생각한다.

예를 들면,요새는 안보이는 삶은금의 다윈 임종회개설이 있었고 이곳 단골 시시정의 대홍수 전 가뭄설이 있었으며 최근에는 사라져버린 하루설이 등장하였다.
그 외에도 팔룩시 강 인간공룡데이트 설 등 내가 못 본 억지주장도 몇개 더 있을것이다.

선진 미국의 창조론자들이 도저히 믿을수 없거나 그 근거가 없다해서 폐기나 자제를 당부하는 내용을 한국의 창조론자들이 계속 내세우는 것은 참으로 부끄러운 일이 아닐수 없는 것이다.

다시 한번 창조론자 숙지사항을 퍼 왔으니 간단하게나마 읽어보고 앞으롤랑은 시대에 뒤떨어지는 엉뚱한 주장을 해서 또 다시 우스개가 되는 일이 없기를 바란다.(모니터 위에 붙여놓고 창조론 증거 관련 주장을 할 때마다 그것이 살생부에 등재되어 있는 것이 아닌가 꼭 확인하시라)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

What is important for creationists to defend, and what should be held more loosely?

• ‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend?

Which arguments should definitely not be used?

• ‘Darwin recanted on his deathbed’. Many people use this story, originally from a Lady Hope. However, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if true, so what? If Ken Ham recanted Creation, would that disprove it? There is no value to this argument whatever.
  
  

• ‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’. For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either). See also Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (Technical).
  
  

• ‘NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.’ Not promoted by major creationist organizations, but an hoax in wide circulation, especially on the Internet.

  
  
  Essentially the same story, now widely circulated on the Internet, appeared in the somewhat unreliable 1936 book The Harmony of Science and Scripture by Harry Rimmer. Evidently an unknown person embellished it with modern organization names and modern calculating devices.

  
  
  Also, the whole story is mathematically impossible—it requires a fixed reference point before Joshua’s long day. In fact we would need to cross-check between both astronomical and historical records to detect any missing day. And to detect a missing 40 minutes requires that these reference points be known to within an accuracy of a few minutes. It is certainly true that the timing of solar eclipses observable from a certain location can be known precisely. But the ancient records did not record time that precisely, so the required cross-check is simply not possible. Anyway, the earliest historically recorded eclipse occurred in 1217 BC, nearly two centuries after Joshua. So there is no way the missing day could be detected by any computer. See also Has NASA Discovered a ‘Missing Day’? for historical and scientific documentation that this alleged discovery is mythological.

  
  
  Note that discrediting this myth doesn’t mean that the events of Joshua 10 didn’t happen. Features in the account support its reliability, e.g. the moon was also slowed down. This was not necessary to prolong the day, but this would be observed from Earth’s reference frame if God had accomplished this miracle by slowing Earth’s rotation. See Joshua’s long day—did it really happen?
  
  

• ‘Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe’. This is contradicted by the geological setting in which mammoths are found. It’s most likely that they perished toward the end of the Ice Age, possibly in catastrophic dust storms. Partially digested stomach contents are not proof of a snap freeze, because the elephant’s stomach functions as a holding area—a mastodon with preserved stomach contents was found in mid-western USA, where the ground was not frozen. See also technical PDF article.
  
  

• ‘The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in “old” strata invalidate the geologic column.’ These are not sound examples—the Castenedolo skeletal material shows evidence of being an intrusive burial, i.e. a recent burial into older strata, since all the fossils apart from the human ones had time to be impregnated with salt. The Calaveras skull was probably a hoax planted into a mine by miners. For the current AiG view on human fossil stratigraphy, see Where are all the human fossils? from the Answers Book.
  
  

• ‘Dubois renounced Java man as a “missing link” and claimed it was just a giant gibbon.’ Evolutionary anthropology textbooks claimed this, and creationists followed suit. However, this actually misunderstood Dubois, as Stephen Jay Gould has shown. It’s true that Dubois claimed that Java man (which he called Pithecanthropus erectus) had the proportions of a gibbon. But Dubois had an eccentric view of evolution (universally discounted today) that demanded a precise correlation between brain size and body weight. Dubois’ claim about Java man actually contradicted the reconstructed evidence of its likely body mass. But it was necessary for Dubois’ idiosyncratic proposal that the alleged transitional sequence leading to man fit into a mathematical series. So Dubois’ gibbon claim was designed to reinforce its ‘missing link‘ status. See Who was ‘Java man’?
  
