I was aware of and had even begun reading Richard Dawkins’ new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, but then I saw the promotional material around it and it’s absolutely shocking.
On the dust jacket inside cover it says, “The Greatest Show on Earth comes at a critical time: systematic opposition to the fact of evolution is menacing as ever before. In American schools, and in schools around the world, insidious attempts are made to undermine the status of science in the classroom. Dawkins wields a devastating argument against this ignorance”[1] In other words, as Dawkins has said elsewhere, if you don’t believe in evolution “that person is ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.”[2]
The promotional piece also says,
“In 1859 Charles Darwin’s masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, shook society to its core. Darwin was only too aware of the storm his theory of evolution would provoke. But he surely would have raised an incredulous eyebrow at the controversy still raging a century and a half later. Evolution is accepted as scientific fact by all reputable scientists and indeed theologians, yet millions of people continue to question it’s veracity. Now the author of the iconic work The God Delusion takes them to task.”[3]
How does Dawkins take people to task in his latest work, The Greatest Show On Earth? His presupposition is that Darwinian evolution based on common descent is an established fact as reliable as the law of gravity. In other words, you can know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are the product of common descent that you came from monkeys. Well, even worse maybe you came from a turnip or a banana. Surely Dawkins would not go that far would he? Actually he does:
Evolution is a fact: beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt, evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of the chimpanzees, some what more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips…continue the list as long a desired.[4]
Let’s think about that for just a second…here’s Dawkins is suggesting that you and are the distant cousins of bananas the turnips if you don’t believe that your “ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.”[5] He is saying Darwinian evolution is a fact. He is saying that inequality within in the races is an established fact. In other words, he is saying that there is a degradation of races.
Remember he’s not just touting evolution in general, he’s touting Darwinian evolution. He must be as aware as anyone else that Darwinian evolution postulates survival of favored races in the struggle for survival. This was the subtitle of Darwin’s magnum opus, The Origin of the Species. Dawkins must know that Darwinian evolution postulates that:
The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. [6]
So Dawkins must understand that for evolution to succeed it is as crucial that the unfit die as that fittest survive! If the fittest give up survival for the sake of allowing the unfit to survive, the unfit would infect the fit with their unfit genes, rendering evolution inoperable. So Dawkins is the latest militant purveyor of inequality and to believe in the biblical Christian position of equality is “ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.”[7]
No doubt since he is taunting Darwinian evolution, he is well aware of Darwin’s statement in his book The Descent of Man under the subheading “Difference in the Mental Powers of the Two Sexes,” he attempts to persuade his followers that “the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn [sic] by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman.”[8] In this sense, he is well aware of sexism.
Yet, here we are in the twenty-first he’s touting Darwinian evolution and saying that any theologian who doesn’t buy it or believe it is ignorant. He saying that there is an insidious attempt afoot to undermine evolution and that fact of the matter is nobody is trying to destroy evolution.
Evolution is crumbling! We now, Mr. Dawkins, live in an age of scientific enlightenment. We now know that a fertilized human egg is not merely a microscopic blob of Jell-O. It is among the most complex, ordered structures in the entire known universe. So we’re no longer in 19th century science, Richard Dawkins, we’re in the twenty-first century and because we are evolution is crumbling under the weight of evidence.
There is no real evidence for Dawkins’s ape to man icon. That’s a dogmatic declaration not a defensible argument. The icon has become the argument. Again we should be able to question that which does not appear in the book of nature; which is the odd predilection of people like Charles Darwin and his new rottweiler Richard Dawkins.
You know of course that Darwin’s has had a lot of dogs. He’s had his bulldog Thomas Huxley who said,
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still the less superior, of the white man…It is simply incredible [to think] that…he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites[9]
In other words, Huxley carried on the racist idea of inequality suggested by his mentor, Charles Darwin. Now in the twenty-first century, you could maybe give a pass to Thomas Huxley he was a 19th century guy, but Dawkins in the twenty-first century is carrying on the legacy and now wants to believe that nothing produced everything but that we evolved from turnips.
It’s simply amazing to me but I’ve said this numerous times pagan are going to exercise their job description, their going to march lock step unthinkingly into the abyss. That’s not the problem. The problem is Christians who do not have an answer to Richard Dawkins. They don’t have an answer when Richard Dawkins suggest that a woman reproduces the evolutionary process or that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” This is basically the idea that the emerging embryo goes through all the evolutionary processes. Here’s how Dawkins’s puts it,
That irascible genius J.B.S. Haldane, who did so much else besides being one of the three leading architects of neo-Darwinianism, was once challenged by a lady after a public lecture. It’s a word-of-mouth anecdote, and John Maynard Smith is sadly not available to confirm the exact words, but this is approximately how the exchange went:
Professor Haldane, even given the billions of years that you say were available for evolution, I simply cannot believe it is possible to go from a single cell to a complicated human body, with its trillions of cells organized into bones and muscles and nerves, a heart that pumps without ceasing for decades, miles and miles of blood vessels and kidney tubules, and a brain capable of thinking and talking and feeling.
But madam, you did it yourself. And it only took you nine months.[10]
And he calls “that irascible genius”? I mean this is a plain old, simple category mistake. First, in Dawkins view life is not frontloaded to become all that life is it has to gain information along the way over billions of years. Conversely, a conceptus or zygote contains chemical instructions that fill more than 500, 000 printed pages. In other words, it is front loaded every aspect of the developing embryo from height to hair color is included in that genetic library.
