Our Websites

New “Must Have” Book for Creationists

Discerning Truth

After finishing The Ultimate Proof by Dr. Jason Lisle, I ordered his new book Discerning Truth to see if it had some more good info about debating. You will not be disappointed as you learn to expose some of the major problems in evolutionary thinking. Discerning Truth takes you on a short but effective journey into the laws of logic.

Did you know that when evolutionists use biased and emotional language in an attempt to persuade people they are committing the fallacy of question-begging epithet? Every time they call creation “Creationism,” they commit the fallacy. Every time they call Creation a religion, they are committing that fallacy, and of course, every time they swear or use obscene language, they commit the fallacy of question-begging epithet.  The emotion is supposed to sway you to think they are right when they have not provided any logic or proof to support their claim.

Take a look at many of the negative comments on this blog or on our Facebook page. Many detractors use no logic but rather resort to emotionalism in order to be heard. But when you don’t have science to back up what you say, that is pretty much all you have left!  Start spotting this fallacy and pointing it out to them!

Use this resource to help yourself spot the flaws in evolution thinking, then share that information with others!

Spread the word | Share this post: Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Pin on Pinterest
Email this to someone


16 Responses to New “Must Have” Book for Creationists

  1. Joe Shlabotnik September 29, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    Thanks, Eric.

    “Every time they call creation “Creationism,” they commit the fallacy.”

    Then, to be honest, we should then not refer to evolution as Darwinism?

    “Every time they call Creation a religion, they are committing that fallacy,”

    I must also be wrong on this because I thought for the last 31 years that creation was from the bible and so it was part of my religion. This is a bit confusing.

    I know that you try to show natural events for the flood and formation of the earth and stuff that contradict all the evidence that the scientists have. so they use logic and reason. Isn’t it just better to show that we belive God created it in his way that we don’t always understand? like using miracles?

  2. Gary Hendricks September 29, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    In case anybody is interested I submit the following as clear, undeniable, irrefutable, Biblical proof that the Earth does not rotate or revolve around the sun or anything else for that matter.

    1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

    Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

    Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

    Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

    Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”

    I don’t know how the words could be any plainer. No serious Hebrew scholar could ever make a case that immovable and firm and fixed mean anything but what we take them to mean in the English language.

  3. Jeff Brace September 29, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    Can’t wait to get his new book. The Ultimate Proof was amazing.

  4. Joe Shlabotnik September 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    The bible is always right From the very first verse.
    What science sees is what is in the nature we see. We have the same evidence as sientist but interpret it through the bible.

    Scientist do not know how the universe was created. Either do creationists. But we know that God did it. We cant know what process he used because it is a supernatural cause.
    Some things look very old to scientist but God made stuff that way for a reason, which none of us can inderstand.

    Some crationist try to show mathematics to account for the far away sunlight but they can’t because God didn’t use math to create the light. No one knows the math or science about how he created the light or the earth or the stars or other stuff.

    Scinetists and creationit make guesses from different viewpoints but all you need to know to be saved is that god did it by his word.

  5. Joe Shlabotnik September 29, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    God “breathed” life into man. He “spoke” the universe into existence. When he soke, breath came out and that made the teeny particles that make all the atoms in the universe.

    He spoke the earth into existence the same way. Only God could expalain how he did it and no human would be able to understand it.
    Maybe when I get to heaven he will show me i hope!

  6. Mike Ayala September 29, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    Hi Gary,

    You really are desperate, aren’t you? Kind of grasping at straws, aren’t you? You are so desperate to try to cast doubt on the word of God that you almost appear to be out of control. You have no evidence that stands up to any scrutiny to back up any claim you made of a scientific nature, so now you want to try to show that you are smarter than God. Don’t you remember that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men”?

    Let’s see, oh, yes! Casting doubt on the word of God, Yes, that is Satan’s first tactic. God says what He means and means what He says, and He is able to perform His word.

    It’s amazing, Gary, how you are always displaying your unique level of knowledge of Scripture.

    Yes, it is wonderful how immovable and firm the earth is as it is fixed in its motion around the Sun. Thank the Lord that we do not just float out into the outer reaches of the solar system or even out of it all together.

