Ark Wars: More Willful Ignorance About Dinosaurs, Noah’s Ark and the Ark Encounter


As most of you know, I debunked a rather poorly-conceived video on YouTube in which humanist Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State attacked the up-coming Ark Encounter attraction. Lynn condescendingly referred to the Ark Encounter as the “Ark Park” and offered mockery and misinformation. Here’s how Lynn described it:

“…I got into a tiff over what I thought was a humorous video Americans United posted on our Facebook page and on YouTube. It had to do with the ongoing squabble AU is having in Kentucky over what we see as the misuse of state tax resources to help subsidize a theme park focused on Noah’s Ark.

The main force behind the effort is Answers in Genesis, a religious entity led by Ken Ham. When I debated Ham earlier this year on CNN, he affirmed that his group is a ministry, that the park would present the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that there were dinosaurs on the ark. Oh, there might have been unicorns too. Ham was a bit fuzzy about that.

The legal issue is whether a rebate of sales taxes constitutes funding of religion. But that’s kind of dry, so to help people understand the issue, I made a video featuring a toy ark, some plastic animals, some dinosaurs and a stuffed unicorn. I explained the problems government support of the project posed – mainly, it put the state in support of bad science and funding of a religious mission.

The video was a hit on YouTube – and then the blow-back began. First, the Rev. Tony Breeden of the group DefendingGenesis.org weighed in on why I am a “false” minister. He also did a point-by-point refutation of the video. He claimed the dimensions of my ark are “Biblically inaccurate” and also didn’t like my stuffed unicorn… Breeden did, however, encourage people to watch my video. The number of hits increased.

Ham also joined the fray. He complained that I had placed a “full blown adult sauropod on my ark when everybody knows that “younger, smaller animals would make more sense.” He then spent a good bit of time attempting to explain why the tax rebate isn’t really a subsidy. Ham also linked to the video. This meant even more hits for me. (It’s closing in on 7,000 views as I write this -thanks, guys!) “

Note that Lynn had to resort mocking a straw man of the Biblical Ark in order to smear the Ark Encounter [and Creationism in general] as “bad science.” And why did he do this? To push his views of the Separation of Church and State. The Bible says that no man can serve two masters and Lynn’s ultimate loyalties are obvious in his efforts to undermine religious expression in America, such as recently when he posed as an authentic clergyman to chastise a Texas governor for the “sin” of calling for prayer for this nation. In Lynn’s world, the ends justify the means. It doesn’t matter if you’ve totally misrepresented your opponent’s views so long as people buy your propaganda. As an authentic minister of the Gospel, I am interested in the truth; this is apparently not the case for the “rev” Barry Lynn.

It seems that none of the Ark Encounter’s opponents are interested in the actual facts at hand, whether we’re speaking of possible tax rebate incentives or what Creationists actually believe. In fact, a minister from West Virginia is so blinded for his zeal for his interpretation of the Establishment Clause that he actually said he’d rather Kentucky open up a porn shop with state money than the Biblle-affirming attraction in question!

Take the following quote from a fellow who takes issue with the fact that I “plunged into that controversy, defending the Ark Park and its view of history along with the presence of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark.” After quoting a section from an article of mine, How Could Dinosaurs Fit on the Ark? on the Noah’s Ark: Beyond Flannelgraph site (a site that answers children’s actual questions about the Ark and the Flood), he opines:

“As Rev. Breeden says, “dinosaurs came in all sizes.”  There were also lots of extraordinarily different species, as you can see from visiting any natural history museum.  If one pair of, say, sheep-sized dinosaurs survived the Ark trip and multiplied, how could they have been the ancestors of all those species of dinosaurs, from tiny to huge, plant-eaters and flesh-eaters, even some with wings and some living in water?  Wouldn’t that be called evolution?  And very fast evolution, if we accept Rev. Breeden’s chronology.”

He appears to be a bit confused.

At no point have I ever espoused the curious notion that all dinosaurs, pterosaurs, mososaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and what-have-you came from a single pair of distilled dinosaurs aboard the Ark. And neither does any other creationist.

In the first place, only winged creatures and air-breathing land animals were taken aboard the Ark, so marine reptiles often associated with true dinosaurs would not have been aboard any more than sharks were.