So this is a plain old category mistake, but Dawkins brings this out and calls it “irascible genius” and the gullible buy it! And Dawkins gets millions of dollars, an advance on a book, puts it out, and he says there you have it an iron clad case for evolution against Intelligent Design.
Now if you watched the movie Expelled with Ben Stein, you see that Dawkins does possibly believe in Intelligent Design of some sort, to see this is priceless, first he sweats and then stumbles and there is this exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins
Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?
Richard Dawkins: It could come about in the following way: It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded on to, perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that, if you look at the details of bio-chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Stein: Wait a second! Richard Dawkins thought that Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Dawkins: And that designer could very well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence itself would have to had have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.[11]
Dawkins doesn’t have an answer for the most basic questions, yet he provides an iron clad case for evolution.
Well, again pagans are going to exercise their job description they’re going to be pagans. The question is: are you as a Christian going to exercise your job description? Can you take the very weak arguments that militantly portrayed, deceptively communicated, with great pomp and circumstance and use them as springboard or opportunity for sharing truth? Not the caricature of Christianity but truth and then do this with gentleness and respect. If you can, be on the vanguard of doing something totally significant in the twenty-first century. That is, you can be announcing the demise of evolution, and demonstrating that it is no longer tenable in an age of scientific enlightenment.
Then we can get back to the basics, and that is Richard Dawkins and all else who don’t believe in the design revolution are sitting in a very dark room. They may have very good eyesight, but the room is dark, and they can’t see.
We have many resources on this topic such my book, Fatal Flaws and the DVD I mentioned earlier Expelled and much, much more. Check these all out at our Website of www.equip.org or call us at 1-888-7000-0274.
________________________________________
[1] Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc, 2009). Inside front cover of the dust jacket to the hardcover edition.
[2] Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, April 9. This is also quoted by Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), p. 9.
[3] Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc, 2009). Inside front cover of the dust jacket to the hardcover edition.
[4] Ibid., 8.
[5] Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, April 9. This is also quoted by Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), p. 9.
[6] Letter from Charles Darwin to W. Graham, 3 July 1881, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 1, 316, quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London: Chatto and Windus, 1959), 343, quoted in Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, public school edition (San Diego: C.L.P. Publishers 1981), 179; emphasis added.
[7] Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, April 9. This is also quoted by Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), p. 9.
[8] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, in Robert Maynard Hutchins, ed., Great Books of the Western World, vol. 49, Darwin (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 566.
[9] Thomas H. Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York, Appleton, 1871), 20, quoted in Henry Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Mich, Baker, 1989), 60.
[10] Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, 211.
[11] Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed with Ben Stein (Vivendi Entertianment/Premise Media Corporation, 2008).
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
40 comments:
Evolution is an established fact. Like any scientific explanation of the known data, it is possible it could be disproved, but that is about as unlikely as disproving the existence of zinc.
Richard Dawkins is an author of rather poor quality science fiction, not to be confused with evolutionary biology or any other science. I did read one of his books once. I feel a responsibility to read the work of those I dismiss, so I am not criticizing them in ignorance of what they actually said. Finally, I found a copy of "The Selfish Gene" at a rummage sale for fifty cents. I read the whole book. I'm glad I didn't pay more for it.
The foundations of evolutionary biology are all laid out in the first two chapters of Genesis. Stop reducing God to something the human mind can fully grasp, and accept that "my ways are not your ways," which means God's Word has a lot more in it than we are capable of recognizing at any given point in time. We learn, but we learn slowly, and sometimes reluctantly. So it has been with the fundamental truths of evolutionary biology.
Let's see all that proof of evolution. Let's see the observed mutation of a single celled organism into a banana or a person.
I like how one of the best ad most used arguments for something that can't be explained with evolution is simply, "Well that's because of a random mutation." That's there way of filling the gaps.
Evolution is an established fact.
Which definition of "evolution" are you using? molecules to man evolution or creatures just adapting to their environments with in the boundaries of their genetic information?
The first is conjecture driven by prior commitments to philosophical beliefs, and is not anywhere near being established fact. The second is observable and repeatable and happens all the time. The two are not to be equated as Darwinianists tend to do all the time.
All three comments denying the basic facts of known biology share one thing in common with the ubiquitous Boris: you all make bland general statements without any reference to specific facts or in-depth study. Before you rattle on any further, I suggest you read, in full, LIFE: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth by Richard Fortey, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1998. It is a thorough, readable account of evolutionary theory and the observed data which supports it. It is something a guy like me, with a high school diploma and no Ph.D in hard sciences, or anything else, can understand and follow.
You don't have to AGREE with Fortey, but if you could explain exactly where you think he errs, and why, then we would have something to talk about. Note that Hank refers to reading the work of Richard Dawkins. If he does that, then he knows what he is talking about. I never wanted to spend serious money on Dawkins, because I already had a low opinion of his work, but as I already said, when I found a copy at a rummage sale, I bought it. Now that I have read his work, I have an even lower opinion of his science fiction.
