[*]No new species have been produced. This is not truenew 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.
[*]Earths 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 Noahs 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 Moons large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the Earths (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 Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support.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-existedsee
Q&A: Dinosaurs.
[*]Darwins 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 disagreessee
Darwin v The Eye and
An eye for creation).
[*]Earths 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 theres 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 splittinganother global flood! This gives us the clue as to when the continents did move apart during Noahs 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):98106, 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 Gods 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).