    Do you realize how firmly fixed and stable the earth is fixed and immoveable in its orbit? Or did you not notice the stability we enjoy so we can build houses and buildings? Did you not notice the predictability we enjoy as the earth faithfully courses around the Sun? Praise God that the clouds are firmly fixed in their place so that the rains water our crops, fill our aquifers, and keep our streams and rivers flowing. And praise God that the atmosphere is fixed in it’s place or we would be in big trouble real fast.

    The Lord has the whole of creation working together with greater precision than the best clock we could ever design. How awesome is our God!

    Gary, were you trying to make a point about anything in particular?

    God bless you with a love of His word.

    Mike Ayala

    PS: Gary, you might also try the words, “Stable”, “Be Established”, or “Stablished”

    1Ch 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

    Psa 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, [wherewith] he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

    Psa 96:10 Say among the heathen [that] the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

    Psa 104:5 [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.

    Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

  7. Duane September 30, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    I swear, project much??? Is there one of these issues you haven’t committed just this month?

    “Did you know that when evolutionists use biased and emotional language…”

    You mean like:

    “…evolutionism as being largely responsible for molding the thinking of hosts of people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot of the Khmer in Cambodia, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx, who have caused untold suffering in our world. ”


    “At stake is the credibility of Jesus. He cited Genesis twenty-five times and said the creation of Adam was “the beginning” (Matthew 19:4). Evolution and creation represent worldviews that are polar opposites, one of them is wrong! Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.”

    “…in an attempt to persuade people they are committing the fallacy of question-begging epithet?”

    Like Presuppositional Apologetics, which defines question begging.

    “Every time they call creation “Creationism,” they commit the fallacy.”

    Or Darwinism, which no scientist ever uses. They actually don’t use Creationism, either, since it is not a real science but just a bunch of cranks who are still holding on to the past.

    “Every time they call Creation a religion, they are committing that fallacy,”

    You mean like:
    “# Real science, not evolution, should be taught in the science classes. Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don’t test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world.
    # Government should not sponsor religion. Teaching the theory of evolution as fact in tax-supported schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Why should all taxpayers support one religion over all others in our schools? Efforts must be made on all fronts to inform people that evolution is only a religion and that tax-supported institutions should not teach it as fact.”

    ” and of course, every time they swear or use obscene language, they commit the fallacy of question-begging epithet. ”

    What? Do you even know what question begging is?

    ” The emotion is supposed to sway you to think they are right when they have not provided any logic or proof to support their claim.”

    I can’t even begin to quote here, because it is pretty much your entire site. Since science doesn’t have certain answers about origins, you ignore where science does have the answers. Your proofs are little more than emotional pleadings about how evolution is bad for society. Your “science” assertions are basically nonsense that is dismissed by 99.976 % of legitimate scientists around the world. The Noahide flood doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny, I’m sorry but it doesn’t. Baby dinosaurs?

    Here’s what gets me, You don’t believe science, which is tested and retested, checked and cross-checked by 1000s of scientists (who would actually make their names if they could disprove anything-Look at Einstein, who managed to displace Newton), but you believe immunization is bad, when it has nearly wiped out many deadly diseases but had 1 (one) study that was such bad science that the journal has rescinded it and all the doctors (but 1) removed their names from it? You believe every conspiracy theory on the flimsiest of hearsay evidence and you don’t believe science, because it doesn’t agree with scripture? And belief in Scripture isn’t even based on evidence but on faith.

    First cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother’s eye.

  8. Barry Lucas September 30, 2010 at 9:06 am #

    As to the “clear, undeniable, irrefutable Biblical proof”, I have to assume you are being tongue-in-cheek, because no one would interpret literature- be it Bible or birthday card- with such a tin ear. Any serious Hebrew scholar would know that these “plain words” are not a scientific pronouncement. So, I take it for granted that you are mocking. If meant to amuse, it’s mildly amusing. If meant to provoke, then it falls into the category mentioned above.

  9. H. Bosma September 30, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    Oh Eric, how ignorant are you?

    I totally back Joe on his comment. Creationism (or creation as you like to call is) is based in religion and can only be substantiated with religion.