Another good item to read would be Michael Russell's "First Life" published in American Scientist Volume 94, Jan-Feb 2006. It provides a good answer to how the first living cells formed, which incidentally I find to be entirely consistent with Genesis 1: 20. All life, including bananas and humans, are made up of cells. First, a cell had to exist. Then, multiple celled organisms could exist. God knew what he was doing. Its us who couldn't figure it out, due to our own limitations. Evolution is God's greatest miracle, even though Boris pretends that it "just happened."
P.S. Yes, I have studied at some length the web site of Answers in Genesis, and written a detailed account of why I did not find it convincing. I wouldn't think to criticize it without carefully listening to what they say. I find it funny that anyone who claims to "walk by faith, not by sight" would seek scientific proof for their faith, or allow their faith to be disturbed by developments in science.
Yes, I have studied at some length the web site of Answers in Genesis, and written a detailed account of why I did not find it convincing. I wouldn't think to criticize it without carefully listening to what they say.
If this is true, then you know that what the men of AiG point out is the fact that we have two world views in conflict. One that is driven by materialistic naturalism that does not take into account the sovereign God of creation nor the fall of the world into sin, with one that begins, as Proverbs 1:7 states, with the fear and knowledge of God.
The issue is never about evidence, but the interpretation of all evidence in light of those worldviews. The first seeks to explain life on our world apart from any supernatural work of God, the second recognizes and submits to the creator and His divinely revealed explanation of life on our world.
You did get that out of AiG, right?
Fred
No Fred, I got out of AIG that the founders and writers sincerely believe that evolutionary theory necessarily assumes the absence of God, while belief in the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God necessarily requires that all life was created in its current form on a single day about 5000-7000 years ago. I also got out of reading AIG that they misunderstand the gospels, Genesis, and the basis of scientific inquiry.
There are indeed two different world views at work in the Bible and in science, but they are not inconsistent with each other. A meaningful dialog requires that science accept faith on its own terms, e.g., there is a God who created the universe, and the Bible is of divine inspiration. It also requires that religion accept science on its own terms, e.g., data is real, the patterns derived from studying the data bear a reasonable relationship to the truth of the material world.
The fundamental error on both ends of this discussion is the quaint notion that evolutionary biology means "it just happened," randomly, without any motivation at all. There is no way science can prove any such thing. IF there is no God, THEN it must, I suppose, have just happened, but IF there IS a God, then all of evolutionary biology is simply a process of gazing in awe on exactly what God did. As to WHETHER there is a God, "we walk by faith, not by sight," so evolutionary biology is irrelevant.
One thing I've been kicking around since reading your last post is, the well known gaps in the evolutionary picture may indeed indicate that there was some divine intervention necessary along the way -- subtle intervention, in a manner only a holy God could intervene, not the way a human engineer would do it. The succession of life forms over a period of four billion years is pretty obvious if you take the time to read it. The reasons for changes are much more varied than one life form "gradually becoming" something else. Most extinct species did not "become" anything else, they just all died out. But exactly why and how it happened, is certainly not fully known.
I have to remember though, that Francis Collins warned not to base our faith on a "God of the gaps" in human knowledge. SOME of those gaps are going to be filled in eventually. Would we then conclude that God doesn't exist after all? I don't think so. Science deals very well with material processes at work within the created universe. Science can tell us nothing about what is outside of it, much less a God who, as Jesus said "is Spirit" and must "be worshipped in spirit and in truth."
I also recall Richard Dawkins assinine remark that "Christians will continue to fight against evolution" (millions of us don't), because "the Son of God" will be found buried in the rubble, or some such rubbish. AIG loves to quote that, because it props up their own certainty that its one or the other. I for one would never take Dawkins's word for anything, especially not that. All fall short of the glory of God, therefore, mere material life forms, even we who were created in the image of God, can only be saved by grace. That doesn't depend on whether or not whales used to live on land and some of their descendants adapted to the ocean. Although, I find that Genesis 1:21 hints at exactly that process == under divine inspiration.
while belief in the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God necessarily requires that all life was created in its current form on a single day about 5000-7000 years ago. I also got out of reading AIG that they misunderstand the gospels, Genesis, and the basis of scientific inquiry.
If you got this out of reading AiG, then you didn't read carefully. Biblical creationsims does not teach all life was created in a singled day in its current form. Additionally, seeing that a good portion of the teaching staff hold multiple Ph.Ds in various fields of study, all of them being trained at evolutionary oriented universities, it is a bit ignorant to claim they misunderstand the basis of scientific inquiry.
You may wish to go back and familiarize yourself with the basics of what biblical creationism teaches. It will prevent you from being embarrassed with boneheaded remarks.
If evolution were really crumbling or even being seriously challenged then the Christian academic community would know something about it. What liars and idiots like Hank don’t take into consideration is that every CHRISIAN college and university in the world that teaches science teaches evolution and common descent. What is really crumbling is Hank’s ministry and in fact the entire Christian religion is crumbling precisely because of the anti-scientific claims of liars and idiots like Hanegraaf and the rest of the creationist loonies. Dawkins is right. Anyone who claims not to believe in evolution is really an idiot. No Protestant denomination accepted the findings of Galileo and Copernicus until well into the 19th century. Up until then all Protestant denominations held to the flat immovable earth clearly described in the Buybull. Hank’s anti-evolution stance is more of the same old crap from Bible believers. When have scientists ever had to revise any of their theories in the face of claims from Bible believers? Sorry Hank. You lose.