  

• ‘The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand’. This carcass was almost certainly a rotting basking shark, since their gills and jaws rot rapidly and fall off, leaving the typical small ‘neck’ with the head. This has been shown by similar specimens washed up on beaches. Also, detailed anatomical and biochemical studies of the Zuiyo-maru carcass show that it could not have been a plesiosaur. See Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence and Letting rotting sharks lie: Further evidence that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur
  
  

• ‘The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’. This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.
  
  

  Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
  
  

• ‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’ In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this ‘pussyfooting’, as he called it. He said, ‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’

  However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

  It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’
  
  

  So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (‘races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of new information.
  
  

• ‘Women have one more rib than men.’ AiG has long pointed out the fallacy of this statement, which seems to be more popular with dishonest skeptics wanting to caricature creation. The removal of a rib would not affect the genetic instructions passed on to the offspring, any more than a man who loses a finger will have sons with nine fingers. Any skeptic who tries to discredit the Bible with this argument must be a closet Lamarckian, i.e. one who believes Lamarck’s thoroughly discredited idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics! Note also that Adam wouldn’t have had a permanent defect, because the rib is the one bone that can regrow if the surrounding membrane (periosteum) is left intact. See Regenerating ribs: Adam and that ‘missing’ rib.
  
  

• ‘Archaeopteryx is a fraud’. Archaeopteryx was genuine (unlike Archaeoraptor, a ‘Piltdown bird’), as shown by anatomical studies and close analysis of the fossil slab. It was a true bird, not a ‘missing link’.
  
  

• ‘There are no beneficial mutations.’ This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, ‘We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.’ For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Beetle Bloopers: defects can be an advantage sometimes, New eyes for blind cave fish? and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?
  
  

• ‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information. See Q&A: Speciation.
  
  

• ‘Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.’ There is no basis for this claim. Seasons are mentioned in Genesis 1:14 before the Flood, which strongly suggests an axial tilt from the beginning. Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah’s Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now. Furthermore, computer modelling suggests that an upright axis would make temperature differences between the poles and equator far more extreme than now, while the current tilt of 23.5° is ideal. The Moon has an important function in stabilizing this tilt, and the Moon’s large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the Earth’s (unlike most moons in our solar system) are design features.
  
  

• ‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed—see Q&A: Dinosaurs.
  
  

• Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species. Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step (in his opinion, with which AiG obviously disagrees—see Darwin v The Eye and An eye for creation).
  
  

• ‘Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.’ Commentators both before and after Lyell and Darwin (including Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, and Leupold) are almost unanimous that this passage refers to linguistic division at Babel and subsequent territorial division. We should always interpret Scripture with Scripture, and there’s nothing else in Scripture to indicate that this referred to continental division. But only eight verses on (note that chapter and verse divisions were not inspired), the Bible states, ‘Now the whole earth had one language and one speech’ (Gen. 11:1), and as a result of their disobedience, ‘the LORD confused the language of all the earth’ (Gen. 11:9). This conclusively proves that the ‘Earth’ that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one language, i.e. ‘Earth’ refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet Earth.
  
  

  Another major problem is the scientific consequences of such splitting—another global flood! This gives us the clue as to when the continents did move apart — during Noah’s Flood — see below on plate tectonics.
  
  

• ‘The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.’ This is not so. The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood. The Masoretic Text (on which almost all English translations are based) preserves the correct chronology. See Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, CEN Technical Journal12(1):98–106, 1998.
  
  

• ‘There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may be 10,000 years old or even more.’ This is not so. The language is clear that they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father at the birth of the next name in line. So the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. See Biblical genealogies for exegetical proof.
  