    Again you are confusing atheism and the theory of evolution. As I said in a post in response to an earlier blog. Some-one did comment that it was not true and nowhere on this site it is portrayed this way.
    Well……… atheism is the disbelief in a higher power, thus there is no god who created the universe.
    The theory of evolution (nothing to do with ‘6 versions’) is the explanation of how diversity of life has grown and changed. By bringing up the big bang as an argument against evolution, you are mixing up atheism and evolution.

  10. Nathan Warden September 30, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    @Gary Hendricks

    Hi Gary, have you ever met someone that you would describe as either immovable or unstoppable because the were huge and muscular? Yet these two terms at face value contradict each other. If you saw this guy walking, you could still describe him as immovable, yet he is moving.

    Have you ever fixed your eyes fast on a moving object?

    All I’m saying is you can easily defend these verses that they have nothing to do with whether the earth is moving. Rather, they have to do with the fact that nothing will move the Earth, either off of the course it is on, or if it’s sitting still and everything is revolving around it.

  11. Joe Shlabotnik September 30, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    Just got to thinking…If we don’t want them to refer to creation as religion, it’s funny I see Eric referring to science as a religion. Is science now religion and religion is now not religion?

    I think you guys are confusing things and making new defintiopns that are rather absurd.

    God created. We do not know how. All we see are the natural manifestations that all of us, including scientists can see and measure.

  12. ant bourdon September 30, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    To Gary;
    I don’t understand why you are talking about the Bible’s supposed errors when the subject here is the creation theory. The message of salvation that comes from the Bible is part of a religion, but this is another subject to debate on and I don’t think this website is the proper place for debating on the Bible. If it was, I would be doing it because I don’t have the same faith than other Christians here.
    Just for fun, since you pointed out that the Bible says that the earth is immovable, I’m going to ask you to jump on the ground to see if you are going to change the course of the earth around the sun. If the earth is movable, you will be able to change it course, won’t you?
    To bring some science into this, I must tell you that because of the law of Kepler, you really can’t change the earth’s course. You would need a cosmic catastrophe. Even nuclear bombs can’t do that. How much evidence do you need to realize that this is the Truth. The problem is that you assume the Bible as if it was anthropomorphic writings. If we assume that the Bible was inspired by God, then you must interpret it message considering our known science. Then there is no problem at all. We all know that evolutionists like you do not like the Bible because you can’t believe that a God would want us to know what he thinks. But don’t try to tell us that there is a problem with the logic in the Bible when there is a lot of logical problems in the first principle of your own theory. Breve parenthesis: For any “intelligent design” follower, I’ll have to say that God didn’t need evolution to create mankind. Why would he want to have thousands of generations of animals killing each other for nothing? Also, there are no sign of stars forming in the sky, even if they are 12 billions light years away. If the Big Bang was true, the light coming from those stars (which shows us what happened to those stars 12 billions years ago) would show them in formation. Why don’t we see any of them?
    If you’re a pure evolutionist, I must tell you that the first principle of your theory (chance, spontaneity, luck) is a principle that you did not study enough to understand why materialism cannot stand in front of logic.

    Usually, we can separate events in three kinds: probables, improbables, impossibles. probables events are those which follow known laws. Improbable events are directed by chance. Impossible events are directed by miracles.