I love atheist rants... They're the greatest. I particularly like the self-righteous indignation the best.
Boris rants...
Up until then all Protestant denominations held to the flat immovable earth clearly described in the Buybull.
Can you give me one passage from the Bybull that describes the earth as flat? Even better, can you give me one documented example in all of human history where anyone has ever taught the world was flat? I need citations if you have it, and any links you may be able to find. I guess we can include atheist sites if we must.
From Biblical Nonsense:
In the years following the Pentateuch completion, illustrative scriptures would emerge from the prophets and paint additional pictures of a flat planet. Isaiah describes how God will “maketh the earth empty, turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof” (Isaiah 24:1). No matter how the spherical earth is situated, however, part of it will always be “upside-down” relative to another. As you should also realize that there’s no true “upside-down” to the earth, it’s impossible to orient our planet in such a fashion and erroneous for Isaiah to use this absurd brand of diction. The concept of gravity and its effect among massive spherical bodies would have certainly been a foreign notion to a fallible man, such as Isaiah, when this piece was written over 2000 years ago. However, if the earth were as flat as a casual observation would indicate, and we toss all modern understanding of gravity to the side, it would be very conceivable for us to think that God could invert the earth so that its inhabitants would fall into some unknown void. As the situation stands in the natural world, Isaiah plainly made the flat earth mistake because he had no scientific knowledge beyond that of his peers.
Daniel also commits the same error recorded by Isaiah. He speaks of his dream about a tree so tall that “the height thereof reached unto heaven and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth” (Daniel 4:11). As you may have already deduced, it’s impossible to see a tree from all points on the earth, regardless of how far it ascends, because the earth is spherical. While witnessing this tree might be possible from all points on a plane or from all points on the earth known to the Hebrews, such widespread observation is simply impossible on a massive spherical body. Daniel obviously exhibited no special insight or inspiration either.
The book of Job curiously refers to the earth as “long” and having a “strong” sky with the appearance of “glass” (11:9 and 37:18). “Long” obviously isn’t an accurate term for conveying the idea of a spherical planet. In addition to implying attributes of a flat world, this biblical author reinforces the widespread ancient belief of a glass dome ceiling covering the earth.
In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke record a fantastic tale in which the Devil whisks Jesus to an exceedingly tall mountain in order to show him all the kingdoms of the world (4:8 and 4:5, respectively). Again, you cannot see the entire world from a single point. However, we must recall that the belief in a flat earth began to fizzle by the time writers put these words on hardcopy. Thus, this statement probably only insinuates that Matthew and Luke believed that all the kingdoms of the world were in locations observable from a single point. In other words, this passage is unemphaticly suggesting that the unviewable regions of the globe were void of kingdoms. If this interpretation is the case, the statement contains an entirely different category of error because it neglects civilizations of the Far East and Western Hemisphere that were presumably unknown to Middle Easterners.
On the other side of the coin, there’s a singular instance found in Isaiah that Christians often flaunt to promote an imagined harmony between the Bible and the true configuration of the earth. All the while, previously mentioned scriptures authored by Isaiah and his colleagues go completely ignored. Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” The word in question here is “circle.” A circle is a flat two-dimensional object, while a sphere, the approximate shape of the earth, is a three-dimensional object. The original Hebrew term used in this verse is chug, meaning circle. The same word is used twice in the book of Job to describe Heaven and the sea, two areas that we have no reason to believe anyone ever considered spherical. Furthermore, Isaiah does not use the actual Hebrew word for sphere, kadur, in 40:22 even though this utilization would have been much more appropriate if Isaiah intended to convey a spherical planet. In addition to this logical analysis of the verse, historians have long determined that a disc-shaped earth was a popular belief not only in the Middle East, but also in Greece before the time of Aristotle. We even have ancient maps of Babylon and Egypt containing illustrations of a circular sea surrounding circular land. When you combine this tangible evidence with other biblical comments regarding the shape of the earth, the likelihood of Isaiah 40:22 referring to a sphere is extremely remote.
What Keeps The Earth Aloft?
If you believe the earth is flat, that’s a reasonable question to investigate. The ridiculous proposal offered by imperfect Old Testament authors is a set of pillars. What do we know about these phantom pillars? They “are the Lord’s and he hath set the world upon them” (1 Samuel 2:8); the earth is shaken out of its place when they tremble (Job 9:6); they shake at God’s disapproval (Job 26:11); God holds them in place when the earth shakes (Psalms 75:3).
Keep in mind that no one has ever found such pillars, nor would we ever sanely explore this proposal because the earth isn’t in any real danger of collapsing. Nevertheless, what is all this business about the pillars shaking? Fortunately, the Bible explains the fictitious reason behind this physical phenomenon in more detail. “The Earth shook and trembled…because [God] was wroth” (2 Samuel 22:8 and Psalm 19:7); “At [God’s] wrath the earth shall tremble” (Jeremiah 10:10); God will “shake the heavens and the earth shall remove out of her place…in the days of his fierce anger” (Isaiah 13:13); “The Lord shall roar out of Zion…and the heavens and the earth shall shake” (Joel 3:16); “Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying ‘I will shake the heavens and the earth’” (Haggai 2:21). Since the pillars are supposedly the support foundations for the earth, it’s reasonable to conclude that our world would shake right along with them.
