For more about Justin, you can visit his website at justinpeters.org.

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

Nick Coldagelli is a friend and ministry partner at Signet Ring Ministries. He is also a teaching pastor at Conquering King Fellowship in Eagan, Minnesota.

For more on this subject, Nick recommends The Feasts Of The Lord God’s Prophetic Calendar From Calvary To The Kingdom by Kevin Howard and Marvin Rosenthal (Kindle version available here).

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

*Note: I have never provided paid advertising on the Echo Zoe podcast, and at this time have no plans to do so in the future. I have, however, begun an Amazon Associates account to offset a small portion of the meager costs associated with this site. If you’re interested in any of the books mentioned in a podcast or blog post, please consider purchasing via the links to Amazon provided here.

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

The outline for our discussion was a pair of articles written by DeWaay and Habbena for a past issue of DeWaay’s Critical Issues Commentary. (A PDF of the entire issue, containing both articles, available here.)

This episode completes two years of shows for Echo Zoe Radio. It was another enjoyable year, and I look forward to beginning the third year next month, Lord willing. A huge “Thank You” to all of the guests who came on the show over the last year, as well as you for listening!

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

This month I pick up the discussion of persecution with Vony. We talked about her experience as a third-generation Christian in Indonesia, as well as life in more remote parts of her home country that Christians face every day.

I hope you’ll enjoy this discussion. Some of the interviews I have done have been more formal than others, this one ranks among the most informal. Listen in as a “fly on the wall” as I chat with my friend Vony.

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

In the discussion of “Limited Atonement”, Phil referred to a sermon given recently by John MacArthur. That sermon can be found here.

Phil also referred to a lecture he gave called “The Story of Calvinism”, which can be found here, and an essay he wrote about Hyper-Calvinism, which can be found here. At the time this is being posted, his sermon on Philippians 1:6 is not yet posted, but should show up here soon.

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

“Mom, can I go see Terminator: Blood Bath with Jimmy and Bobby?”
“No you cannot, that movie is rated ‘R’, and you are 11.”
“Oh come on Mom, everybody else has already seen it.”

Explaining why he’s mature beyond his years would be a valid argument for why he should be allowed to see the movie, but claiming that “everybody else has already seen it” is a bandwagon fallacy.

“Hey Mike, you should try this, sniff this glue.”
“Ahh, no thanks, I like my brain cells.”
“Everyone’s doing it man, just try it.”

This form of peer pressure is, again, a bandwagon fallacy.

Bandwagon is also used often in advertising.

“Ford F-150 has been the best selling pickup for over 30 years.”
“Choosy Moms choose Jiff”
“More Americans get their news from ABC News than from any other source.”

Next Lesson: Appeal to the People

• It’s wrong for a man to beat his wife. When Mike played his wife Cheryl in a game of chess, he beat her. Therefore, what Mike did was wrong.
• The Virgin Islands are the only place in the United States that does not drive on the right side of the road. Therefore, they drive on the wrong side of the road in the Virgin Islands.
• Trains run on tracks. The tail of a wedding dress is called a train. Therefore, wedding dresses run on tracks
• Banks are places that store money. There is a snow bank at the end of my driveway. Therefore, there is money stored at the end of my driveway.
• Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three rights make a left.

In each of these cases, two different meanings of a word are used.

Clearly, debates or claims don’t typically contain such obvious cases of equivocation, they are usually more subtle. From about.com:

The sugar industry, for instance, once advertised its product with the claim that “Sugar is an essential component of the body . . . a key material in all sorts of metabolic processes,” neglecting the fact that it is glucose (blood sugar) not ordinary table sugar (sucrose) that is the vital nourishment.

The average person doesn’t know, or doesn’t often think about the fact that there are three kinds of sugar: glucose, sucrose, and fructose. It is easy to be deceived by the above claim of the sugar industry.

Next Lesson: The Bandwagon

The Democrats are licking their wounds after the upset of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Fortunately for those of us who love Liberty, they seem to be deaf to the message they are being sent. In an effort to try to chip away at Tea Party support for “Republicans”, they’ve devised a list of questions that I suppose they thought would be intimidating. While I am no Republican, and am not running for office (so I’m not one these questions were specifically targeted towards), I thought I’d address them.

Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S.citizen?

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: This was a poorly crafted question. If you really wanted to draw out the “wing-nuts” (as you see them) the question would be Do you believe that Barack Obama is a Natural Born U.S.citizen? To that I say: Absolutely Not! In my opinion, if the question were such an easy one to settle, it would have been settled during the campaign, or at least before inauguration day. It seems that there are several ways Obama could have proven his place of birth, the easiest being to produce his long-form birth certificate. He has not only refused to do so, he has spent tons of money on lawyers to prevent it from happening.