    So, when an evolutionist tells me that the universe created itself, he is really saying that chance (which refers to an improbable event) can cause probable, improbable and impossible events.
    There is a principle in metaphysics that shows that it is impossible for something to cause another if it doesn’t have the principle of the other in itself. For example, a ball cannot put another one in motion if it is not moving (if we do not consider gravity). So, how can a principle which has no laws create something which has laws. How can a zero = one?
    The evolutionist principle (chance) contradict itself twice.
    First, an improbable event cannot create probable events unless the improbable event becomes the probable event (but this is not what we can observe, we don’t see “Big Bangs” exploding everywhere in the universe. If the universe creating itself was a probable event (following regularity and law), we would be able to observe it regularly).
    Secondly, chance (improbable event) cannot be the cause of impossible events. To be improbable, something lucky must be possible. If I try do shoot a bird from a mile, I’m lucky if I get it, but it is possible. This improbable event is lucky rightly so because there are laws working against it. If there was no laws working against luck, anything could happen. So, we wouldn’t call that “luck” because it would be a probable event. But if there are laws that makes an event impossible, it is a miracle if it happens anyway. Lets say, a man goes into the vacuum of space and start breathing oxygen. We would say that this is a miracle if we test him and that we observe that he is really breathing oxygen out of nowhere. The same apply to the Big Bang. There is a law of physics which tells us that nothing appears, nothing disappears, everything is transformed. Another law of physics should be created to tell us that two laws of physics cannot contradict themselves. We cannot have a law which is that all matter of the same density fall at the same speed and another law stating that matter with the same density cannot fall at the same speed. If we say that nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed, how can we create another law stating that all matter comes out of nowhere, cannot be destroyed, and is transforming itself. If that law were to be true, it would have changed over time to become the other definition. But how can the concept of chance (a without law concept) create firstly, all the laws of the universe (which direct the happening of probable events) that which is impossible, but also create laws which would rule over events that can happen by chance. It would be as if, by the power of Chance, the laws of physics would have become unchangeable by Chance. How can an effect be greater than it cause or rule over it? How can the laws of physics rule over chance if chance is it master?

    If that were to be true, it would be a miracle since it is impossible. But even miracles must have explanations. As humans, we feel that everything must have an explanation or we can’t be certain of anything. So, if by a miracle, laws came by chance to rule over chance, what is the source of that miracle if not God? You have a serious problem with the first principle of the evolutionary theory, so start at the beginning and answer this impossibility before trying to spit on the Bible. As Jesus said in other words, remove the tree that you have in your eyes before trying to remove the leave that is in the eye of your brother. See that I’ve answered your supposed impossibility in the Bible, so I’m not saying this and doing the contrary.

  13. ant bourdon September 30, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    To Joe Shlabotnik;
    Evolution is not separable from Darwinism because Darwinism is the theory that the world came to be by evolution. Creationism is not a religion because it is a scientific hypothesis. One could have formed that theory without the Bible. The fact that the creationist hypothesis might force someone to become a believer if it is true is another story. But it is the same on both side. If pure Darwinism is true, then we must become atheists. If creationism is true, we must believe in God (not forcedly the God of the Bible, but at least in a God). But it is not because a theory leads to a religion that the theory is a part of that religion.

    To explain it simpler, Darwinism refers to the atheist religion and creationism refers to any God-believing religion.

    One the other hand, you said that creationist hypothesis are contradicted by evidences that scientists got. I’m telling you that some points might be false in the creationist theory and creationists are saying the same about evolutionists; But the fact is that the first principle of Darwinism contradict itself as I explained in my previous post. So, what do you prefer? a theory which has still things to answer to offer a complete explanation (creationism) or a theory which as an impossibility as it first principle named “Chance”. See my previous post for complete explanation.

  14. ant bourdon September 30, 2010 at 5:28 pm #

    To Joe Shlabotnik;
    Sorry, I made a mistake in my last paragraph because I thought that you meant something else. I thought that you were saying that the evidences that scientists got were against the story of the Bible. I won’t argue on that, it is too technical and would be too long to get to an answer. It’s better using logic.

  15. Gary Hendricks October 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    Ant, it seems to me you went to a lot of trouble to prove my point exactly. I was not pointing out mistakes in the Bible, I was illustrating mistakes in interpretation. The only difference between the passages I quoted and the Genesis account of creation is that you seem to think one is a matter of interpretation and the other can ONLY be understood in the most literal sense possible. As with all on this site who keep attacking me, your arrogance in your own “knowledge”, which clearly has you all very puffed up, is staggering.

  16. Gary Hendricks October 1, 2010 at 5:27 pm #

    Nathan, I agree with your interpretation of these verses completely. Of course Luther and Calvin didn’t. Once again you all prove my point. Stop fighting genuine science. You are all simply making a mockery of God the same way they did. Stop elevating your interpretation of scripture to the level of scripture itself. That is what I find so offensive as a Christian.