As you can see, the Bible has at least six different sources recording and prophesying earthquakes only during times when God is angry. While these so-called divinely inspired authors are supposed to be speaking on behalf of an omniscient god, they instead offer ancient superstitious explanations for a natural phenomenon known as an earthquake. Today, we know these events are the result of volcanic eruptions or tectonic plate movements in the earth’s crust. Again, the chances of obtaining this knowledge were well beyond the grasp of someone living 2500 years ago. For this reason, the alleged physical manifestations of God’s anger were frightening enough to coerce the scientifically ignorant population into believing these hilariously clueless explanations.
Movement, Or Lack Thereof
Thus far, we have a flat earth with pillars to keep it aloft. Since these pillars are the foundation for the earth, and objects with such foundations tend to remain relatively motionless, does the Bible also imply that the earth doesn’t move? Looking into these potential implications isn’t necessary because the Bible directly spells it out for its audience. “The world also shall be stable that it be not moved” (1 Chronicles 16:30), “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4), “And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath” (Jeremiah 31:37), “And ye strong foundations of the earth” (Micah 6:2). In addition, Psalms twice mentions that the earth has foundations (18:15 and 82:5) and twice mentions that God established the earth so that it cannot be moved (93:1 and 96:10). Furthermore, Psalms also binds the ideas of a foundation and motionlessness: “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever” (104:5).
There should be little debate over what the Old Testament authors thought of the earth’s kinetics and other characteristics. Today, we know that the earth moves in at least five different ways: it rotates on its axis, causing day and night; it revolves around the sun, causing us to maintain our distance; it wobbles due to the gravitational pull toward the moon; it hovers around the galaxy with the rest of our solar system; and the galaxy as a whole is continuously moving through empty space. Did God inspire his biographers with this knowledge, or did he allow the inclusion of blatantly false superstitions in his holy book?
The Sun Plays The Earth
Since the earth is purportedly motionless upon its pillars in the biblical universe, and the sun deceitfully appears to be the body in motion, does the Bible imply that the sun has movement as it relates to the daily cycle on earth? Once again, we’re not required to examine these potential implications because the Bible plainly delivers its held position to us. “[The sun’s] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it” (Psalms 19:6). In more comprehensible English, the sun journeys across the sky in a circular path. Thanks to the work of early astronomers, we now know that the sun is stationary relative to the planets around it. Twenty-five hundred years ago, it would only be logical for divinely uninspired individuals to assume that the sun was the body in revolutionary motion.
Other books of the Old Testament also purport witnesses to similarly strange astronomical events. Isaiah once asked God to move the sun’s shadows ten degrees, and the almighty allegedly complied with this request (2 Kings 20:11, Isaiah 38:8). We can find a comparable event in the book of Joshua when the main character asks God to keep the daytime symbol in the sky longer so that he can defeat his enemies before nightfall (10:12). God allegedly complies with Joshua’s request as well by creating a length of day that had never taken place in the past (10:13-14, Habakkuk 3:11).
The consequences of these two phenomena occurring would be catastrophic. The earth’s gravitationally induced inertia around the sun is the sole force preventing the two massive bodies from merging. Without this momentum, the earth would move gradually yet dangerously closer to the sun. After a short while, it’s quite possible that the earth would become too hot to remain inhabitable if it was able to survive the countless local effects of its halt. At the very least, the polar ice caps would melt and flood the coastlines. Once again, these modern understandings go far beyond the limitations of Ancient Hebrew knowledge. Even so, I suppose that if a power existed to stop the planet from moving, the same power could withhold such consequences from taking place.
A much more detrimental perplexity with these sun-stopping events lies with the presence of astronomers spread throughout different regions of the world. After Joshua’s celestial miracle supposedly took place, the two recording authors specifically say that no one in history had every experienced a day like this. In other words, this extended day was a unique event. As you might have guessed, there’s little credibility to this claim because astronomers in Egypt, China, Babylon, and South America would have certainly recorded an additional 12-24 hours of daytime/nighttime if such an occurrence were this atypical. We are now in possession of the records made by these astronomers. Predictably enough, there’s no indication of such extraordinary and unique astronomical events ever taking place. The only rational and obvious conclusion to make concerning these wild claims is that they’re totally fabricated. Thus, the Bible has once again offered falsified history as fact.
Joel offers one final misinterpretation of the earth’s role in the solar system. He says, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood” during the day of the Lord (2:31). While Joel would probably like his readers to remain scared of these supposedly supernatural events, we now have more advanced knowledge concerning the mechanics of eclipses. The earth goes dark on the rare occasion that the moon passes directly between us and the sun; our nighttime light turns red from the earth’s sunsets projecting on the lunar surface when we sweep directly between the sun and the moon. Again, if you subtract this modern understanding, it wouldn’t be too difficult to frighten a person into believing that a supernatural force was manipulating these heavenly bodies in order to foreshadow some imminent spectacle of anger. Seeing as how this ordinary Hebrew had no reasonable explanation for these extraordinary scientific phenomena, he seemingly invented one of his own.
Sailing Off The Edge
Based on their works that reveal beliefs of a flat, stationary, and pillar-supported earth surrounded by the path of a revolving sun, I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch to say that the authors failed to exhibit divine inspiration. In actuality, the earth isn’t much different from the limitless number of spherical planets revolving around their respective stars in order to hold their positions in their own solar systems. We should expect these fallible biblical authors to have a limited knowledge concerning the true nature of the universe if they were void of inspiration allegedly available from an omniscient deity. This is, in fact, what we observe when undertaking an impartial reading of the Old Testament.