So do I think there was some conspiracy to get the Honolulu newspapers to print his birth announcement in case he were to run for President over 4 decades later? Don’t be crazy! That is easily explained by the fact that such announcements were done automatically when birth records were created. However, the birth records that triggered the announcement were Hawaii’s “Certification of Live Birth,” not a long-form birth certificate. What’s the difference? The Certification of Live Birth was easy to get, and did not require that a child actually be born in Hawaii. It seems reasonable to speculate that Obama’s mother got a certification of live birth for Barack upon returning to Hawaii after traveling to Kenya in order to make his legal status in the U.S. easier to deal with. There was no conspiracy to create a paper trail for a future President.

The certification of live birth speculation is just interesting, but not even really relevant to the question of Obama’s citizenship status, for many reasons. First of all, the Founders didn’t care about where a child was born, but who a child was born to. Citizenship is passed on from parent to child like any other trait, like eye color. It is natural that if parents are citizens, then child is too. That’s where things get sticky for Obama. His mother was a citizen. However, his father was not. He was a citizen of the United Kingdom. He was from Kenya, which was an English colony at the time of Obama’s birth. Also, under Hawaiian law at the time, the parents had to be at least 18 years old to transfer citizenship to their children automatically. Obama’s mother was 16.

The strongest case for Obama’s citizenship status hasn’t even been made yet. Even if he was born in Hawaii to two citizens (there is no question his father was not, but just for the sake of argument we’ll disregard that), and was a natural-born citizen as the Founders intended, he still has another problem. There are two pieces of evidence that strongly suggest that at some point in his youth, he was not a citizen. The first is his schooling in Indonesia. In order to be enrolled in the schools in Indonesia, he had to be an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia did not allow dual-citizenship, so if he was an Indonesian citizen, he was not an American citizen. Second, Obama admits to travelling to Pakistan in the 70′s. At the time that he says he went there, Pakistan did not allow American citizens into their country. So either he lied about not being a citizen to get into Pakistan, or he lied about going to Pakistan.

The point to showing that at one time he appears to not have been a U.S. citizen is this: even if he was born here, his citizenship would have had to have been renounced. That means that if he is a citizen now (which I have no reason to doubt, he probably is), he would be a naturalized citizen, not natural-born. It is possible to be born a citizen, renounce your citizenship (or have it renounced on your behalf by a legal guardian), and then regain your citizenship later, but then your citizenship status rests on your most recent acquisition of citizenship, the naturalization.

Unfortunately, those with the power to investigate this and do something about it have made it clear that they have no desire to do so. Obama will leave office when his term (be it first or second) is up, not because of his citizenship status.

Do you think the Tenth Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum healthcare coverage standards?

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: This is a ridiculously stupid question. The only reason it wouldn’t is if you don’t believe it means what it says, or doesn’t matter what it says.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It’s been a while (like months) since I actually read through the Constitution, but I don’t remember there being anything in there about health care. I just did a search through the text and didn’t find it either, so I feel confident in my memory of the text. The tenth amendment makes it pretty clear that such issue should be dealt with at the state level. Massachusetts did so under Romney, and though I disagree I am not a resident of Massachusetts, have no obligation to their law, but wish them well with it. I think it’s wonderful that states can chose to do things like this on their own as they wish.

Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism, and should never have been created in the first place?

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: They were created under FDR, not George Washington, so they clearly weren’t on the minds of the Founding Fathers. It was Karl Marx, Godfather of socialism, that said “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” Socialism is the transfer of wealth from one class of people to another. Social Security and Medicare work because they tax working people and give to retirees and the disabled.

Besides, the very name is Social Security. Kind of hard to get around it.

As for …and should never have been created in the first place? Not at the Federal level. See the previous question on the 10th amendment, it’s the same thing. If I were in charge, Social Security and Medicare would be phased out over a period of about 10-20 years and either privatized or transferred to the states, or both.

Call me crazy, but I am a Libertarian. Forcing people to pay into a ponzi scheme isn’t exactly conducive to Liberty, and there is a reason that ponzi schemes are illegal when private citizens create them. It should be illegal for the government to create them too (and I believe that the Constitution bans them by not explicitly delegating the power to create them.

Being ponzi schemes, it’s no shock that they are running out of money and scheduled to become insolvent in the near future. It’s time to end them before they end us.

Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: He calls himself a “Progressive”, but I see no difference. The progressive movement has always had the same goals as those who openly call themselves Socialists. Some people call it a sofa, I call it a couch, but either way it’s a piece of furniture.

Besides, while he likes to mock people who use the word “socialist”, he openly embraces socialist policies from beginning to end.

Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: There’s a reason that the term “gold standard” carries the meaning that it does. If someone says that X is “the gold standard” of A, they’re saying it’s the ideal. In 5,000 years of recorded history, there have been many different monetary systems tried, but gold has always been the most stable. The Byzantines alone made it work for over 800 years!

