Ark Wars: How False “Reverend” Barry Lynn Distorts the Facts but Proves Answers In Genesis’ Point

Recently, the kind folks at Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent me an email telling me about a special message from “Rev” Barry Lynn concerning the “Ark Park.” I never asked to be signed up to their spam feeder; I simply asked them to verify the “reverend’s” credentials and beliefs… and they added me for spite. Perhaps God works in mysterious ways because the YouTube video message was priceless!

Below is the transcript from this false reverend’s propaganda piece along with my comments:

“This is Noah’s Ark…”

Here, he indicates a Biblically-inaccurate Nursery toy version of Ark, the kind that Answers in Genesis and other Biblical Creationist organizations regularly warn us about. Why? Because this silly pint-sized icon, however incorrectly it reflects the actual Biblical account,  gives kids the impression that the Bible is a book of fairy tales and, as a result, causes them to doubt God’s Word. In other words, he points to the very false icon that the Ark Encounter is meant to combat!

“Some people believe there really was a worldwide Flood. Other people say this is a fairy tale and some people say it’s a good story to show that humans should respect the Earth.

It’s likely that the latter view is taken from a misappropriation of the meaning of “and the earth was filled with violence” [Genesis 6:11-13] Note that the passage doesn’t refer to violence against the Earth, but violence that filled the earth. Man’s wickedness is the specific reason God gives for decided to send the worldwide Flood the “rev” Barry Lynn doesn’t believe occurred.

This is America. We can believe what we want, but down in Kentucky it appears Noah’s Ark has veered off course. The government has decided to help pay for construction of a Noah’s Ark water park.

Of course, it’s not really a water park, but the “rev” intends not to inform but to mock by mischaracterization. Nor is the Kentucky government funding anything. Rather [and Barry has been corrected on this point several times, but he’s apparently not one to let the facts stand in the way of a good story… or a liberal, and unBiblical agenda!], the Ark Encounter will receive a tax rebate IF they meet a certain sales objectives in the first year. Absolutely ZERO funds are going toward building the attraction. The “rev” Barry knows this and he’s lying about it anyway because he’s a godless unsaved liberal who cannot even affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ [a key element of saving faith per Romans 10:9]. 

The people who are building it say it is a ministry to convince visitors that God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago.

The very thing this false minister fears is that it will convince folks that the Bible is true. he’s been saying it’s only partly true for years. That would certainly affect his credibility.

They did the math, just like that guy who predicted the end of the world last month.

Ah, a cheap shot. Unfortunately, if Barry had read his Bible, taken into account the Biblically given dimensions of the Ark and the implications of the term “according to their kind,” and bothered to do the math himself, he wouldn’t be misrepresenting a Nursery School ark toy as the real thing. His allusion to the shamelessly unrepentant Harold Camping is just bad rhetoric; Camping has ignored Jesus’ thrice-quoted warning against date-setting and is destined to be thrice-shamed on October 21, 2011. But this is beside the point and the “rev” knew this when he introduced his comparison of apples to oranges.

Then there’s another problem: If the Earth is only 6,000 years old then Noah would not just be putting, you know, tigers and monkeys on the Ark; he had to put dinosaurs.”

Here he emphasized his point by placing a toy dinosaur next to the toy ark. It obviously dwarfed the Biblically inaccurate Ark. This is yet another reason why the Ark Encounter will be so effective in dispelling the toy ark icon that evolutionists so love to pick on. Of course, when you misrepresent your opponent’s beliefs in this fashion and then tear down this position they do not hold, you’re thatching together a straw man. Your opponent’s actual position has been left quite untouched. For the answer to how dinosaurs fit on the Biblical Ark, see How Could Dinosaurs Fit On the Ark?

“The people building the Ark think that’s a certainty. In fact, they’re even gonna put on some unicorns.”

At this point, Barry places a plush toy unicorn atop the toy Ark. I do not know where the “rev” gets his information. I scoured the Ark Encounter site and frankly there wasn’t a single mention of unicorns; which means he’s only taking another cheap shot. Inevitably, some evolutionists will believe Barry’s little bit of mockery is based on truth and I doubt he’ll have the integrity to correct that misinformation so long as people keep donating to his liberal organization. [Of course, it’s entirely possible that there could be a “unicorn” aboard the Ark – not the fantasy horse, mind you! – the animal that the word “unicorn” [a word mentioned in the Bible] originally designated: a rhinoceros. You can read more about the Biblical “unicorn” at It’s well worth the read!]