Since the authors leave us with these erroneous notions in the Bible, the majority of unbiased persons who hold the knowledge contained within this chapter would not dare defend the blind belief that an omniscient and omnipotent being directly inspired its authorship. These curious statements are just part of the growing number of solid reasons to consider biblical passages twice before recognizing them as absolute truth. We should never accept any statement based solely on the fact that we can find it in an ancient book claimed to have been co-authored by one of ancient society’s many gods.
Sorry you asked now aren't you Fred Butler? ROFL! Apparently you've never heard of the Association for Biblical Astronomy headed by famous creationist Gerardus Bouw who is also a director of the ICR. Who teaches the earth is flat? ICR does as do all the creationist organizations. Read their literature carefully. I have their flat earth claims right here in front of me. Also the Flat Earth Society is a totally Christian organization which uses the Bible top defend their flat earth claims.
Fred butler said: Even better, can you give me one documented example in all of human history where anyone has ever taught the world was flat?
We don’t have to search history to find people who teach and believe the earth is flat. Today there are about 30 million Bible believers in this country and the majority of them are flat earthers. In fact most of your creationist cult leaders are either flat earthers or are neutral on the issue.
Duane Gish claimed “that not a single member of the Creation Research Society was a member of the Flat Earth Society and that Voorhies’ linking of the two was nothing more than a smear.” Gish’s remarks brought a rejoinder in a subsequent issue of The Flat Earth News from an outraged letter writer (identified only as “G.J.D.”) who had read the Acts & Facts report. “G.J.D.” contested Gish’s claim that no members of the Flat Earth Society belong to the Creation Research Society, concluding, “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, as I belong to both, and I am writing to him to let him know that he is wrong.”
Flat-earther David Wardlaw Scott, who wrote, “It [Scripture] never contradicts facts, and, to the true Christian student, it teaches more real science than all the schools and colleges in the world.”
In his lectures and writings, Samuel Birley Rowbotham, founder of the modern flat-earth movement, repeatedly emphasized the importance of sticking to the facts. He called his system “zetetic astronomy” (zetetic from the Greek verb zetetikos, meaning to seek or inquire) because he sought only facts, and left mere theories to the likes of Copernicus and Newton. Rowbotham devoted the entire first chapter of his magnum opus to praising facts at the expense of theories, concluding, “Let the practise of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.”1
Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, is absolutely vehement about scientific dishonesty. He regularly calls scientists “liars” and “demented dope fiends” and claims that the entire space program is a “carnie game.”
Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”13 Like all flat-earthers, Hampden also accepted the doctrine of creation in six solar days.
Many of the Fathers of the Church were flat-earthers, and they developed a system with which to oppose the Greek astronomy then becoming popular.22 As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book Christian Topography.
The modern flat-earth movement was launched in England, in 1849, with the publication of a 16 page pamphlet, Zetetic Astronomy: A Description of Several Experiments which Prove that the Surface of the Sea Is a Perfect Plane and that the Earth Is Not a Globe! by “Parallax.”24 For the next 35 years, “Parallax” -- his real name was Samuel Birley Rowbotham -- toured England, attacking the spherical system in public lectures. His completely original system, still known to its adherents as “Zetetic Astronomy,” is best described in Rowbotham’s 430 page second edition of Earth Not a Globe, published in 1873.
The Creation Research Society Quarterly generally maintains a discreet silence about geocentricity. The Bible-Science Newsletter, another major creationist periodical, has declared its editorial neutrality on the question.
In the 1920s and 1930s, Wilbur Glenn Voliva of Zion, Illinois, offered $5,000 to anyone who could prove to him that the earth isn’t flat.
Sorry you asked now aren't you Fred Butler? ROFL!
No. Because none of the passages you supplied support what you claim. Just like a typical atheist. Jumping all over the place cherry picking passages and reading into them the things they want. Atheists are some of the worst readers I have ever come across.
I need a passage that specifically sets forth a cosmology that the earth is flat. What you present here can be used to mock on the points of geocentric cosmology, but that's different from saying the earth is flat. You do know that, right Boris?
Apparently you've never heard of the Association for Biblical Astronomy headed by famous creationist Gerardus Bouw who is also a director of the ICR.
Apparently you're wrong. So much for the accuracy of atheistic mockers.
Bouw has never been a director at ICR and in point of fact writes against them as they do him. Additionally, he believes in geocentrism, not a flat earth, apparently two ideas you probably haven't really studied because you keep conflating them as one. Of the articles he has written for various creation journals (which are few), none of them deal with his geocentric views, but other non-related cosmological studies.
All groups have their cranks. Am I to appeal to the many atheists who make appearances regularly on Coast to Coast to promote their panspermia concepts as reputable scientists? From your perspective, I should.
ICR does as do all the creationist organizations. Read their literature carefully. I have their flat earth claims right here in front of me. Also the Flat Earth Society is a totally Christian organization which uses the Bible top defend their flat earth claims.