The system we have now of fiat currency is failing after only less than a century. The dollar has lost nearly 95% of its value since the creation of the Federal Reserve, and had to be decoupled with gold by Nixon in 1974 because the discrepancy between the values of the dollar and gold reached a breaking point.

Fiat currencies are loved by governments, especially socialist ones, because it allows them to spend money that doesn’t exist. In order to pay for expensive social programs, a government has three choices:

1. Tax the people to raise the money.
2. Borrow the money.
3. Print new money.

The first option is only popular to a point. People prefer taxes they can afford to borrowing against their future. It is always better to pay for what you consume when you consume it, rather than putting the bill off for a future date. However, we cannot afford everything we are consuming, so taxes are insufficient.

That pushes us to our second option. The people will tolerate a level of borrowing, but not much. Also, they will tolerate borrowing when it makes sense. For example, paying for roads with a gas tax makes sense, because that leads to the roads being paid for by the people that use them. Gas taxes are often not enough to pay for a new road at the time of construction though. It is reasonable to borrow the cost of the road and pay for it over the life of that road. Roads don’t need to be built every day, month, or year. They are often built to last as much as 50 years. It’s reasonable to spread the cost over several years, even a decade or two. But people will generally not tolerate borrowing money that is spent on something that is immediately consumed and lost. That is an unsustainable practice. If an individual is borrowing money to pay for basic necessities like food, or fuel, that is consumed and then gone long before the bill comes due, they will quickly be over their head in debt. Governments are no different.

The favorite option of governments is number three. They can print the money they need. That causes inflation, since the supply of money increases when more is printed. They know the effects of inflation won’t be seen until long after the newly printed money is spent, so government feels the effects of inflation much less than the people. It is a hidden tax though, and it effects those at the bottom of the economic ladder the hardest. Printing new dollars means that every dollar out there is worth less. The government gets to take the value of your money from you, without actually touching the money you have. People will tolerate this to a point, and the government can easily put up scapegoats to take the blame for their actions. They’ll just blame big business for rising prices. Most people don’t understand the real cause of inflation, and let them get away with the scapegoating.

The gold standard forces the government into fiscal responsibility. It takes option three away from them. Also, stability leads to prosperity. When people can reasonably assume what the future holds, they will conduct business. When they don’t know what tomorrow holds, they are reluctant to take the risks that business requires. If the dollar will be worth less tomorrow than it is worth today, people will shift their risks to account for that, but that shift will always consume resources and reduce prosperity.

Besides all that, getting off the gold standard has only increased the problems that it was supposed to solve.

There you go, not so intimidating if you ask me. I am actually somewhat glad these questions are out there, as I think Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians should not be afraid to answer them. If someone is, he is probably more interested in power than political solutions to real problems, and wouldn’t be considered for my vote.

Mr. Vandalay: Thanks for coming in to day Mr. Costanza. Let me ask you, why should Vandalay Industries hire you to be our latex salesman?
Mr. Costanza: My unemployment benefits are about to run out, and if I don’t get this job I will lose my apartment.

The nature of Mr. Costanza’s unemployment benefits are inconsequential to Vandalay Industries, and have no bearing on whether or not he’d be an effective salesman for them. Mr. Costanza is appealing to their sense of pity in an effort to get the job.

Like any propaganda technique, the Appeal to Pity is often used in both advertising and politics.

In advertising:

Each year, millions of children starve in third-world countries, won’t you give just 75 cents a day to provide food to these children, kids like little Miguel here, who eats grass and crickets just to survive.

In politics:

It is my life’s goal to get Universal Health Care passed in the United States. To help people like Sherry Bobbins of Little Rock, Arkansas. She is 73 years old, a widow with 12 children and 58 grandchildren. Her husband died two years ago of a brain tumor. He couldn’t get treatment because he had no health insurance, he couldn’t afford the high premiums while living on only Social Security and the meager winnings he could get by playing pull-tabs. Now Sherry is maimed with a broken hip, she can’t lift her little grandchildren, who just want hugs from their grandmother. Like her husband, she has no health insurance. Despite the fact that her children are working hard, some of them taking three jobs, to pitch in and help her, the insurance companies won’t give her a policy because of her pre-existing conditions. In addition to the broken hip, she has leukemia, kidney stones, cataracts, osteoporosis, congenital heart failure, and halitosis. We need this bill to improve the lives of people like Sherry Bobbins!

Sometimes, a perfectly logical argument will result in a sense of pity. If pity is not the aim, no fallacy is committed. For example:

Jack: Steve, I’m afraid I’m going to have to fire you for not showing up to work yesterday, and getting here a half hour late this morning.
Steve: I’m sorry that I didn’t make it in. I was on my way to work when I got into an accident with an ice cream truck. I broke my left leg and was knocked unconscious. I woke up at 8:00PM, three hours after the office closed, in a hospital bed. The doctors patched me up and made sure there was no more damage, before discharging me around midnight. Having no car, I took the first bus I could get this morning to come into work, it had a flat tire and took an hour for the bus company to get another bus to us.
Jack: Steve, that’s terrible. I’m sorry you had to go through that. I’ll talk to the owner, but I am pretty sure I can talk him into letting you keep your job.

