Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
A feedback submitters questions the legitimacy of the articles on AiG because of a perceived lack of credentials.
I read an article on this website saying that the earth was created in 6 literal days. I'm not convinced and think the writers are under-qualified and bias against science. I suggest you get some one who actually has a doctorate in physics. No one will ever take your articles on creation seriously if you continue to use under-qualified writers.
I read an article on this website saying that the earth was created in 6 literal days.
The first chapter of Genesis tells us that God created everything in six days; it even tells us what God did on each of those days. Exodus 20:11 summarizes this: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them ....”
Additionally, there is compelling scientific support that the earth is “young” (thousands of years old, not billions). These include the recession of the moon, the decay of planetary magnetic fields, C-14 in diamonds, and many others.
I'm not convinced
Of course, that is totally irrelevant to the truth of the matter. Proof is not the same as persuasion. A doctor might scientifically prove that his patient has cancer; yet the patient may not be convinced, simply because he or she really doesn’t want to believe that.
and think the writers are under-qualified
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? More importantly, do you have any arguments against the article itself? The One who originally wrote that the earth was created in six days is God. God wrote Exodus 20:11 with His own finger (see Exodus 31:18). If you can find someone more qualified than God to write on any subject, I’d love to know about it.
and bias against science.
Many of us here at AiG are Ph.D. scientists. So, it’s hard to imagine how we could have a bias against science. As Christians, we recognize that science is based on the Bible. Science requires the uniformity of nature in order to be possible, as shown here. Many scientists have forgotten the biblical basis for modern science and have become inconsistent. On the one hand, they believe the universe is logical, orderly, and upheld in a uniform fashion. On the other hand, they teach that the universe is simply “molecules in motion”—the mindless byproduct of a “big bang.”
I suggest you get some one who actually has a doctorate in physics.
I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics. Furthermore, our articles are peer-reviewed by various other Ph.D. scientists as well to ensure quality and accuracy. That being said, an argument really should be evaluated on its merits, not on the formal education of the one making the claim. To say that something isn’t so because the one making the claim is not qualified is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.
No one will ever take your articles on creation seriously if you continue to use under-qualified writers.
First, you haven’t offered any evidence that the writer is under-qualified. But even if you could, an argument should be evaluated on its own merit. It would have been better if you had attempted to offer a rational objection to the argument(s) presented in the article.
I just wanted to let you know, yet again, how much I enjoy (even thinking of saying “love”) your site. I was getting ready to read the Word and as I was closing the tabs of various AiG articles I was reading, I felt a real sense of gratitude. So, in that same spirit of gratitude: Thank you AiG. Lol, I even see how many anti-creation arguments on youtube just don’t shake me like they used to. Kinda like I’m standing on firmer ground, like, lets say, a rock. Anyway, thank you.
I'm currently ‘doing’ a Bachelor of Theology and Ministry at Tabor college. I would like to say thank you for your tireless work in promoting Genesis. I appreciate it very much and will be using your information in my assignments to show Gods plan to the lecturers who have differing opinions and views of Genesis and biblical history on the whole. I do not expect a reply but just wanted to say thanks.
Referring to Does the lack of a forum mean we’re afraid?, I agree. Evolutionists look for spin material rather than debating the substance of the issues. It is wise not to give it to them because they are looking for excuses to discredit sources that provide legitimate scientific evidence against evolution. Even without formal education in geology, I can see their absolute submission of all things to the dogma of evolution.
For example, I am reading, an introductory college textbook on geology (Understanding Earth, W.H Freeman and Company, 2007). Starting on page 258 they say, “A radiation is a relatively rapid development of new types of organisms that derive from a common ancestor. Most radiations are fast, or they wouldn't get noticed in the fossil record.” They refer to the Cambrian explosion. What a bogus argument, as if evolutionists would not find transitional life forms if life slowly changed from one kind to another as Darwin predicted.