Okay pal. If you have flat earth claims right in front of you, please give names and citations. Let me guess. I am sure you are going to cite me some more cranks who aren't really involved with creationist organizations, are you now? Talk about ROFL. Anti-theist skeptics are all the same, all mouth but nothing to show for it.
Darn, Boris must think he's the Holy Trinity, he never makes one comment anymore without making three in a row, before anyone else even responds. Except I think he posted about five long rants, not merely three. Maybe he thinks he's the reincarnation of the entire Hindu pantheon.
Fred, you are right about the difference between flat earth and geocentric, and Boris has gotten those two concepts mixed up before in his eagerness to denounce anyone else who has anything to say at all.
What needs to be understood about Bible passages such as Isaiah and Daniel is that they are poetic attempts to convey an almost inexpressible glimpse of a frighteningly divine plane of existence, which is generally conveyed in highly poetic language. That's not to say it isn't the word of God, but to pull a phrase out of context doesn't provide a particularly edifying meaning.
Finally though, Fred, you need to remember that for every Ph.D there is an equal and opposite Ph.D -- piling up numbers of Ph.D's and saying "see, what they say must be true" gets a little silly. Ph.D's have all the same foibles as the rest of us. While AIG may not specifically require a single day of creation, it has flatly denied that 3 and 1/2 to 4 billion years of evolution from simpler to more complex forms could have happened, not because there is good evidence to believe otherwise, but because they can't find it in the Bible. I can, much to Boris's dismay.
While AIG may not specifically require a single day of creation, it has flatly denied that 3 and 1/2 to 4 billion years of evolution from simpler to more complex forms could have happened, not because there is good evidence to believe otherwise, but because they can't find it in the Bible
So. Are you a theistic evolutionist? Seeing that evolution depends upon the concepts of long ages and descent with modification, at what point is there any thing supernatural in your particular world view?
No. Because none of the passages you supplied support what you claim. Just like a typical atheist. Jumping all over the place cherry picking passages and reading into them the things they want. Atheists are some of the worst readers I have ever come across.
Boris says: Now that’s really funny as well as being ludicrous. Atheists know that when they are reading narratives that contain word for word conversations between people, people and angels, people and demons, people and talking animals, people and a god they are reading fiction. Please provide one historical narrative that is written in the style of the Bible. You can’t recognize the most obvious sign that the Bible is fiction and you claim atheists are bad readers. You haven’t a clue about literary criticism. If you did you would know that your Buybull fails every test there is for historicity and passes every test for fiction with flying colors. The fact is that Christian apologists don’t even recognize that almost all fiction is placed in a historical setting and mentions historical places and people. These apologists use this fact as evidence that the Bible must be historical. Palestine really exists! Yes but the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their forty kings never existed. They are fictional kingdoms and kings. Who is the bad reader? I know what I’m reading. You don’t.
I need a passage that specifically sets forth a cosmology that the earth is flat. What you present here can be used to mock on the points of geocentric cosmology, but that's different from saying the earth is flat. You do know that, right Boris?
Boris says: Now you are resorting to the desperate creationist ploy of pretending your questions haven’t been sufficiently answered and your points satisfactorily refuted by dismissing my answers without presenting any evidence of your own to prove me wrong. Now it’s your turn. I need scriptural evidence that the earth really moves. Then I want Bible passages that support a round moving earth that orbits the sun, which also moves through space. I need to know where among the passages I supplied is any hint of modern cosmology. I answered your questions now you answer mine.
Apparently you're wrong. So much for the accuracy of atheistic mockers.
Bouw has never been a director at ICR and in point of fact writes against them as they do him. Additionally, he believes in geocentrism, not a flat earth, apparently two ideas you probably haven't really studied because you keep conflating them as one....
Boris says: Bouw uses the Bible to base his “biblical astronomy” on. That’s the point. At least Bouw is intellectually honest enough to try to defend what the Bible really says. This is quite unlike you who tries to claim the Bible doesn’t say what it clearly does.
All groups have their cranks. Am I to appeal to the many atheists who make appearances regularly on Coast to Coast to promote their panspermia concepts as reputable scientists? From your perspective, I should.
Boris says: When has Coast to Coast had anyone reputable on the air? I’m not a regular listener.
Okay pal. If you have flat earth claims right in front of you, please give names and citations. Let me guess. I am sure you are going to cite me some more cranks who aren't really involved with creationist organizations, are you now? Talk about ROFL. Anti-theist skeptics are all the same, all mouth but nothing to show for it.
Boris says: What do you mean nothing to show for it? You asked if anyone ever taught the earth was flat and I provided a few people and groups who do. The important point is that all flat earth believers use the Bible to defend their flat earth claims and cite the exact same passages I did to do so. What is your explanation for that? If an omniscient God authored the Bible why would he write it in a way that would lead so many people to believe false things like in a flat immovable earth or that Jesus Christ was certain to return during their particular lifetime? Don’t avoid my questions. Answer them first before you respond with more questions of your own. And don’t just dismiss them without refuting them.
Now you are resorting to the desperate creationist ploy of pretending your questions haven’t been sufficiently answered...
(Fred) That's because they haven't been sufficiently answered. You claimed the Bible taught a flat earth cosmology. I told you to prove it. All you did was cut and paste an article from some atheist hack website that cherry picks passages taken out of context and then when I point out your error, you give me this nonsense about you being some alleged expert in linguistics as if you really know anything about literature and language to begin with.