Steve’s story probably invokes a sense of pity upon Jack, but that is secondary to the reasons given why he missed work yesterday and was late today.

Next Lesson: Equivocation

This is the fallacy that starts superstitions. When a baseball pitcher puts on green socks with orange stripes before a game and goes on to pitch a no-hitter, it’s easy to see why he credits the socks with giving him “good luck”. If he doesn’t wear the socks in his next game and plays horribly, it often reinforces the superstition. The pitcher falls into the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

Like the previous fallacies we looked at, this is another one that is common in politics. For example, gun-control advocates will pass a law banning guns in a city, then violent crime involving guns goes down the next year. They assume that the law cause gun crime to go down. Likewise, gun-rights advocates may get a bill passed requiring law enforcement to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who receives training and passes a background check. Shortly after the bill passes, gun crime goes down, and the advocates of “shall issue” laws point out that the increased numbers of law-abiding citizens carrying deadly weapons for defensive purposes caused criminals to think twice before committing violent crime, which caused the crime statistics to go down.

This fallacy is particularly tricky because sometimes ‘A’ really does cause ‘B’. An obvious example would be that when the temperature rising after sunrise. In many places, especially desert climates, the sun rising really does cause an increase in temperature. The “Scientific Method” depends on the law of causation, and the reliability of experimentation to be reproducible. ‘A’ must consistently be followed by ‘B’, or the scientific method falls apart. This fallacy merely shows that ‘B’ following ‘A’ doesn’t necessarily mean there is causation. Sometimes there are unseen factors involved that are the real cause. Perhaps every time you observe ‘A’, ‘C’ happens as well, and is the real cause of ‘B’. ‘A’ happening before ‘B’ just happens to be a coincidence.

Next Lesson: Appeal to Pity

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

Curt: Warren Buffet is the richest man in the world, and he says that Vitamin-D3 supplements reduce your chances of getting cancer.
Michelle: I’ve never heard that before, but Warren Buffet is obviously a savvy guy, so I guess that’s not so hard to believe.

Curt is appealing to Warren Buffet on a matter of nutrition, when Buffet’s expertise is in business and finance. This is a faulty Appeal to Authority.

This fallacy is very common. People appeal to movie stars, politicians, and know-it-all uncles all the time. Appealing to a movie star in an argument about the best technique for remembering ones lines in an Off-Broadway play would be a legitimate appeal to authority, because they clearly have experience to know what they are talking about. Appealing to them to argue the best way to reduce deer overpopulation in Wisconsin lake country would be fallacious. They are welcome to their opinion, as is anyone, but they probably don’t have experience with deer populations, and so they lack expertise.

Next Lesson: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Here’s an example to explain the difference:

Tim: I heard on the radio that France’s Universal Healthcare System is misleading. Everyone has insurance through the government, but 90% of French people also have private insurance to supplement the shortcomings of their government system. What’s the point of paying high taxes so everyone can have health insurance if that insurance doesn’t cover what people actually need?
Susan: That was Glenn Beck who said that, you can’t believe what he says because he’s a right-wing conspiracy theorist nut-job.

This is an example of the Genetic Fallacy because Glenn Beck is the source, not Tim. Had Susan dismissed Tim as a right-wing conspiracy theorist nut-job, it would have been an Ad Hominem. Susan is committing the Genetic Fallacy because the nature of Glenn Beck’s political views, belief in conspiracy theories, and state of mental health have nothing to do with whether or not French people need supplementary health insurance. Likewise, had Susan embraced Tim’s argument based on having a celebrity-crush on Glenn Beck, she would have also been committing the Genetic Fallacy.

Next Lesson: Appeal to Authority

The way Tu Quoque works is that a person’s argument is dismissed because he is guilty of violating his own argument. He is hung on his inconsistency.

Dave: Marriage is a sacred institution Brian, you need to take it seriously and work hard to keep your marriage healthy. Cheating on your wife is the most destructive thing you can do to your family and your marriage.
Brian: What do you know about marriage and cheating? Your first two marriages ended when you were caught cheating.

Brian dismisses Dave because he was guilty of that which he is trying to persuade him to stop doing. Not only does this avoid the argument about how to preserve a marriage, it dismisses the fact that Dave is trying to stop Brian from making the same mistakes. Teenagers are famous for using Tu Quoque arguments against their parents.

In politics, Tu Quoque often shows up as “flip-flopping”. For example, John Kerry supported the war in Iraq before he opposed it. His original support for the war does not disqualify his latter opposition, however his reasons for that opposition may provide reason to dismiss his opinion. Likewise John McCain favored amnesty for illegal aliens in 2000, but opposed it in 2008. While his change of opinion could be chalked up to political expediency, dismissing him on the grounds of a change of mind would be logically fallacious.