So now we’re subsidizing bad science as well as religion.

If Biblical Creationism is such bad science, why does Barry have to resort to lies, mockery, bad rhetoric and propaganda in order to combat it? Just sayin’.

 American United’s 50,000+ facebook fans don’t think much of this idea or much of what the Religious Right is trying to do to our country. If all of you could make a donation between now and July 4th, we’d be in a strong position to continue to grow our educational and legal programs. Thank you for listening.”

I’ve got a better idea: make a donation to the Ark Encounter. If you do, you’ll help shatter the toy Ark icon that causes our children to doubt the veracity of God’s Word and help build the faith of future generations in the truth of God’s revealed Word. As an added bonus, you’ll make “rev” Barry’s worst nightmares come true, for when the Ark Encounter is built it will show his lies about subsidies for what they are.

But just in case you thought his appeal for money was the final word, “rev” Barry offers one last cheap shot. Glancing off-camera at the crew, he asks:

“Does anybody have a Bigfoot we could put on this thing?”

Seriously don’t give a red cent to this mocker. If you’d like to learn the truth about the Ark Encounter and maybe even donate toward making it a reality, visit

-Rev Tony Breeden,


33 Comments Add yours

  1. trchaffey says:

    Excellent post Tony. This is a classic example of how liberals resort to mocking and lampooning Bible-believing Christians. Lynn repeatedly shows his true colors when he refuses to tell the truth about the funding for the Ark. He knows full well that it is receiving absolutely zero tax payer dollars for the construction. It will receive tax incentives (up to 1/4 of the sales tax revenues that it generates) if it meets certain projected goals. This is available to tourist attractions throughout Kentucky. Yet this supposed “reverend” continues to irreverently lie about the Ark Encounter project. Why is he so scared of it opening?
    This should be a wake up call to all those Christians out there who say that the age of the earth, creation v. evolution, and the worldwide v. local flood debates are just side issues. If these were just side issues, why are the skeptics, evolutionists, and atheists always so vocal in trying to shut biblical creationists up? When the people who repeatedly shake their fists at God are adamantly opposing you, then you are probably doing something right. When was the last time these skeptics’ groups went after our modern day wishy-washy churches? They don’t, because these places are not a threat to them.
    Keep up the great work brother!

    1. Thanks, Tim! It’s pretty obvious that Barry Lynn is a classic example of an unbeliever who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. As I was reading your comments, it was impressed upon me that these skeptics, evolutionists and atheists are so vocal against these issue precisely because they too are suppressing the truth. They know the truth in their heart of hearts, though they don’t want it to be true. Like Richard Dawkins, they use uniformitarian geology and microbes-to-man evolution to try to intellectually justify their position, though God declares that Creation so testifies against them that they are unequivocably without excuse before Him! On another note, the reason these skeptics don’t go after the wishy-washy churches is because they’re usually pastored by false shepherds like Presbyterian “Rev” John Shuck who doesn’t believe in God, the Bible or even the bodily resurrection of Christ [a minimum requirement of saving faith, as mentioned in the article above]. There are too many wolves in in clerical collars, so to speak, in our sheepfolds.

      One of the problems is that denominations do not take seriously their call to be “first pure, then peaceable.” This is certainly the mistake made by the United Church of Christ, who ordained the likes of Barry Lynn. The UCC is acknowldged as perhaps the most liberal of all current denominations. While they give lipservice to the historic creeds, they actually promote a liberal agenda opposed to Biblical truth and authority. Basically [and I say this with due respect to UCC ministers who hold the Bible as their ultimate starting point], Barry Lynn may as well have gotten his ordination out of a Cracker Jack box.

      Thanks again,

  2. fiona says:

    No, I’m sure you DIDN’T ask to be signed up for Rev. Lynn’s information. So much easier to believe the hodgepodge of rationalizations it takes to make up your theory, when you aren’t exposed to rational, controverting data.

    1. Fiona,

      Would you care to point out where “rev” Lynn presented said rational, controverting data in this video?


      1. Oregon Jeff says:

        Quit being the usual hypocrite with regard to the title “reverend”. Reverend Barry Lynn is every bit as qualified, if not more than you, to use the title of “reverend”. He received a master’s degree in theology from Boston University School of Theology, one of the best schools of its type, in 1973. He graduated summa cum laude and was ordained by the United Church of Christ that same year.

        What are your credentials?