  

• ‘Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin.’ This is not stated in Scripture and even contradicts important points. The language of the NT indicates physical descent, which must be true for Jesus to have fulfilled the prophecies that He would be a descendant of Abraham, Jacob, Judah and David. Also, the Protevangelium of Gen. 3:15, regarded as Messianic by both early Christians and the Jewish Targums, refers to ‘the seed of the woman’. This is supported by Gal. 4:4, ‘God sent forth His Son, coming (genomenon) from a woman.’ Most importantly, for Jesus to have died for our sins, Jesus, the ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:45), had to share in our humanity (Heb. 2:14), so must have been our relative via common descent from the first Adam as Luke 3:38 says. In fact, seven centuries before His Incarnation, the Prophet Isaiah spoke of Him as literally the ‘Kinsman-Redeemer’, i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, uses the same Hebrew word goel as used to describe Boaz in relation to Ruth). To answer the concern about original sin, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35), preventing any sin nature being transmitted. See also The Virginal Conception of Christ for a defence of this foundational doctrine and further discussion of these Biblical passages.
  
  

• ‘The phrase “science falsely so called” in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.’ To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.
  
  

  Of course AiG believes that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God’s action in Creation and the true knowledge available in His Word, the Bible. But as this page points out, it is wrong to use fallacious arguments to support a true viewpoint. On a related matter, it is linguistically fallacious to claim that even now, ‘science really means knowledge’, because meaning is determined by usage, not derivation (etymology).
  
  

• ‘Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural.’ AiG rejects this dogmatic geocentrism, and believes that the Biblical passages about sunset etc. should be understood as taking the Earth as a reference frame, but that this is one of many physically valid reference frames; the centre of mass of the solar system is also a valid reference frame. See also Q&A: Geocentrism, Faulkner, D., Geocentrism and Creation , TJ15(2):110–121; 2001.
  
  

• ‘Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark’ This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.
  
  

• ‘Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible’ There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt’s claims, just excuses to explain away why the evidence is missing.
  
  

• Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter (ed. note: see our Maintaining Creationist Integrity, our response to Hovind’s reply to this article).
  
  

• ‘Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of a young sun.’ This is about a formerly vexing problem of detecting only one third of the predicted numbers of neutrinos from the sun. Also, accepted theories of particle physics said that the neutrino had zero rest mass, which would prohibit oscillations from one ‘flavour’ to another.
  
  
  Therefore, consistent with the data then available, some creationists proposed that the sun was powered one-third by fusion and two-thirds by gravitational collapse. This would have limited the age to far less than 4.5 billion years.
  
  

  However, a new experiment was able to detect the ‘missing’ flavours, which seems to provide conclusive evidence for oscillation. This means that neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after all—experimental data must take precedence over theory. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun. So it cannot be used as a young-age indicator—nor an old-age indicator for that matter. See Newton, R., Missing neutrinos found! No longer an ‘age’ indicator, TJ16(3):123–125, 2002 (to be posted).
  
  

• ‘Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in a Creator.’ However, in the normal meaning of these terms, Einstein believed no such thing.
  

What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?

• Canopy theory. This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For AiG’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from? from the Answers Book.
  
  

• ‘There was no rain before the Flood.’ This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.
  
  

• ‘Natural selection as tautology.’ Natural selection is in one sense a tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave the most offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The fittest.). But a lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised. There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in hand (e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would deny that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can’t explain how motors work.) — it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something. To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading, if the impression is given that something tautological therefore doesn’t happen. Of course the environment can ‘select’, just as human breeders select. Of course demonstrating this doesn’t mean that fish could turn into philosophers by this means — the real issue is the nature of the variation, the information problem. Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real weakness of neo-Darwinism — the source of the new information required. Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in practice.
  
  

  Natural selection is also a useful explanatory tool in creationist modelling of post-Flood radiation with speciation [see Q&A: Natural Selection].
  
  

• ‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
  
  

• ‘There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
  
  

• ‘The speed of light has decreased over time’ (c decay). Although most of the evolutionary counter-arguments have been proven to be fallacious, there are still a number of problems, many of which were raised by creationists, which we believe have not been satisfactorily answered. AiG currently prefers Dr Russell Humphreys’ explanation for distant starlight, although neither AiG nor Dr Humphreys claims that his model is infallible. See How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? from the Answers Book.
  