Another Tu Quoque political argument is common among non-politicians.

Rick: “I can’t support Democrats because I am disgusted by all of the corruption they have been involved in. The governor of Illinois tried to sell Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder. Tim Geitner and Charlie Rangel cheated on their taxes, and several Senators had their votes bought in the Health Care bill, like Nelson of Nebraska and Landrieu of Louisiana.”
Tom: Maybe they got caught, but all politicians do it.

One corrupt politician doesn’t excuse another’s corruption. Tom is avoiding the issue.

Arguments must be addressed on their own merit, and Tu Quoque is just another way of avoiding the merits to shift the discussion.

Next Lesson: The Genetic Fallacy

It doesn’t matter if the attack on the person is legitimate or not if the argument he is making is not addressed.

Mr Johnson: The data suggest that the globe has been in a cooling trend for the last decade; global warming is not what we are observing.
Mrs. Adams: Mr. Johnson can’t be trusted to provide an unbiased analysis, he once worked at a gas station, which everyone knows is owned by the oil companies.

In this case, the argument is not addressed, the motives are. Either the data show cooling or they do not, the man’s former employer does not change anything.

On the other hand, questioning someone’s honesty is not necessarily an ad hominem attack.

Police Officer: Mr. Gates, could you tell me where you were yesterday at the time of the murder of John Modesto?
Mr. Gates: I was fishing on Lake Minnetonka.
Jane Modesto: He’s lying officer, he can’t be trusted because if he admitted to killing my husband, he’d go away for life.

Whether Mr. Gates was fishing or off murdering John Modesto, Jane’s statement is not an ad hominem. Her statement merely shows that evidence independent of Mr. Gates must be considered before he can be believed.

Like the previous two fallacies, Straw Man and Red Herring, the Ad Hominem is often used in politics.

“His opinion on gay marriage is irrelevant, he’s an Evangelical Christian”
“He doesn’t understand abortion, he’s never been pregnant”
“She doesn’t understand the need for public transportation, she grew up on a rural farm.”
“It’s easy for you to oppose Universal Health Care, you have insurance through your job.”

The worst kind of ad hominem attacks are ones that are solely intended to scare or intimidate people into agreement. They also attempt to completely discredit an opponent without considering their arguments.

“The only reason to oppose gay marriage is if you are a hateful bigot”
“The only reason to oppose affirmative action is if you are a racist”
“Abortion is a women’s rights issue, if you oppose abortion, it’s because you are a misogynist”
“Those who oppose Universal Health Care want people without insurance to die”

Next Lesson: Tu Quoque

In the sport of fox hunting, trainers would drag dead herring across the trail in order to train their dogs to stay on the right scent. When a dog was correctly trained, it would stay on the scent of the fox, and not be distracted by that of the smelly fish.

If you’re ever in a debate, and realize that the discussion has gone off on a tangent that is not directly relevant to the original debate, you’ve experienced the Red Herring. It goes something like this:

Me: Come here, we need to change your poopy diaper.
My Toddler: Daddy, I can’t change my diaper, I want to play cars.
Me: You can play cars when you’ve gotten a clean diaper.

In his youthful immaturity, my son tried to distract me with a Red Herring. The cars are irrelevant to the soiled nature of his disposable undergarments. Fortunately, this is such an obvious case of a Red Herring that any parent can instantly spot it. Often times when we are in a discussion with another adult, the Red Herring is a little more subtle, and we may not pick up on it.

Congressman Smith: The Social Security system is unconstitutional, the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to run a retirement savings ponzi scheme.
Senator Jones: Millions of elderly people have no other source of income. If we eliminate Social Security, they will have no way to provide for themselves.
Congressman Smith: So we need to encourage citizens to take care of their parents in old age and for people to support charities that can help those in need.
Senator Jones: But not all elderly people have children that can take care of them, and not everyone has extra money that they can give to charities.
Congressman Smith: If people weren’t paying 15% of their income in Social Security, they’d have extra money to help their elderly parents and grandparents, or give to charities that could support the elderly. And it would have been better for the elderly to be saving for their own retirement while they were working rather than count on a bloated and over-budget government program to take care of them.

Do you see what happened? Senator Jones got away from Congressman Smith’s argument by introducing a Red Herring. He never addressed the Constitutionality of the Social Security program. A more proper answer would have been to either come up with a legal argument that refutes Smith, or propose a solution to the problem that Smith stated, such as passing a Constitutional Amendment allowing such a system.

Like the Straw Man, the Red Herring is a common tactic of political discussions. It is often easier to avoid the subject than to address it.