      2. It doesn’t matter where he studied or who ordained him as a minister if he isn’t saved to begin with; for if he isn’t saved to begin with, then he isn’t a valid reverend no matter who was irresponsible enough to offer him credentials. “rev” Barry Lynn does not affirm the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ, a minimum requirement of saving faith according to Romans 10:9; therefore, he’s not saved and he’s no more a minister than a man who gets ordained out of a Cracker Jack box.

        I am ordained through the Association of Fundamental Ministers & Churches, Inc.. More importnantly, I am saved and called to preach the Gospel [rather than being a political activist with no interest in the Gospel at all (if a survey of his writings and broadcasts are any indication of his priorities).

      3. Oregon Jeff says:

        Your bible also says that it’s not one man’s job to judge whether another is saved. Reverend Barry Lynn’s salvation is between him and his god alone.

        Nice try though. I don’t anticipate the hypocrisy will end anytime soon though. I don’t expect that you can comprehend or will acknowledge that your insatiable need to be right turns people off from your version of “the message”.

      4. Nice try, Oregon Jeff.

        The Bible doesn’t say that at all. In fact, Jesus warned us that we would know a bad tree from a good tree by its fruit. In addition, 1 John contains several criteria an authetic Christian must meet. The bottom line is that Christianity does have qualifying criteria. As a minister, I have a mandate to warn folks who falsely believe they are saved that they need to examine themselves, repent and find true faith. Barry Lynn is faithless of one of the non-negotiable requirements of true saving faith: belief that Christ Jesus was raised bodily from the dead [Romans 10:9; compare to 1 Corinithinas 15].

        The problem you have is that the Bible warns against “versions” of the Gospel message. there is but one apostolic Gospel, which folks like Barry Lynn have strayed far from. The Bible warns that we are reject anyone who offers a different Gospel from the faith once delivered of the Apostles. The liberal or progressive view is a Johnny-come-lately and undeniably revisionist when it comes to the Gospel and other apostolic doctrine. As such, it is exactly the sort of “different Gospel” the Bible warns us about.

        Barry Lynn has evidenced that he does not have saving faith by denying the bodily resurrection of Christ; therefore, he is still in his sins and unqualified for ordination. Rather than defending his faithless form of religion, we ought to pray for his authentic salvation.

      5. Oregon Jeff says:

        You can’t possibly know if he’s saved because there’s no way for you to know what’s really in his heart. Without knowing what’s really in his heart you can’t possibly know if he believes that “Christ Jesus was raised bodily from the dead”. Any claim on your part can be nothing more than an assumption.

        Further, claiming that “folks like Barry Lynn have strayed from” also makes an egregious assumption. That he believes dissimilar to you doesn’t mean he’s strayed. It means he doesn’t agree with your interpretations of the scripture.

        I think we ought to be praying for your authentic sanity to return because you’ve clearly allowed your religious meanderings to jump the shark.

      6. Oregon Jeff,

        The Bible tells us that we are to judge men by their fruit, and that a corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit. Barry Lynn has ever been the enemy of traditional Christian beliefs and Christian expression in this country. The bottom line is that he does not affirm the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ, a requirement of saving faith as per Romans 10:9.

        For example, during an episode of Culture Shocks that aired on April 5th 2010, while talking to Dr. Robin Meyers, author of Saving Jesus From the Church (a book I’m researching), Rev. Lynn states the following:

        “Certainly the earliest writer of anything about Jesus’ life never even mentioned the Resurrection which you wouldn’t think would be kind of a hard thing to admit if it happened: to say he lived, he died and by the way he rose again. Those are later additions to the Gospel.”

        During the interview, he also agrees with Meyers on several occasions while the latter denies the physical resurrection and even claims it was made up by followers trying to sell their Messiah to a disbelieving world.

        Calling Lynn a legitimate member of clergy is simply putting lipstick on a pig. He’s never been authentically saved; he fails the minimum requirement of being a Christian [except in name only], so his ordination [Biblically speaking] is a sham.

        The Bible also warns us to hold fast to the faith once delivered of the apostles. Lynn and liberal Bible scholars have re-interpreted the Bible to meet modern notions; they are preaching new doctrines and a different Gospel. Study history and you’d know this.

        Accuse me of jumping the shark all you like; it will not change the facts, which are decidedly not in your favor.


  3. Juno says:

    “…absolutely zero tax payer dollars for the construction. It will receive tax incentives (up to 1/4 of the sales tax revenues that it generates) if it meets certain projected goals.”