This Ark Encounter critic cites several articles I have on dinosaurs and the Ark from the Beyond Flannelgraph site;  I wish he had also looked at Were Dinosaurs on the Ark?, where I explained that God told Noah to basically bring aboard two of every kind of creature. We certainly do not think that dinosaurs represented a single baramin, or created kind. As I explain in “After Their Kind: Baraminology and the Bible:”

“The Bible states that God created plants an d animals “after their kind” and told them to befruitful and multiply “after their kind.” [Gen 1:12,25] This implies variation within fixed limits, which Mendel confirmed in his studies on heredity and which we observe in nature. A dog is still a dog, be it a dire wolf, fox, English bulldog or chihuahua. We can say then that canines are a “created kind.” Baraminology is an exciting new field which studies such “created kinds,” or baramins. God created the original wolf/dog baramin and gave it the potential to adapt to various environments and conditions. Thus, Adam did not have toname all of the different varieties of canines, like wolves, hyenae, foxes, etc; Adam simply had to name the original canine baramin. The same applies to other animals: He only had to name the original feline, ceratopsian dinosaur, horse, chicken and so on.

At the Fall, the earth was cursed, leading to thorns, disease, death and suffering. Originally vegetarian [Gen 1:30], some animals became predatory or venomous sometime afterward, before or after the Flood. This potential was coded into their genes by the Creator. Natural selection, as a conservative force, weeds out harmful adaptations and uses this God-given genetic potential to allow animals to adapt and survive in a Fallen world. The Bible promises that in the future, all will be restored to its Edenic state. [Isaiah 11:6-8]

At the Flood, God sent 2 of each unclean created kind [and 7 of each clean kind] to the Ark. There were only about 55 kinds of dinosaurs. For example, varieties of the ceratopsian dinosaur kind have different arrays of neck frills, horns and knobs, but Noah would have needed only 2 individuals from this baramin. Likewise, Noah wouldn’t have needed to bring horses, donkeys, zebras and now-extinct three-toed horse varieties, but only 2 members of the equine kind. John Woodmorappe has calculated that there were probably about 8,000 animal genera [including now-extinct animals] aboard the Ark. Upon leaving the Ark, they again multiplied after their kind [Gen 8:16-19] into all of the varieties we see today.”

A Biblical kind is generally, but not always, analogous to the family taxon, not a species, so the number of dinosaurs species is irrelevant to the question. While there are a lot of dinosaur names, there are only about 50 kinds of dinosaurs [eg. sauropods, ceratopsians, anklyosaurs, etc]. For that matter, pterosaurs may be distilled to 2 basic kinds: rhamphorhynchids and pterodactylids; if we take into account Darwinopterus, it’s possible that pterosaurs represent a single baramin. As mentioned, canines give a good idea of the sort of variety possible within one created kind: a dog is still a dog, be it a wolf, English bulldog or a weiner dog. We believe that Noah took these distinct created kinds of animals, including different dinosaur kinds.

Nor do we believe that the variety of dinosaurs we see in the fossil record occured after the Flood. To the contrary, we believe the the fossils are the result of the Flood; in other words, the fossil record shows us what animals were alive at the time of the Flood. As the sediment [mud and dirt] rich waters of the Flood buried the animals, they became fossils. Dinosaurs fossils show us that dinos were alive at the time of Noah, before the Flood took the ones that weren’t aboard the Ark.

After these 50 some pairs of dinosaurs left the Ark, we believe that they went slowly extinct (likely due to changes in climate and other factors [an Ice Age, for example]), like many other creatures have, but that man retains memories of these creatures, albeit embellished and mythologized. Memories of dinosaurs as dragons take on some fantastical elements as the real creatures begin to fade from observable ecology. Evolutionists claim dinosaurs and man are separated by millions of years. Yet there are dragon legends the world over, like the apocryphal Bel & the Dragon, St. George and others. An Irishman described a possible stegosaur, “a beast having iron nails on its tail,” hundreds of years before such fossils were uncovered. Petroglyphs all over the world, like those made by American Indians and found at Angkor Wat, testify to the co-existence of man and dinosaurs as the Bible says.

But guys like Barry Lynn, Rob Boston, Joel Watts and this newest commentor aren’t really interested in what we actually believe or don’t believe. Their ideological commitments cause them to dismiss their opponent’s position off-hand. This puts them in a curious position where they find themselves disagreeing over things they don’t fully understand; which is ironic because PZ Myers claims this should be a characteristic of creationists rather than evolutionists!

