Their Own Version of a Big Bang: A creative & effective challenge to the "science" of Darwinism

LA Times ^ | 11 Feb 2006 | Stephanie Simon

[Greg o the Navy]

WAYNE, N.J. — Evangelist Ken Ham smiled at the 2,300 elementary students packed into pews, their faces rapt. With dinosaur puppets and silly cartoons, he was training them to reject much of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology as a sinister tangle of lies.

[Havoc]

I don't see anyone ignoring "scientific" evidence. The argument is not and never has been over "evidence". It's been over what you call "scientific" and the spin you put on the evidence. Christianity and science have nothing to fear from one another. Evolution, on the other hand, is threatened by both.

[peyton randolph]

The Bible tells of the ark being a 100 yr project.

Fine. Then explain this with some evidence...not a "the Bible says so."

Do you know what physical work is? Just curious.

Yes. It is what I did from the time I was a kid until I finished college.

[Señor Zorro]

It's further proof that the hard-core religious right is an embarrassment to the conservative movement.

To the contrary, it is the logical foundation. Without the belief that "All men are created equal" justice has no meaning and governments have no legitimacy.

When you ignore scientific evidemce in school, it's no wonder that the schools in the U.S. lag behind other developed nations.

The evidence does not support evolution. All the "theory" is is a patchwork of speculation held together by a framework of guesses.

Flame away.

[Havoc]

One, it wouldn't take that much to flood the entire earth even today. A few feet rise in the seas would swamp most of the land masses as they exist today. You're assumption is that the land looked prior to the flood the way it looks now. That is your assumption.

Two, The water didn't need to go anywhere but down as the land masses shifted. Rising mountain ranges and the like would have caused such runoff. It's really simple to understand. Stick your hand under water then slowly raise it. Water naturally runs off because of something we like to call gravity..

Three, the dimensions of the Ark are stated in scripture.

Four, The food supply needed for myself for four months will fit in a space smaller than the size of my kitchen cabinets.
Kindof a matter of common sense.. but I suppose were supposed to be staggered by the time rather than the actual food..

Five. Sanitary conditions are quite simple when dealing with animals in a dark environ - most of them will naturally hibernate. That's something they still do today.. might want to learn some science instead of begging credulity in ignorance. As for the people, that's even easier..

Six. You're right, humans today are too dumb by comparison with God or with humans of the past. We can't figure out even today how the Pyramids were built and couldn't duplicate the effort with modern equipment. Further, there are even larger stones in other parts of the world that are so massive, it staggers the imagination to think that someone cut them, much less moved them. It would take a miracle by any account with even the best of modern technology to even lift many of them, much less actually move and place them. Apparently, since we can't duplicate it today, those structures do not exist and are just a mass halucination.

Finally, most of your questions are easily put aside. You aren't bothered by the facts or the circumstance so much as by the involvement of God. That always is the bottom line.
No matter how your questions are answered, evolutionists will always grumble and run for cover when the argument finally reaches the breaking point - when faced with the possibility of God, you'll run. Not because there isn't evidence; but, because you can't deal with God.

[jec41]

I would have offered more support with Strategerist and Coyoteman but tonight I didn't feel down to refuting the opinions of those who's learning curve went flat at 12 or less. A explanation is of no value if the recipient lacks the logic or thought of understanding. When argument is refuted only by opinion it becomes meaningless.

[justche]

People typically crack on sentence construction when they don't like what was posted. Not because they can't read between the lines - but because they choose to be condescending when their comments get called out. So I'll slow down my typing speed to match your reading speed. You and I both know that you think it's fine to be a rabid sports fanatic. But when anyone is "to the core" in their belief system and when it has to do with religion instead of sports, then they become terrorist fanatics. That's some world you live in.
Your comment was hugely offensive and at best inappropriate
Beavers Shmeavers!

[peyton randolph]

Not because there isn't evidence; but, because you can't deal with God.

To reiterate a prior post, I'm a deist. Therefore, I believe in God.

However, there is a difference between belief in God and belief in the representations of some jerk who claims to be speaking on God's behalf.

[phantomworker]

Of course! LOL! I know what you mean. But wasn't "the idea of the earth revolving around the sun also the spawn of El Diablo?" LOL!

[RunningWolf]

A Havoc so true

AGAIN BUMP

Wolf

[phantomworker]

Actually, I just read some of your posts, they were really funny. You did indeed support the rational view. The creos are almost as bad as the smoker threads. They get just as irrational trying to defend their habit.

[Havoc]

Ah, you believe in God. Bully for you. If you believe in him, then what specifically are you referring to by "some jerk who claims to be speaking on God's behalf". I am a Christian and have studied comparative religion for years. I can give specific examples. And if you imagine there is some manner of proof that one is *actually* speaking on God's behalf, what is it. This is referred to as "calling you out".