    So are they hoping it flops? Because if it doesn’t, then the state government will be giving them money, according to this. And that is what Lynn and others are primarily objecting to.

    Also, I’d like to see some citations for the assertions made in “How Could Dinosaurs Fit on the Ark”. You mention “some scientists believe”, etc. Well, which ones? I’d like to see some links to some papers, etc.

    Additionally, when you say, “What we deny is that a full-grown adult sauropod would be required onboard the Ark. Younger, smaller animals would make more sense,” I have to disagree; what would make more sense is that human beings and dinosaurs didn’t coexist. There is no fossil evidence of such a coexistence (unless you know of some), and the dating of the layers in which these fossils are found don’t agree with the Young Earth view anyway. And I’m pretty sure that there wouldn’t be enough genetic diversity onboard the Ark if they were only bringing two (or seven?) of each “kind,” though I don’t have that article at hand. I’ll look it up for you.

    1. The only tax money that would be partially rebated would be tax money paid by those who had actually attended the Ark Encounter. It’s an incentive because if the Ark Encounter fails to meet those sales quotas, the Ark Encounter won’t receive any rebate at all.

      Frankly, I hope Kentucky caves and they move it to West Virginia. That way, our state businesses will receive the kind of boost in the tourism economy that the Creation Museum has given the Cincinatti area. And don’t play a reductionist Establishment Clause argument card here: if you guys took that regretable revisionist take on Separation of Church and State [meaning no interplay between state and religion at all], you’d have to chuck the Constitution itself for including references to a Creator [oh, the poor atheists whose Constitutional rights are being violated by the wording of the Constitution itself! lol].

      Noah’s Ark: Beyond Flannelgraph is written at a level children can understand. It is not a peer-reviewed site. Of course, you must be well aware that , , and all boast PhD’d scientists who affirm what is claimed in that article. Do evolutionist scientists affirm those things? Of course not… they’re evolutionists.

      You’re moving the goalpost by dismissing the higher probability of younger dinosaurs over adult dinos within the Biblical Catastrophist model. You do so under a flawed argument. So what if dinosaurs and men don’t occupy the same strata… coelecanths and man now co-exist desite a 70 million year gap [per evolutionist reckonings of the strata], and the same could be said for the Wolemi pine. Creationists don’t really expect dinosaurs and men in the same strata per se according to the Biblical Catastrophist model, so it’s something of a straw man to say the absence of such is an argument against it. And of course evolutionist’s dating of the layers are different from catastrophists! They have a calibration problem. Do you wonder why igneous rocks formed in volcanic eruptions less than 100 years ago give dates of long ages by these same evolutionist’s dating schemes? or have you bothered?

      In any case, we believe the genetic capacity of these Noahic kinds was more robust, being closer to the original created kinds. Likewise, human genetic capacity was originally robust but declined to the point where close intermarriage was forbidden by the time leviticus was written.

      1. Juno says:

        If you’re going to argue that scientists who believe in creation endorse a young earth, etc., and scientists who believe in evolution don’t, then there’s no point in arguing it any further.

  4. Anonymous says:

    So, “Reverand” Tony, you are the REAL deal, huh? Yep, I bet you are a GENUINE “Reverand” of some gospel or another, and we can accept your word for it, because, I suppose, you speak to God (and of course, “WE” , those OTHER liberal PEOPLE” do not) and thus you know the only truth. I am so HONORED to be in the presence of THE true shaman of……ah….what particular “faith” do you belong to? I assume it’s some sort of “Christian” sect because we all know only a perhaps a couple of sects of Christianity are the true revealed word of God, and YOU sir, OBVIOUSLY, because you yourself just said so, and I am supposed to take your word for it. Thank you! Praise be the approved, genuine, certified by “Reverand” Tony, word of GOD!

    1. I am ordained through the Association of Fundamental Ministers & Churches, Inc [St Louis, MO]. It’s spelled “reverend.” And I defend and promote the faith once delivered of the apostles not new revisionist doctrines promoted by folks who only half-believe their Bibles are God’s Word to begin with.

  5. Stephen J. Levine says:

    Prove to me that the Biblical Flood actually happened as written in the Bible, and was not just a mesopotamian flood that washed Noah’s ark out to sea. Prove to me that Noah included every single species of animal in his Ark. Prove to me that G-d created the rainbow and that it is not the prismatic dispersion of light thru water droplets and thus has not existed since the Universe was created.