Interestingly enough, the Bible predicted such willful ignorance in 2 Peter 3:3-7:

” 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. “

Yet may not want to remember that the heavens and the earth were created by the Word of God, that the entire world perished in the Flood of Noah’s day by that same Word, or that this world is sustained by God’s Word until Judgment Day. Many of them do not even like to retain God in their knowledge [Romans 1:28]. But men are without excuse for their willful ignorance, for though they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, God is evident in His Creation and in His Word [Romans 1:18-23], which is true from the beginning [Psalm 119:160].

You know, the Apostle Peter [undeniably a true minister of the Gospel] declared that we do not follow cleverly devised fables [2 Peter 1:16], but that’s not what Bible doubters like Barry Lynn believe. They believe that parts of the Bible, especially Genesis, are exactly that: cleverly devised fables from which we glean moral or religious truths. Folks like Jonathan Dudley, Joel Watts, Barry Lynn and double-minded believers like Dr.Jay Wile are declaring from our pulpits that we do in fact follow cleverly devised fables when it comes to the Creation Week, Adam and Eve, the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel and Jonah and the Great Fish. Yet, as I preached this past Creation Sunday:

“Jesus affirmed the truth and authority of God’s Word, mentioning Creation, Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah and Jonah as matters of fact. Though some object that religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth, Jesus refuted this false dichotomy when He asked Nicodemus, “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] If you can’t trust the Bible when it speaks of earthly things like Creation, the Flood and Babel, how can you trust the same Book when it speaks of heavenly things like salvation, heaven and all that?

The entire matter comes down to who we hold as our ultimate authority: God’s Word or man’s word. Jesus warned us that “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other” [Matthew 6:14].”

 Europe was once vibrantly Christian. Yet by the days of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Christianity was on the “down-grade.” Alarmed by this trend toward liberalism and Bible-doubting [in the guise of legitimate textual criticism], he dared to name churches and ministers who’d compromised and gone on the down-grade. Rather than listening to the heedings of the “Prince of Preachers,” the Baptist Union censured Spurgeon as slanderous and divisive. They felt that peace was to maintained at all costs.

And what a terrible cost. Today, Europe is a spiritual wasteland where Christianity is concerned. Heedless of history, modern-day compromisers would lead America down the same path to apostasy and irrelevance. Make no mistake: It is not those who affirm Biblical Creation who cause folks to fall away from the faith – it is those who teach them that they can’t trust what it says to begin with!

We must support Bible-affirming efforts like the Ark AEncounter, and we must more earnestly contend for the faith once delivered over modern Bible-doubting revisions. Pray for true revival before it is too late!

-Rev Tony Breeden

DefendingGenesis.org

Advertisements

28 Comments Add yours

  1. jesusknight says:

    It never fails to amaze me that people in general are so ‘available’ (for lack of a better word) to misconception and deceitfulness, even with the ‘best’ of intentions. Willful ignorance is, and ever will be, willful ignorance, no matter how they cover, twist and disguise it. And that means that they are ignorant by CHOICE, not because they DON’T KNOW the Truth, but because they REFUSE the Truth. Faith comes by hearing, but hearing comes by the WORD of God being spoken.
    How can one profess to have faith if they do not hear, accept, know and BELIEVE?
    How can someone profess to believe in God and yet dismiss His word as unbelievable?
    How can one wear the Name of Christ and not believe His word? There is only one possible answer.
    They cannot!
    Those who profess to believing in Him but do not believe His word are wolves in the pasture, eating up all the life giving faith they find about them with lies, leaving the sheep within unfed (or half starved) and without the Living Water they need to survive. Its past time the shepherds in the field come to the defense of the sheep in their charge!
    It is time, nay, PAST time for true Christians everywhere to remember who we are and Whom we follow, and quit compromising our faith because we are weak and afraid to face the consequences of telling the Truth in a God hating world.
    Who are we? We are the children of God, heirs of salvation by the sacrifice of the Son of God!
    Whom do we follow? We follow God, through faith in Jesus and following His example as much as we can, and we are not to follow those who teach us otherwise.
    We are not ‘little gods’, we are not God, and we are not without Hope and Truth. He did not leave us guide-less. He gave us the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Word of God to be written.
    The Ark Encounter should be available to all to see for themselves, and Christians everywhere should support their efforts as much as is possible. America’s Constitution is supposed to support freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And that the state (government) would not control or bring to front a state religion that requires all to follow it, like England of old. Government is NOT to control or set in stone the faith of its people. It is not to interfere with any person’s worship or faith, either. That means, our faith (what we believe and how we express it) is not to be regulated by the State, or the feds, but supported by the people who desire it. The Ark Encounter needs to be supported by those who believe in the Truth it proclaims.
    And those who do not believe in it need to let us have that freedom to do so. If they do not like it, they do not have to come, or support it, but they must allow us our freedom to do the opposite.
    Come on Christians, get with it!!

