Consider Circular Reasoning!

Wikipedia has it thus:  Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”;[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.

“a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.”  As applied to the age of the Earth, scientists who believe the theory of evolution have taken a 19th century theory concerning the age of fossils in sedimentary rock and used it to date the rock containing similar fossils elsewhere.  They use the fossils to date the rock and rock to date the fossils—circulus in probando—it begins and ends in the theory of the age of the fossils.  It is, therefore, a logical fallacy! “A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning,”(Wikipedia)

Our education system has indoctrinated everyone under its influence into this fallacious reasoning as if it were absolute truth!  The only truth in it is that there are fossils in sedimentary rock.  EVERYTHING beyond that is conjecture and theory. A theory requires proof. A theory of itself proves nothing!

Science is supposed to be about finding truth; make observations and theorize concerning cause.  The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that a theory was proposed specifically to reject God’s revelation of creation and then the search was on to find supporting evidence!  Denial of truth never, ever changes the truth, but it can sure make the ‘wisdom of the wise into foolishness’ when the denial is exposed for what it truly is!

Remember ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’?  It was the truth revealed.  The Theory of Evolution is exactly the Emperor’s new clothes trying to hide the truth of creation.  Eventually everyone will see it for what it really is.  Pray the Spirit will open the eyes of the blind.

10 thoughts on “Consider Circular Reasoning!

  1. So how is evolutionary theory circular…?

    • wpuser135 says:

      Evolutionary theory is not circular. Grasping an estimated age for a fossil out of thin air and then saying the rock the fossil is in is that old because the fossil is assumed to be that old is circular reasoning: fossil dates rock, rock dates fossil, no objective outside source to prove either one. None of the earlier methods of radiocarbon or chemical dating has proven to be at all reliable. The theory of evolution rests on the idea that given enough time, chemical rich slime and a lightening bolt can initiate a process of life and change which ends with man. That is why the earth has to be billions of years old, else there simply is not enough time for the theory to work. The theory has been debunked, proven false, and with the advent of DNA, completely untenable. Yet it is still in the latest textbooks as if it is true, indoctrinating our youth in the lie!

      • I’m not so sure anyone is saying this about fossils and rocks the way you are portraying. Can you provide a few examples of a reputable figure or journal in the field which is making this argument in this way?

        As for life from non-life, or rational life from non-rational life, yes there are problems. But that is quite distinct from saying that things that are born can be different from what they are born from, and the things that live longer due to those changes will tend to pass them along.

      • wpuser135 says:

        “The Evolution Handbook” by Vance Ferrell is a 1000 page reference with an exhaustive amount of further information on the website “things that are born can be different from what they are born from…” Really? How many dogs have kittens? Have you ever seen or heard of a horse having a calf? Yes, there are differences within a species, but those differences do not extend into another species.
        The information covered in the handbook and website is exhaustive covering the evolution vs creation subject. I suggest that you avail yourself of the opportunity to examine it.
        For the simplest species of single-celled life to “evolve” into something else, thousands to millions of specific changes to its DNA code would have to be made simultaneously and those changes would have to be such that the new creature could not only survive but thrive else it would simply die and those changes would be lost.

      • I’ll be upfront – I am not going to read a 1000 page book on this topic.

        Do you believe there is such a thing as random genetic mutation?

      • wpuser135 says:

        Of course there is random genetic mutation. The problem is there is no known instance of random genetic mutation creating a new species. Random genetic mutation by definition scrambles the genetic code and is therefore, in every known instance, detrimental to survival.
        It is really too bad that you have rejected this book as a knowledge source. It is a truth that anything worth having is worth working for, or at least investing the time necessary as the cost of the benefit. There ain’t no free lunch. You get what you pay for. There are many ways to say it, but to seek Christ is to seek Truth. Truth in everything! Truth in who we are and where we came from. To me, that is worth whatever it takes. If you place no value on truth, then why engage me in what you consider to be a waste of time?
        Syncretism can be defined as the effort to merge secular humanism and Truth. How much untruth does it take to make a lie?

      • Some changes are harmful, some are not. Over time, changes can accumulate and make creature look and function very differently from its distant ancestors.

        There is no good definition of “species” anyway. But you seem to begging the question – ironically – as your premise against evolution is that genetic mutation does not cause changes in species… which is exactly what evolution is. So, your conclusion is your major premise.

        I’ve not “rejected this book as a knowledge source,” I said I’m not going to read it. I don’t think it’s a good use of my time – I have many, many other things to read (and pay for). Perhaps there are problems with evolutionary theory, but if there aren’t that does not threaten a shred of credibility of Scripture – which is probably what your major concern is… right?

      • wpuser135 says:

        You are confusing MICRO-evolution with MACRO-evolution. Micro-evolution is change within species(kinds is the biblical term, dogs, cats, pigs, roses, etc.). A Great Dane and a chihuahua are both dogs although very different. There is no argument against intra-species change. Macro-evolution (the original Darwinian theory) is the theory that is unproven. There is no evidence of one kind of plant or animal ever changing into another. Your presumption of “no good definition of ‘species'” is just wrong. The definition is very specific.
        And all of the information that is in the handbook is on the website which is free.
        The only problem with the macro-evolutionary theory is that its a lie. There are people who love the lie. I guess you missed the implications of syncretism. Trying to shoehorn evolutionary theory into the Scriptural account of creation DOES do violence to the credibility of Scripture, especially in light of the its denial of the Flood and all that entails in the history of this world, not even to mention the doubt cast upon the Word of God by it.
        The truth is out there, all you have to do is let it in. Deo Volente

      • So macro-evolution is untrue because it can’t happen because it’s a lie because there’s no evidence…… You are beginning with your conclusion still.

        Any definition of “species” is going to suffer from ambiguity. Think about it… Just how distinct must a thing be? How does one actually quantify that quality? It is really not possible.

        There can’t ever be a perfect demonstration of anything historical, only extrapolations based on available data (can you prove that Columbus sailed in 1492? – no). Nor can we test macro-evolution easily, because it takes so long… So it’s “a lie” I guess? Whatever – it is not that interesting to me to continue that line of thought. You are begging the question, which is very ironic.

        But to the real issue – no, Scripture is not threatened by macro-evolution. The thought that Hebrews from 3000 years ago were interested in doing history and science in the same way that we are today is not reasonable. Hyberbole, aetiology, and metaphors were more useful for what they were trying to do (and what God was doing among them). If you went back in time and told them about tectonic plates and macro-evolution and background radiation, they might say, “Oh, that’s interesting. But our story is more useful for understanding the world as it is in terms of what we think is important.”

        And you hurt the propagation of the Christian faith by insisting otherwise… which is why I bothered to comment.

      • wpuser135 says:

        Since it is obvious that you do not believe that absolute truth exists or that there is no such thing as ‘beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT”, its time to break this thread.
        It isn’t Scripture that’s threatened. You certainly don’t get it. It is like a mouse threatening a lion. Its not a lie because it takes so long to prove, its a lie because it is UNTRUE. It is untrue because it has no basis in reality. It is pure fiction and to present it as fact is preaching falsehood. If you’re okay with that we have nothing more to say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s