    Or at least demonstrate that The Flood, as written in The Bible is even plausible using scientific methodologies. If so, I will believe the story was more than an allegory.

    1. Stephen Levine,

      Since we’re speaking of singularities [past, nonrepeatable events which are not subject to the scientific method [which deals with things that are observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable]], we must resort to the historical, forensic method. Of course, no past event can be proven or disproven; we can only measure how probable or improbable an event is. I suspect you knew this when you threw this red herring at me.

      Of course, implicit in your challenge is an admission that the Bible records a worldwide Flood, not a local Mesopotamian flood [with a trip out-to-sea that somehow lands them back at the Ararat Mtns??]. This necessarily means that you are trying to make the text say something it does not by claiming a local flood, so the burden of proof is on you, the revisionist.

      Your latter objections reveal a lack of understanding of the position you claim to disagree with.

      Biblical Creationists do not claim that every species of animal was aboard the Ark, rather we claim [because the Bible states accordingly] that every kind of animal was represented. Kinds are not analogous to the species level [generally speaking (and this does not always apply), a Biblical kind is about the family level of Linnaean classification. You see, Biblical Creationists affirm observable horizontal changes within kinds of animals [ie, speciation, mutation and adaptation], but we note that a dog is still a dog and recognizably so, be it a wolf, English bulldog or a weiner dog; the fossil record [as affirmed by hostile witness Stephen J Gould] likewise evidences stasis and sudden appearance. On the other hand, we reject vertical [phyletic] changes [eg, dinos-to-birds] proposed by the microbes-to-man evolution model as both unBiblical and unobservable.

      Likewise, we do not state that no rainbow ever took place before it is mentioned in Genesis, but rather that God stated that the rainbow would be a token or promise that He would never again destroy the entire world by water. In other words, God imbued the rainbow with extra meaning. It should be said that if God promised that He would never destroy the world by water again and the Flood was local as you propose then God is a liar… for local floods abound! It is clear from the very rainbowed promise you refer to that a worldwide Flood is meant in the Bible.

      As to your final objection, I fear you are begging the question when you refer to “scientific methodologies,” for it is almost certain you refer to uniformitarian geology and the microbes-to-man evolution model, while never considering Biblical Catastrophism and baraminology [the biological study of created kinds] as valid scientific methodologies. You will not see the Flood account as more than an allegory until you repent of your academic pride and admit to God that His Word is true from the beginning, that it never came by the will of man, that it is not cleverly devised fables, that it is God-breathed, and the revelation of the Faithful and True Eyewitness who was there, never lies and sent the Flood as judgment for like unbelief as you profess.

      1. Stephen J. Levine says:

        1. “Since we’re speaking of singularities [past, nonrepeatable events which are not subject to the scientific method [which deals with things that are observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable]], we must resort to the historical, forensic method. ”
        So where is the physical evidence that such a massive non-repeatable event occurred?
        2. “we reject vertical [phyletic] changes [eg, dinos-to-birds] proposed by the microbes-to-man evolution model as both unBiblical and unobservable.”
        The physical evidence for “phyletic” changes abounds, particularly at anatomic, physiologic, molecular biologic, and biochemical levels. But, oh yeah, it disagrees with The Bible (maybe though I personally do not think so), and therefore it must be rejected as untrue, whereas The Flood, an improbable event leaving virtually no evidence behind, must be believed because The Bible says so. Sorry, I don’t buy this.
        3. “…until you repent of your academic pride and admit to God that His Word is true from the beginning, that it never came by the will of man, that it is not cleverly devised fables, that it is God-breathed, and the revelation of the Faithful and True Eyewitness who was there, never lies and sent the Flood as judgment for like unbelief as you profess.”
        To do what you say would be a betrayal of G-d, my faith, my fore-bearers, and the many men and women of Science, many of whom were/are very devout, who, with humility, studied G-d’s Universe, and, through their study, bettered mankind.
        Tell me, has Creationism led to any discoveries that preserved life? The Biological Sciences have. It was modern Medical Science, which has a strong evolutionary basis, that allowed my first wife to live beyond her teenage years, bearing two children — one now an ex-Marine and a top student at the University of Oklahoma — and helping many patients by becoming a Psychiatrist, despite crippling lung disease.
        No sir, you are the false prophet, offering the easy way out, preaching lies about G-d, that he never intended Man to use his G-d-given intelligence to develop methodologies to explore and understand His world and use that understanding to help each other.