  

• ‘There are no transitional forms.’ Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: ‘While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.’ See also Q&A: Fossils.
  
  

• ‘Gold chains have been found in coal.’ Several artefacts, including gold objects, have been documented as having been found within coal, but in each case the coal is no longer associated with the artefact. The evidence is therefore strictly anecdotal (e.g. ‘This object was left behind in the fireplace after a lump of coal was burned’). This does not have the same evidential value as having a specimen with the coal and the artefact still associated.
  
  

• ‘Plate tectonics is fallacious.’ AiG believes that Dr John Baumgardner’s work on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics provides a good explanation of continental shifts and the Flood. See Q&A: Plate Tectonics. However, AiG recognises that some reputable creationist scientists disagree with plate tectonics.
  
  

• ‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.
  
  

• ‘The Gospel is in the stars.’ This is an interesting idea, but quite speculative, and many Biblical creationists doubt that it is taught in Scripture, so we do not recommend using it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

대충 목록을 적어놓으면


1. 다윈의 임종시 유언

2. 달에 쌓인 먼지의 양이 젊은 지구, 달을 증명한다.

3. 나사 컴퓨터가 여호수아의 잃어버린 하루를 실험했다.

4. 맘모스가 대홍수 때 동사했다.

5. 지층안에서 인간화석이 나왔다.

6. 자바 원인은 긴팔 원숭이일 뿐이다.

7. 일본의 화물선이 죽은 공룡(사경룡)의 사체를 발견했다.

8. 열역학 제2법칙과 진화론, 창조론과의 상관관계.

9. 만일 우리가 유인원으로부터 진화했다면, 왜 아직도 유인원이 있는가.

10. 여자가 남자보다 갈비뼈 하나를 더 가지고 있다.

11. 시조새는 조작이다.

12. 유익한 돌연변이는 없다.

13. 어떠한 새로운 종도 생산되어질 수 없다.

14. 홍수 전에 지구의 지축은 수직이었다.

15. 인간과 공룡이 공존했다는 흔적.

16. 다윈이 "종의 기원"에서 눈의 진화는 불가능하다라고 언급했다.

17. 창세기에서

18. "에벨은 두 아들을 낳았는데, 한 아들의 이름은, 그의 시대에 세상이 나뉘었다고 해서 벨렉이라고 하였다. 벨렉의 아우 이름은 욕단이다." 이라는 표현이 거대 대륙의 분할을 의미한다.

19. 70인역 성서는 창세기를 연대순으로 기록하고 있다.

20. 창세기 5장 - 10장의 계보의 간격은 지구가 10000년 내지는 그 이상이 됨을 나타낸다.

21. 예수는 절대로 마리아와 유전관계가 없으며 원죄를 상속받았을 것이다.

22. 디모데전서 6장 20절의 거짓된 지식을 표현하는 말은 진화론이다.

23. Ron Wyatt 노아의 방주를 발견했다.

24. Ron Wyatt는 더 많은 성서의 고고학적 증거를 발견했다.

25. Carl Baugh가 발견한 많은 창조 증거들.

26.태양이 중력장 붕괴에 의하여 빛을 발할때 소실된 태양 중성미자는 젊은 지구의 증거이다.

27. 아인슈타인이 하나님을 믿었다는 말들.

------------------------------------------------

의심스러운 주장을 사용하는 것은 현명하지 못하다.

- 재미있는 말이 있군요.

Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

[인드라]

좋은 자료 감사합니다..클레어님..^^ 최상은 님은 어디서 만나신겁니까?

[Clairedfield]

Xbible 에서요. 이전부터 그분의 기사를 읽고 있었습니다.

[인드라]

간곡하게 초청했는데 오실려나...ㅡㅡ;;

[heika]

안녕들하세요. 미국의 창조론 사이트 http://www.answersingenesis.org의 안티 사이트로 No Answers in Genesis!(http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm)가 있는데요,영문이기는 하지만 방대한 자료가 있습니다.

[인드라]

영어가 딸리는 지라..ㅡㅡㅎ