    1. bob says:

      The argument here is not that the project should be stopped, but that it should not be government-funded in a country that believe in separation of church and state. If Jews or Muslims wanted to do something similar, I wouldn’t be surprised to see you screaming and throwing bibles at them. Please bear in mind that just because you believe that your book is true doesn’t in any way mean that you have the right to draw from money payed by people who believe otherwise to fund its promotion. If I believe in Illuvatar, I don’t want to pay money so some obscure two-thousand year old book can be promoted. You’re the largest religion in the world, pay for it yourself.

      1. Tony Breeden says:

        bob,

        You wont be paying for it. I wish you’d read the article. The tax incentive is a refund of taxes paid by folks who DID choose to support the Ark Encounter by paying admission prices, for food, etc. At no point is anyone picking your pocket… or the pocket of anyone else so close-minded that they will not even visit to hear our interpretation of the evidence for the truth of God’s Word.

        As for your screaming and throwing Bible comment… You’ve got it backwards. Let me elucidate: If you draw a picture of Jesus being raped by a clown, Christians [followers of the prince of Peace] will write letters, blog about you and boycott. If you draw a cartoon of Mohammed [in any context, respectful, tasteful or otherwise], the so-called “religion of peace” known as Islam will send death threats and suicide bombers, burn and loot businesses, execute ambassadors, and generally show their true and violent colors. Just sayin’.

      2. Bob says:

        Everything that you claim Islam did as a result of this video was not in protest. Terrorists did these things, and it was initially thought that it was protesters. As to the actual protests, they became no more violent than the “good Christian” protests we have against things that don’t affect them in any way, like homosexuality.

      3. Tony Breeden says:

        Yeah… You might want to do a bit more research, because I wasn’t really talking about the most recent incident. I was refering to what happened over a bunch of Mohammed cartoons.

      4. jesusknight says:

        Lol, I am not the screaming and throwing bibles type of person, although I DID have a bible thrown at me once by an unbeliever (who later got saved). And, as stated from someone else above, YOU (as in Y.O.U. i.e., bob) will NOT – N.O.T. be paying for it..
        😀
        and that is GOOD news to folks who don’t believe and the folks that do..

  2. Anonymous says:

    Dude, I’m not saying that “evolutionist” know everything, but dinosaurs on a boat 4000 years ago….cmon

    1. Dude,

      Everything came from nothing or unobservable, unprovable multiverses…
      Life came from nonlife…
      Genetic information more elegant than any software we’ve ever conceived came about without an intelligent designer…
      A frog can become a prince if we just give it enough time, when all we’ve ever seen is that a dog remains a dog, be it a wolf, Australian shepherd or an English bulldog…

      …cmon

      As for the boat and the dinosaurs, I’ve explained that elsewhere: http://beyondflannelgraph.wordpress.com/dinosaurs/how-could-dinosaurs-fit-on-the-ark/

      Regards,
      Tony

      1. Bob says:

        You clearly don’t understand the concept of evolution. For the moment, I will refer to every planet’s biological history as an “attempt.” There are so many stars, and even more planets, that there have been more attempts in the history of the universe than we can possibly fathom. We just happen to be one of the attempts that was lucky enough to make that one-in-infinity shot.

      2. Tony Breeden says:

        Bob,

        Your credulity is fascinating! Who has ever observed these attempts, Bob? How do we know they ever happened outside the fertile imaginations of evolution scientists? They certainly can’t know. But they don’t mind if you go on thinking they can.