      2. Re:# 1& 2:

        Why do you assume that there is no evidence for a worldwide Flood as described in the Bible? Aside from the universal phenomenon of flood legends around the world, we can cite the fossil record itself. Surprised? Oh, you thought that evolutionists have one pile of evidence and creationists have another? We have exactly the same evidence – the same fossils, the same rock layers, the same biological world, the same planet, physics, universe… the same facts. facts are not self-explanatory. They have to be interpreted. And Creationists interpret these facts in a manner consistent with Biblical revelation just as evolutionists interpret the facts consistent with naturalism, a model which seeks to explain the world WITHOUT God’s agency… which is a Big problem if God actually created anything as described in the Bible. If it is true that God has created and we refuse to even consider such a possibility, we will inevitably exchange the truth for a lie, making up all-natural just-so stories to account for phenomena that we ought to attribute to supernatural agency [as revealed in Scripture].

        For an example of how Creationists interpret the fossil record consistent with Biblical revelation, see Darwin’s Dyke: What the Fossil Record Really Shows.

        Re: #2 & 3

        Your response betrays the fact that you’ve falsely equivocated horizontal changes that both creationists and evolutionists observe [eg, speciation, adaptation, mutation, natural selection] with unobserved vertical changes requiring increasing orders of genetic information [ie, microbes-to-man evolution]. For example, you claims that “the physical evidence for “phyletic” changes abounds, particularly at anatomic, physiologic, molecular biologic, and biochemical levels,” but these evidence you cite are, again, observable processes that creationists do not dispute. We call this variation within created kinds and we also note that dogs remain dogs, whether they be wolves, English bulldogs or teacup poodles and further note that the horizontal changes we observe are loss of information or a shuffling [and often garbling] of the deck rather than an addition of, as it were, new cards.

        For example, antibacterial resistence is often cited as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution, but it actually involves the loss of an enzyme that turns into a poison when the organism encounters antibiotics. Overall, it has lost adaptive potential, though it will thrive in an environment with plenty of antibiotics. Saying that this sort of change will eventually accumulate to produce new phyla is like saying you can gain a million dollars by losing a dollar a day. Sorry, the math just doesn’t add up.

        For more on this see Deflating Dobzhansky’s Grand Assumption, or Why Microevolution Does Not Lead To Macroevolution.

        Meanwhile, you should know that Bible-affirming scientists founded most of the modern sciences, including the biological sciences. they were trying to “think God’s thought after Him,” rather than the modern trend of trying to explain the world without the need for Him. In fact, science [medical, physical, geological, biological, molecular, etc] is based on the concept of uniformity of nature, a concept consistent with a universe created by a God who never changes, who has ceased from the creative process but now upholds all things by His good pleasure. Microbes-to-man evolution has no nonarbitrary, consistent basis for the uniformity of nature; it just is.

        Far from having a strong evolutionary basis, as Darwinian revisionists claim, medical science has a strong design basis. For exmaple, we investigate the body’s organs as if they have a purpose or function as part of our overall design; the belief that the appendix and other organs were vestigial leftovers actually set medical science back a few decades. Microbes-to-man evolution has absolutely nothing to do with real-world biology and medical practice… and Creationists practice both medicine and other sciences today without the need for the fish-to-philosopher evolution model precisely because ad hoc evolutionary claims are irrelevant to the question.

        For more on this, see Why Creation Is Foundational to Science – Not Evolution.

        God never intended man to use his intelligence to deny the truth of His revealed Word. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. I’m not preaching lies about God; I’m proclaiming Let God be true and every man a liar, that His Word is true from the beginning, and that His Word never came by the will of man. If we can’t trust the Bible when it speaks of earthly things, how can we trust it for spiritual things [John 3:12]?

        Think about it.


  6. phat says:

    Wow, thanks. I’ll be sure to send Reverend Lynn’s organization as much as I can afford. 🙂 You deserve to be mocked, IMHO, though I do believe that you are entitled to believe anything you wish, including that the earth is flat, if you so desire.

    But tax rebates to a religious organization that will not provide employment EXCEPT to religious fundies is a huge mistake. If they were hiring anyone who was qualified, regardless of religious belief, it might fly, but as it is, it ought to be supported by the people who believe the young earth myth. There is a great deal of wisdom in the Bible, as in all ancient holy books, but it detracts from that when people insist that the myths are literally true.