Next Lesson: Ad Hominem

Let me devise an illustration to explain how this works. Imagine two men running for city council against each other, in tough economic times: Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones. Mr. Smith states that revenues are down, while expenses are rising. The city is facing some difficult decisions on how to provide the services they are responsible for without going over budget. He suggests that a couple expensive road projects be put on hold for a year or two, and the roads be patched rather than replaced. Mr. Jones responds by stating that Mr. Smith would have us drive on bumpy dirt roads like those found in backwards third-world countries in order to save a buck.

You see, Mr. Jones distorted what Mr. Smith said.

The Straw Man is a favorite tactic in politics. It’s also used in discussions of Faith. As Christians, we are called to hate sin. We understand that sin not only violates God’s will and is an act of rebellion against Him, but that it is also harmful. However, pagans often Straw Man Christians by stating that we also hate those who commit sins. I’m getting close to crossing into another fallacy that I’ll address in another lesson: the Ad-Hominem, but this often is a Straw Man. Have you ever been called a Homophobe for agreeing with the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality? Simply calling you a homophobe in this instance is ad-hominem, but stating that Christianity is wrong because Christians hate homosexuals is a Straw Man. Christians who believe and follow the Bible don’t hate anyone. In fact, we love our fellow man so much that we want them to repent of all of their sins in order to avoid the consequences of those sins. Stating that we hate anyone sets up a Straw Man, as our culture has rightly determined that hatred is wrong.

I see Straw Man arguments every day in the current political debate on health care. Republicans (or Conservatives and Libertarians) are painted as hating children and wanting old people to die because they oppose Universal Health Care. I don’t know a single Conservative/Libertarian that wants anyone to die. In fact, there are many great ideas out there about how to address the problems caused by a portion of society not having health insurance. These ideas address the root causes of rising health care costs, such as tort reform, overzealous mandates, restricted markets, and the inevitable consequences of shifting costs to third-party payers. However, those ideas are very difficult to address logically, so the opposition simply distorts and attacks the distortions.

As a Libertarian, I face Straw Men all the time in regards to my own most basic political views. As a Christian, I believe in the inherent corruption of mankind. All men are sinners, and all are (to varying degrees) wicked. As such, I have a deep respect for the U.S. Constitution – as written. The limitations placed on government, especially the Federal Government, are crucial to the survival of a free nation. I grant that free people sometimes use their freedom for nefarious purposes. However, I also believe that elected officials not only have the ability to use their power for nefarious purposes, but are generally prone to do so. As such, I share the views of most of our nation’s Founders that such power needs to be strictly limited. Often times issues arise that present elected officials with the opportunity to increase their power under the guise of providing for a perceived social need. Many times they can get the people to go along with it, even when the programs that result are in direct violation of the Constitutional limits on government power. When discussing my views with people lean (or stand) on the left side of the political spectrum, and even with some “moderate conservatives”, I am often Straw Manned. Because I believe in limiting the Federal Government, they like to paint me as being against having a government at all. Of course that is not the case. Government is a necessary evil, and has legitimate purposes. Such include: punishing serious crimes (murder, fraud, rape, etc – though most serious crimes are best handled at the State level), enforcing contracts, providing for national defense, protecting interstate commerce, and others. With some, government is painted as all-or-none. Either we have a totalitarian system where government has absolute power, or we have complete anarchy. Granted, I’d rather live under a system of anarchy, where I have to provide my own defense and enforce my own contracts, but that doesn’t mean that is the system I find to be ideal. Rather than taking the time to learn what I believe, many find it easier to jump to assumptions (Straw Men) and engage me on those terms.

Next Lesson: The Red Herring.

One thing I picked up on pretty quickly when I figured out how to learn was that it’s even easier to retain what I learn when I share it with others. To a large degree, that’s what has always driven me to keep a blog, and for the last year and a half, a podcast. One of the more enjoyable aspects of being married has been to have someone to share new-found knowledge with.

It is in that capacity that I’d like to share some lessons in logic. Logic is something that should be taught in schools, but somewhere along the line was dropped from most curricula; I suspect it was about the same time that the Bible was excised from school curricula.

When you start to understand some basic principles of logic, you’ll find that your understanding of the world changes. You’re taken up a notch. You have a much harder time believing contradictory ideas, and you reject unsound reasoning. Your debates with friends, family, and idiots on the internet become more interesting. Because I have loved sharing what I learn with the people around me ever since I learned how to learn, I find myself often debating with people who think they already know everything. Whether it be something political, or discussing my Christian faith, many people are more interested in debating than learning. With a little bit of basic logic on top of knowledge, the advantage in a debate is yours.

At this point I must pause to share some of the wisdom I’ve picked up over the years. Don’t wield this like a club, it’s tempting to do, but it doesn’t win any friends. Last spring, I interviewed Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason on his book Tactics, which combines a debate tactic that he likes with some basic use of logic (Koukl re-brands many logical principles, but they work just the same). Greg is a master at the use of logic, and an excellent teacher that understands the value of the proper tone of a discussion. Greg prefers wielding logic and reason in the form of questions, as it is much easier to maintain a warm demeanor through questions than it can be with point-counterpoint type argumentation.