      3. bob says:

        I don’t think you read my comment. I said that “There are so many stars, and even more planets, that there have been more attempts in the history of the universe than we can possibly fathom.” This is backed up by the knowledge that, if a planet is the right distance away from a star, then there is a certain probability that the other conditions (atmospheric, chemical, etc.) will be right for life to form. Given that there are a practically infinite number of planets at the right distance from their suns (the ones humans have discovered are only in a small part of our galaxy, and there are AT LEAST billions of galaxies) that it would be ignorant of basic probability to say that there have not been many other “attempts.” We may not even be the only “attempt” that produced intelligent life like us, but, though we can confirm within reasonable certainty that there have been all these other “attempts,” we don’t know how many produced intelligent life.

        In other words- it is statistically improbable (below 1/1000 of 1%) that there have been no other “attempts.” You’re version of the history of life, however, is that a conveniently unfalsifiable and omnipotent god created the world out of no apparent motive and then proceeded to create all life in the course of six days. This god then went and created a tree that no one was supposed to eat from and existed for no real purpose other than to cause various sorts of problems. At worst, you should assume that science is right because it is more recent and therefore takes into account discoveries since the story of creation was written. At best, you should recognize that science is backed up by the logic I have just explained twice, and that creationism is only backed up by “the bible is true because god wrote it because the bible says so, and the bible is true because god wrote it because the bible says so…”

        What you argue is the truth is no less ridiculous than the flying spaghetti monster. I’m not even saying that there is no such thing as a god, but if there is, said god would want us to be able to conclude from all the information we have that creationism is incorrect. One of the mistakes you’re making is assuming that scientists will argue the exact same version of the history of the universe forever. Science is ever changing, and adapts to new knowledge, whereas you still believe stories written in a time when people still thought the earth was flat.

      4. Tony Breeden says:

        Bob, bob, bob, bob, bob…

        I’m familiar with the Drake equation. In fact, I’m familiar enough to know just how absurdly optimisti it is. The point remains that we have seen life on only one planet [the one we’re standing on, bob] and that all conjecture of the probability of alien life is simply an article of faith. But again, I admire your credulity.

        Bob, don’t quote the FSM over here. We stomped his Pastafarian butt into mush years ago. No intelligent person should ever invoke the Noodly One on this site:

        https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/why-the-only-rational-atheist-is-an-oxymoron/
        https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/russells-invisible-flying-pink-spaghetti-unicorn-monster-teapot/
        https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/zeus-jesus-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-why-the-biblical-creator-is-the-only-rational-possibility/

        Bob, naturalistic science does not have logic on its side. It borrows logic from ours. That is, naturalism can offer no non-arbitrary, logically consistent basis for the laws of logic, whereas Christianity can. Read more about this here:
        http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/more-on-why-creation-is-foundational-to-science-not-evolution/

        Now you’ve tickled me pink with this strange little claim that any Creator God would want to make sure we know that creationism is incorrect; have you really thought that little gem through, bob? Why would the Creator want to make sure we didn’t believe in creationism, bob? How does that make any logical sense, bob?

        As for your continued [false] assertions that the Bible ever taught a flat earth, read this:
        https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/does-the-bible-teach-a-flat-earth/

      5. bob says:

        You have misunderstood the FSM. The argument behind it is not that the FSM is real. It is a mechanism used to test the logic of creationism. The point of this is to show you that anyone can make up myths, and that there is no reason why Christianity is true that cannot be reapplied to other beliefs. I therefore challenge you to prove that the FSM is incorrect. We will debate this here. and you will either disprove the FSM or have to admit that there is no reason why your beliefs are any more real than other ridiculous beliefs. Bear in mind, just by disproving the FSM does not prove that you are right. I have still provided several other reasons why you are wrong. For the moment, however, let’s stick to the FSM before we admit your beliefs into the realm of possibility.

      6. Tony Breeden says:

        bob,

        I know all about the Noodly One. [You’d know that if you had bothered to read those three posts I gave you, bob]

        I’m sorry you came to the table late, but there’s no reason on God’s green earth why I would waste my time debunking the FSM any further than I have. Don’t start your victory dance. You need to be clued in to a little factoid concerning the Pastafarian tactic. Here’s the deal: It’s a straw man. A red herring. A waste of time. It compares apples to oranges.

        You see, bob, the FSM assumes that God is some mystical thought construct that cannot be proved or disproved because He has not interacted with this planet and that, therefore, the FSM is a good way to demonstrate how ridiculous belief in God is. It relies on the bifurcation fallacy, the gambit of pitting faith against evidence/facts/reason. It presumes that said faith is not backed by a reasonable weight of evidence.