    1. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
      John 3:12

      The Bible claims that it is true from the beginning and that none of it ever came by the will of man, that we do not follow clever devised fables but that it is the God-breathed revelation of the Faithful and True Eyewitness who never lies and was there from the beginning, so we do not get to pick and choose what we believe and don’t believe of it. In other words, it’s not just a book of morality [you’d know this if you’d read it even once], but also a book of doctrine, history and supernaturally fulfilled prophecy.

      Of course, I don’t believe in a flat earth and calling Biblical Creationism a myth is simply begging the question.

      If you give your money to Lynn and his organization, you’ll simply be saying that you don’t care how much he misinforms the public so long as he opposes the same guys you oppose. In other words, you will be saying that the ends justify the means. Which is a self-defeating proposition, for how can you decry the presumed falsehood in the Young Earth position when you will not equally condemn the demonstrated falsehood in Lynn’s propaganda?

  7. Cody says:

    Rev Tony,
    I do not mean to sound offensive, or demeaning, or anything negative… but do you honestly believe the earth was created just 6,000 years ago?

  8. Tim Chaffey says:

    Hi Tony,
    Perhaps this little math exercise will help your many detractors that have been sent here. Let’s just use small numbers for the sake of argument.
    By the time the Ark Encounter opens (hopefully 2014), they will have received exactly $0 from the state of Kentucky.
    At the end of the first day that it is open, let’s assume the Ark Encounter collects $1,000 in sales tax for the state of Kentucky. If the Ark Encounter manages to meet certain goals, then $250 of that $1,000 will be rebated to the Ark Encounter.
    So that means if the Ark Encounter goes to another state or never opens, then Kentucky will not receive any money from the Ark Encounter and it will not give out any either. If Ark Encounter opens, using the numbers from this example, then the state of Kentucky will bring in $750 on that opening day. Of course, the numbers will be much higher than that, so Kentucky stands to gain a great deal of tax revenue from the Ark Encounter, which is one of the reasons they are in favor of it. By the end of that ten-year period that Ark Encounter may be eligible for the rebate, Kentucky will still not have given any money to the Ark Encounter, they would have just collected 25% less than what they would have if this particular tourism act wasn’t in place. But if this act wasn’t in place, the Ark may have been constructed in Indiana or Ohio and Kentucky would have been out millions of dollars in revenue.
    This is so simple, a 2nd grader could figure it out. Apparently, your detractors don’t want to be confused with the facts. These same folks who are crying foul about this on grounds of the alleged separation of church and state, don’t seem to have any problem with the state-endorsed religion of secular humanism that is promoted in government funded schools.

    1. Tim,

      You have an excellent second point. Barry Lynn’s organization and the ACLU are pretty selective about their Establishment Clause concerns. Humanism has long been recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court. Intelligent Design is not allowed in schools because it was said by critics to support a particular religion; well, microbes-to-man evolution and the autonomy of man (both key pillars of humanism) are taught in public schools but the AU and the ACLU are both hypocritically silent on this glaring trespass on the Separation of Church and State.

  9. By calling an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ a false reverend, you are exposing yourself as a follower of Satan, the Father of Lies. St. Augustine was right about your sort.

    1. Marion,

      On the one hand, I am morbidly curious as to what sort of tortured logic you call an ordained minister a “follower of Satan, the Father of Lies,” for pointing out that Barry Lynn is a false shepherd and a pretender. If I am a follower of Satan for calling Barry Lynn a false reverend, by your own standard you are also a follower of the Father of Lies for calling me [a minister] a follower of Satan. In other words, your condemnation is arbitrary.

      Fortunately, the Word is a more sure standard by which to judge the fruit of false teachers. Barry Lynn doesn’t affirm the physical, bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, a requirement of true saving faith [per Romans 10:9]; therefore he isn’t a Christian, except in name only. As a result of his unsaved condition, he may as well have gotten his ordination off a voodoo website or out of a Cracker Jack box becaue it isn’t legitimate [as far as God is concerned] in the least. “Rev” Barry Lynn hypocritically promotes himself as a member of Christian clergy when he doesn’t even meet the minimum requirements; he’s using credentials he never had a right to attempt to add some credibility to a cause that actually undermines the influence of Christianity in America. I guess the Bible was right: you really do know these guys by their fruit, and a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Guess what? When you find yourself constantly fighting against and undermining Christianity, you’re not really on our side.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s