Another thing that I like to keep in mind is emotion. I have come to prefer written discussions, spanning days, weeks, or even months over verbal discussions that span minutes or, at most, hours. The reason for this is that it is that it is much easier for me to consider the points made others, process and move past any emotional response that it invokes, and (if I need to) research a good counter-point. You may think it unfair to research a counter-point, but it really isn’t. The person you’re debating with has the ability to do the same thing.

In coming lessons, I’ll show specific logical principles, as well as logical fallacies that we see every day, often without knowing what’s going on. Once you understand that much of what you’re being told is actually a logical fallacy, you’ll begin to see the world in a new light.

Specific logical principles and fallacies include:

1. The Straw Man
2. The Red Herring
3. Ad Hominem
4. Tu Quoque
5. The Genetic Fallacy
6. Appeal to Authority
7. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
8. Appeal to Pity
9. Equivocation
10. The Bandwagon

Pastor Eric Douma joins me this episode to discuss two theological rules used to prove the deity of Christ from two different verses of New Testament. The construction of John 1:1 in the original Greek disproves Sabellianism (Modalism) and Arianism (similar to what the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach). Eric explains “Colwell’s Rule” and how it reinforces the doctrine of the trinity through this verse.

While Colwell’s Rule is effective in refuting the doctrine of the Modalists and Jehovah’s Witnesses in John 1:1, Eric shares another rule that shows that the Bible teaches the deity of Christ in Titus 2:13, that is “Granville Sharp’s Rule”.

This episode gets fairly technical with the Greek, and with the grammatical rules of these verses, but we also do our utmost to make sure that it is in terms that laymen can understand. I find teachings like this to be fascinating, and hope you will too.

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

In the course of the interview, I mentioned a camp in North Korea. That was Camp 22.

Also included in this episode is a clip from a sermon by John Piper, which was composed by 10:31 Sermon Jams.

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.

1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said “Repent”, He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence.
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to penitence in one’s heart; for such penitence is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward penitence) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
6. The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
13. Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.
15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
20. Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean “all” in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the pope’s indulgences;
22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
23. If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.
25. The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
26. The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.
29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
30. No one is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
31. One who, bona fide, buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.
32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means if letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental “satisfactions” decreed merely by man.
35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.
36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
38. Yet the pope’s remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, form as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men’s consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.
42. Christians should be taught that the pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the pope’s pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.
48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
49. Christians should be taught that the pope’s indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that the pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters if indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.
53. Those are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
55. The pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the church, out of which the pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
57. That these treasures are note temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
61. For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.
67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favors, are seen to be, in fact, a favorite means for money-getting.
68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence;
70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned.
71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant’s words.
73. In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
74. It is much more in keeping with his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
76. We assert the contrary, and say that the pope’s pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in 1 Corinthians. 12.
79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity;
82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter’s church, a very minor purpose.
83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love’s sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,-why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
86. Again: since the pope’s income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
87. Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect penitence, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?
88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
89. What the pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he not suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ’s people, “Peace, peace,” where in there is no peace.
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ’s people, “The cross, the cross,” where there is no cross.
94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells;
95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.

Once again, I’m giving away two copies of the book, like I did with Ryan Habbena’s book two months ago. You’ll have to listen to the episode for details on how to enter the drawing. One exception to what I described in the episode, I’ve decided to extend the deadline for entry by 1 week, to 11:59:59pm November 7, 2009.

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

On the other hand, God has set up constraints to mitigate those desires to large degree and keep us from destroying ourselves and each other. The first restraint we encounter in life is our families. In even the most dysfunctional families, children learn there are limits they cannot exceed without consequences. Outside the family, God sets up governments to constrain us. Even the most tyrannical governments, such as the one in North Korea, limits are set that keep the people from destroying each other. Ironically, in the tyrannical governments, it is the wickedness of the leadership that keeps the wickedness of the population in check. Gangs and mobsters loath competition.

Christians recognize God’s Law as well. We understand that staying within the limits of the 10 commandments (the foundation for God’s Law) benefits us all. It removes from us the notion that we can do as we will, including harming others, but does the same to them so they will not harm us. Furthermore, it really is amazing to consider the often unforeseen consequences of our actions that are avoided when we stay within the bounds of God’s law. For example, if we obey the 7th commandment, You shall not commit adultery (recognizing this is intended to cover all forms of sexual sin including fornication), we will not encounter such consequences as unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. If you think about it, syphilis, gonorrhea, HIV, and all other sexually transmitted diseases could be wiped out in a single generation if people would obey God’s order and engage in only one sexual relationship in their lifetimes. While it is possible to contract these diseases in other ways, it is much more rare and controllable.