Thank you.

[taxesareforever]

However, there is a difference between belief in God and belief in the representations of some jerk who claims to be speaking on God's behalf.

You just characterized all Christians as jerks. We are commanded to "Go and teach all nations". Whose behalf do you think we are speaking on?

[jec41]

Reading this thread has been a real bummer. I would have supposed we were a little further from the cave. The only difference between us and the middle east is that we discovered oil first. We are temporary richer but just as thoughtless.

[fatima]

I like to smoke.How are you beautiful.

[Ichneumon]

["So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?" The children answered with a thundering: "God!"]

God bless those children!

Yes, yes, teach American children to ignore science and technology in favor of whatever the priesthood wants them to believe. That's exactly what the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists teach as well, and just look how well it has worked for *them* when it comes to progress and having a society/economy fit for the 21st Century...

[RunningWolf]

They aren't bothered by the facts or the circumstance so much as by the involvement of God. That always is the bottom line.

Very astute, I agree. But grumble and run? You are too nice.

But perhaps.., unless they can control the entire arena, to be gods as it were. I see the attempts here all the time. And in their minds it is so.

Wolf

[Havoc]

The first problem with your line of questioning as posted from the web is simple in that the very first question is misleading and decietful. There is no problem with length of wooden ships in general. There is a problem with masted wooden ships as I understand it. And the Ark was not a masted ship. It was a barge for all intents and purposes. And just because it can't be done today doesn't mean it can't be - eg the pyramids, stonehenge, etc. Most of the line of standard questions meant to paint a picture of the impossible - is just plain blind in approach. I've answered many of them here already with no problem. And many you could answer yourself by simple study. That is usually not the intent. Knowledge isn't the end sought by these questions - obfuscation is. What idiot do you think would pack adult animals when babies are available. And that would be the case, they'd have to be an utter moron. But, that is what most of the evo types want people to think about - fully grown brontosaurs. What idiot would - in shipbuilding circles - reference a barge and whine because it may not be able to do what a masted ship does? Really. Any first year shipwright would point out that ships are built to a purpose, just like a building of any sort. Stadiums are not built the way a ranch house is built because ranch houses aren't expected to seat 10,000,000 people nor are stadiums intended to have bedrooms for the extended family. Bottom line, what is lacking in most of the questions is common sense - or the hope that such will be lacking in the reader.

[peyton randolph]

This is referred to as "calling you out".

Wow. I've been 'called out' by the Dr. Dino fan club.

if you imagine there is some manner of proof that one is *actually* speaking on God's behalf, what is it.

There is no evidence that any human speaks on God's behalf. Anyone who claims divine revelation does so for money, fame, power, or a combination of the three.

[Ichneumon]

As far as I know, there isn't a supercomputer yet, that can demonstate the incredibly awesome destruction of the great flood (such as, water currents around the world, moving megatons of aggregate faster than the SE Asian tsunami or Mt. St Helen did).

It hardly takes a "supercomputer" to spot the flaws in the Flood story, and the countless ways it fails to match all the real-world evidence.

People (most of them devout God-fearing people) were realizing that there were big problems with Biblical Flood literalism (at least as it concerns natural history) as far back as the 1700's if not earlier, and by the mid 1850's (well before Darwin had published his famous book) the evidence was too overwhelming to ignore.

For example, by that time most geologists had realized that the geologic record was not consistent with a global flood. In 1857 Hugh Miller -- a creationist geologist -- wrote of his conclusions that at most, the Biblical flood was the embellished record of a local flood in the Mideast, since geology showed no signs of a global flood. On page 327 of his book, "The Testimony of the Rocks, he wrote:

"No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the older geologic systems, -- Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary."

For an overview on the many, many ways in which the notion of a global flood and creationists' attempts to salvage the unsalvagable fly in the face of vast amounts of evidence to the contrary, see:

Problems with a Global Flood

"Polystrate" Fossils

Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"

Dinosaur Prints in Coal

The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood

Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?

Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust

Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust

What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?

Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood

Why The Flood Can't Be Global

The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce

The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See

Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood

Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?

Fleeing from the Flood

Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model

Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood

While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing

More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology

Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood

Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense -- Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science

If you ever managed to resolve all of those apparently insurmountable problems for the creationist version of a flood scenario, feel free to come back and present us with the results of your research. Make sure that your thesis is consistent with the totality of the evidence, however, and not just one tiny corner of it in isolation while violating most of the rest (a common creationist tactic).

[peyton randolph]

You just characterized all Christians as jerks.

No, I did not. I'm talking about men who claim they are God's messengers, specifically those who claim divine revelation. Absent proof (and there is none), they are nothing more than charlatans seeking money, fame, power, or a combination of the three by claiming God speaks through them. Regurgitating Bible verses to the masses is not the same thing as claiming one has divine revelations.