        You really should read the three links I gave you…

        So here’s my challenge to Pastafarians: demonstrate how the FSM is at all similar to a God who reveals Himself in Scripture and then authenticates his Word through fulfilled prophecy and the resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. Only then would I bother answering such a ridiculous argument.

        Goodbye, bob.

      7. bob says:

        Sorry, let me clarify.

        Of course the FSM has revealed himself to all humans- that is why we have pasta. Through His Divine Holiness that is Pasta, the FSM has given us his Divine Word. You are just too blind to see that which is right in front of you. The Word of the FSM has been authenticated by the presence of Pasta everywhere. For example, in both Italy and Japan, two countries almost half a world apart, we have noodles. This could only ever be achieved by the FSM, who spreads the Word of Pasta. Checkmate.

        As for your argument about “Jesus Christ:”

        1. This is possibly the greatest symbol of Christian hypocrisy, and I’m glad you brought it up. Here we have a very simple choice of two equally incriminating options. Either “Mary” did not want to be impregnated, and was thus, on some level, raped, or she did, and was an adulterer. So, in reality, your own text decrees that “Jesus” should never have been born.

        2. This “prophecy” argument is another example of circular logic. Your book contains a prophecy that is fulfilled later in the same book. You have just found another creative way to say “the bible is true because the bible says so. The book we wrote predicted something that would happen at the end of the book; look how cool that is!”

      8. Tony Breeden says:

        bob,

        I’m ignoring your FSM comments. A checkers player such as yourself does not get to say checkmate. But thanks for allowing me to relive the banality of the atheists “best” argument [which really doesn’t speak well for your guys as a whole].

        1. Mary was not raped. The Bible states that she accepted this honor verbally and willingly. She could never truly be guilty of adultery which is a crime between two humans. Thanks for the dumbest objection ever. By the way, since you’re making moral judgments, can you provide me with a non-arbitrary, consistent basis for your morality as an atheist?

        2. Actually, the prophecies uttered in the Bible were fulfilled in HISTORY, many of them hundreds of years after they were uttered. Approximately 2500 prophecies are uttered in the Bible, about 2000 of which have been fulfilled to the letter. For example, the prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy Babylon and subjugate most of the rest of the known world; however, he would then let the Jewish exiles go free without any payment of ransom. This prophecy was made 150 years before Cyrus was born and 80 years before the Jews were even taken into exile to begin with! Consider also that King David and the prophet Zechariah both predicted the manner of Jesus’ death about 400 years before the Romans invented it: crucifixion.

        Biblical prophecy is no circular argument. Only a fool who had not bothered to research the subject to any great depth would ever make such an assertion.

        I’m sorry but it appears your attempt at handwaving has been halted by the actual facts of the situation.

  3. Paul says:

    Wow, your poor mind.
    You’re in denial of science.
    I’m very sorry that you got indoctrinated into a poisonous religion and that you are going to extremes to protect your beliefs.

    1. Actually Paul, I rejected the faith of my youth [Christianity/creationism] after being indoctrinated into believing the all-natural myth of millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution. After spending a decade as a blasphemous agnostic, I returned to Christianity but did not immediately reject evolution or millions of years. Only after much personal research and study did I come to see my one-sided uncritical public school indoctrination into the poisonous religion of humanism for what it was. I further realized that I adhered to the all-natural creation myth largely out of unexamined credulity and that only Biblical creationism can account for the preconditions of intelligibility [including the uniformity of natural law, morality, the laws of logic, etc] without being contradictory or arbitrary.

      But speaking of the extremes one will go to to protect one’s beliefs, how much faith does it take to believe that everything came from nothing [or conveniently unobservable multiverses], that life came from nonlife, that specified complex information [such as that found in our DNA] came without an intelligent source, or that a frog can really become a prince if only we give it enough time?

      Think about it,
      SK

      1. bob says:

        How about you read up on evolution, the law of natural selection, the big bang theory, atomic and nuclear theory, and the laws of thermodynamics before you try to denounce them for what they are not.