Because we find ourselves in a position where we are all inclined to evil, and still find ways to commit evil deeds despite the limitations God has placed before us, we are left hopeless, helpless, and without excuse before Him. He has said in His revelation to mankind (the Bible) that sin (violation of His law) requires judgment. Crime requires punishment. If we were to stop there, we would all be facing severe punishment for our deeds, and no one would be left guiltless. Fortunately, God loves us so much that while we were still in a state of rebellion against Him and His law, He sent His only and perfect son, born of a virgin, to stand in our place on Judgment Day. However, there are conditions. First, we are required to repent. That is to say, we must agree with God that what we do is wicked, and we must stop doing it. We can not continue justifying our actions, which we know deep within our souls to be wrong. Second, we must place our trust in the atoning death of Jesus in our place. What that means is that we cannot delude ourselves by thinking that “going straight” and doing nothing but good deeds for the rest of our lives will justify us on judgment day. The simple fact is that once a crime is committed, no good deed will erase it. By trusting Jesus, we acknowledge that we deserve judgment, but also recognize that he stepped in and took that judgment in our place. We did the crime, He did the time, so to speak.

With all of that said, let’s take a look at the state of the world. Wickedness abounds. The Christian has recognized it, and dealt with it. The non-Christian continues unabated. Christians, filled with the love that it took for God to rescue us from our situation, in turn love God and fellow man. It is from that love that we we endure mocking, scorn, loss of friendships, division of families, and general persecution from a wicked world in order to share the Good News that God has provided a way out. He has given us salvation from not only the eternal consequences of our wickedness, but also an appreciation for the benefits of obedience to His law in this life.

I recently posted a Youtube video by comedian/magician Penn Jillette. Despite being an avowed atheist, and thoroughly rejecting the claims of Christianity, including what I’ve laid out here, he had the intellectual honesty to admit that it would be downright hateful of a Christian to believe what I’ve stated above, and do nothing to share it with others. I was a bit surprised by his understanding of the Good-will of the Christian he encountered.

On the other hand, Jillette is in a small, and shrinking, minority among the vocal unbelieving world. The more common response is much more antagonistic, if not violent. That of homosexuals is perhaps easiest to point to as exemplary. As a Christian, I don’t see homosexuality as any lesser or greater a sin than those which I am guilty of myself. However, it’s quite visible. I know of no other sin that has parades, festivals, or benefits to highlight it. In addition, opposition to it is painted as hatred. But is it really? If I firmly believe a sin (or in this case a lifestyle of sin) to be destructive, not only within this life, but in the next as well, is it really hatred to speak up about it?

Setting aside the eternal aspect of sin, there is a ton of truth about homosexuality to suggest that it should be avoided at all costs. Disease rates among homosexuals are off the charts in comparison to heterosexuals, even among the promiscuous. (I note at this point that, as a Christian, I see heterosexual fornication as just as much a sin as homosexual sex). I have never talked to a homosexual who didn’t know someone who has been infected by the HIV virus, and most know someone who has died. Domestic violence rates are much higher as well. These statistics, and others, are explained in much more detail in a report by the Traditional Values Coalition (pdf).

Why would it be considered hatred for my to want the best for my fellow man, including homosexuals? I don’t want them dying of avoidable diseases. I don’t want them victimized by domestic violence. And above all, I don’t want them to face judgment for their sins before God without a savior.

On the other hand, there are millions of people who wish that sinners, including homosexuals, would be left alone. They want to be left to contract deadly diseases. They want to be left to be physically abused by the people around them. They want to go unchallenged in their destructive behavior. It is like a blind man walking toward a 1,000-foot cliff, calling those who warn him of the dangers ahead “hateful.”

As Penn Jillette said, how hateful would we have to be to remain silent?

Mark Looy is a co-founder, and the Chief Communications Officer of AiG. He sat down with me to talk about Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum itself.

Following my discussion with Mark, Dr. Terry Mortenson joined me. Terry is an expert in the history of geology, and spoke with me about some interesting aspects of geology that seem to be best explained by a global, catastrophic flood as described in Genesis 6. In the course of our discussion, Terry also mentions his book, The Great Turning Point, as well as a book he contributed to: Coming to Grips with Genesis.

Lastly, I spoke with Dr. Georgia Purdom, an expert in molecular genetics. She and I discussed some interesting facts about biology that fit nicely into the Young-Earth Creationist point of view, but present problems for Evolutionists.

I very much enjoyed my visit to the Creation Museum, and was glad that we decided to make the trip down there. In addition to the museum, they have a great planetarium show, wonderful landscaping with trails, and a petting zoo, complete with two hybrid animals, a zorse (half horse, half zebra) and a zonkey (half donkey, half zebra).

As Mark mentions in our conversation, it was strategically located to be within a day’s drive of nearly 3/4 of the nation’s population.

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292 (Email addresses are kept confidential, and are only used for new episode notifications.)