      2. Tony Breeden says:

        I have read up those subjects. I even went to a secular college to study them. I do not nor have I ever denounced the law of natural selection, atomic and nuclear theory and the laws of thermodynamics which are all part of observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable operational science. I do contest the big bang theory and microbes-to-man evolution; these two theories make guesses about the unobservable, unrepeatable past and do so with a purely naturalistic bias. For more on operational versus origins science, read this: http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/answering-a-critic-origin-science-and-operational-science/

        Now, show me where I ever made a starw men of any of these scientific laws/theories/etc. Or shut up.

  4. bob says:

    I noticed you said that the bible predicted what you call “willful ignorance.” That doesn’t mean anything, it’s just saying “the bible is true because it says so in the bible.” When the only drop of “evidence” you have is a book written in an age when we thought the earth was flat, you have a problem.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Double standard, bob. After all, you claim that pure naturalism is true and then do not allow evidence for the supernatural or even intelligent design to be considered on the grounds that all answers must be [arbitrarily] natural. We are both arguing whether the Bible or man’s fallible reason ought to be our ultimate authority. I can stand on the hill to defend the hill, just as much as I can use reason to argue that we ought to be reasonable. Of course, the irony is that snce you believe that the universe came about by chance natural processes, there’s no reason why nature should by ordered and uniform everywhere, so unlike the Christian you have no non-arbitary, consistent basis for the uniformity of nature, morality, the laws of logic, or any of the preconditions of intelligibility.

      I also object to your false notion that the Bible is the only evidence we have. We have exactly the same evidence – the same rocks, fossils, plants, animals, moon, stars, universe… the same facts. We simply have different interpretations of that evidence based on our presuppositions [man’s fallible reason is our ultimate authority or God’s Word is our ultimate authority].

      As for your implied accusation that the Bible affirms a flat earth, we’ve addressed that false allegeation on this site before: https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/does-the-bible-teach-a-flat-earth/

      1. bob says:

        So, Mr. Breeden, how EXACTLY do “rocks, fossils, plants, animals, moon, stars, [and the] universe” prove that you are correct? Okay, so the bible says how they were supposedly created. If I say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world and made it exactly the way it is, there is not reason why anyone should prefer your beliefs over the FSP.

        Addressing the credibility of the bible: you said that the bible saying that it is true is evidence to indicate that it is true. That is the same as me saying that “I’m right, therefore I am right.” While you can argue that, it is not sufficient evidence to actually indicate that you are correct.

        Also, you said that humans have fallible reasoning. I will concede that this is true. However, I will advocate that humans are still smarter and more capable now than humans were when the bible was written. As I said before, nothing outside of the bible indicates that god has written the bible, so we should assume that humans wrote it.

        Now, humans now are smarter than they were then, and WE PROVIDE EXPLANATIONS AND LOGIC to our theories. Not only that, scientists continually try to disprove our theories to make sure that either they are correct, or that the current theories are improved or replaced by correct ones. Christianity, on the other hand, has defended the same beliefs for thousands of years, and any accusations of them have been functionally ignored. Also, you failed to contest that Christianity is not falsifiable. What htat means, if you had trouble figuring it out, is that you do not provide a threshold for proving that it is true or false. There is no way to provide substantial evidence for your arguments other than the bible, whose credibility I have already answered. Therefore, we should prefer science, which is already supported by logic, which I have also explained already. I don’t think you have, as of yet, bothered to read up on the areas of science that I recommended you study. You may want to do so.

        Also, if this god created anything to be perfect, then why is it that such a small percentage of our DNA is actually used for anything? There is absolutely no reason why a perfect, omnipotent god would create such a thing. Natural selection, however, explains this: this DNA was disabled by mutations, but was not removed by natural selection because it did not put the life forms that had it at a disadvantage.

      2. Tony Breeden says:

        bob, read the links I provided and then return us with a less ludicrous argument.

      3. bob says:

        Actually, I would prefer that we debate about this here, as opposed to you inundating me with links to your wonderful writings. Also, to prove that the FSM is incorrect, you will have to use logic other than “because Christianity does not allow for it,” because I can easily reverse that statement and say that Christianity is incorrect because the FSM does not allow for it. You will have to provide reasons independent of any faith as to why the FSM is wrong.

      4. Tony Breeden says:

        Read the links or don’t. wallow in ignorance for all

  5. MPH says:

    You do know that the bible is mythology, right?

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Tell that to the many archaeologists and historians who will vouch for its veracity

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s