So again, supply me with a biblical passage that presents a flat earth cosmology.
Bouw uses the Bible to base his “biblical astronomy” on. That’s the point.
No. The point is you claimed he was the director of ICR. He has never been affiliated with ICR. That's like me claiming Richard Hoagland who claims buildings exist on Mars was once the director of NASA. You lied as to Bouw's credentials. Oh yeah, that's right, your and atheist, lying is relative.
You asked if anyone ever taught the earth was flat and I provided a few people and groups who do.
No. I asked for you to show me one passage in the Bible that teaches the earth is flat. What you cited are examples of geocentrism, not flat earth myths. So try again.
The groups you do cite as flat earthers, most of them are atheist hoaxes, and the most notorious aren't even Christian, let alone creationists. Flat earth societies haven't even existed really before the 20th century.
The important point is that all flat earth believers use the Bible to defend their flat earth claims and cite the exact same passages I did to do so. What is your explanation for that?
It's the same reason you have groups of atheists who believe in panspermia, or multi-verses, or that Jesus didn't exist. There are kooks in every group.
If an omniscient God authored the Bible why would he write it in a way that would lead so many people to believe false things like in a flat immovable earth or that Jesus Christ was certain to return during their particular lifetime?
Short answer: To expose people's sin and keep them blind to the truth of the gospel.
Hank - can you respond the following statement in made in the comments related to the article found at the included link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6884359.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=1515793
"I don't know what triggered the big bang, science's required first cause. Neither does anyone. This makes our position just like yours, in which neither you nor anyone knows what triggered your first cause, god. If teleology makes the scientific view illogical, it does the same for religion."
I've never known Hank to respond to ANY comment ever. I think he just posts his own thoughts, then let's the rest of us talk about it. But, I would note that God has no first cause. The concept "first" implies the dimension of time, and time is a created dimension of the physical universe. The universe needs a first cause. Scientifically, there is no evidence that it was or was not God. But if by faith you believe there is a God, then you need look no further for a first cause, nor need you fear the facts compiled and analyzed by science.
Fred, I am trying to see through a glass darkly, that is, through the intervening self-admiration society of Boris, to carry on a decent conversation responding to your last question. You could, I suppose, call me a theistic evolutionist. A WELS pastor who is a literal creationist, in keeping with the teachings of his church, once told me I had gone beyond theistic evolution, to Biblical evolution, and if he had to believe in evolution, he likes my version better than any other. I attend his church often, although I am not welcome at communion, and do not seek it there. Even a convinced atheist, the astronomer Fred Hoyle, acknowledges that the physics of the universe looks very much like someone monkeyed with it to produce a very unlikely combination of circumstances which would make possible life as we know it. Given that God is not limited by time, my general belief is that God did create all that is, seen and unseen, set it to produce
(a) stars, (b) elements such as carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and various trace minerals, (c) a generation of stars which would be longer lived, (d) chemical properties which would make life likely if not inevitable, and has in very subtle ways only an omnipotent God is capable of, pushed the process along in just the right way. Note that Genesis says "then God said... let the water bring forth... let the earth bring forth..." not "then God shaped mud to form fish." There was a subtle but authoritative divine command, and the natural properties built into the chemistry responded. I accept that humans are a unique creation, made in the image of God, but I suspect that our bodies are not only the result, but the intended result, of evolutionary biology, and "the image of God" is largely a spiritual component. Also, I have learned enough about the original Hebrew to know that Adam means humanity, not "a man." The Hebrew contains the words ish and isha for man and woman. When God made man in his own image "male and female created he them." Male alone is not the image of God. That's enough for one answer. I'm interested in what you have to say next.
(Fred) That's because they haven't been sufficiently answered. You claimed the Bible taught a flat earth cosmology. I told you to prove it. All you did was cut and paste an article from some atheist hack website that cherry picks passages taken out of context and then when I point out your error, you give me this nonsense about you being some alleged expert in linguistics as if you really know anything about literature and language to begin with. So again, supply me with a biblical passage that presents a flat earth cosmology.
Boris says: You can’t just say I didn’t answer your questions without providing information as to exactly what is wrong with my answers point by point. Otherwise my answers stand until they are refuted. That’s the way things work in a real debate. Creationists never debate fairly though so I’m used to your sophomoric avoidance tactics. The flat earth cosmology in the Bible begins with the very first verse, which says that the heavens and the earth are separate creations. We now know that the earth is simply part of the heavens or space in which there is no up or down, north or south, east or west and no center. Yet God supposedly put a dome above the earth. This would be impossible unless the earth was flat and immovable as the rest of the Bible clearly implies that it is. The fact that vegetation supposedly appeared on the dome- covered earth BEFORE the sun and moon even existed demonstrates the scientific ignorance of the biblical authors as well as the people who believe anything they wrote. I know plenty about literature and language and I challenged you to provide historical narratives that contain word for word conversations like the ones we find in the Bible. You conveniently ignored this request. Gee I wonder why. Even a fifth grader knows when they read word for word dialog in a narrative they are reading fiction. It doesn’t take an expert in literature to figure this out but it takes a mind stupefied by religious doctrine and nonsense to not be able to figure this out.
No. The point is you claimed he was the director of ICR. He has never been affiliated with ICR. That's like me claiming Richard Hoagland who claims buildings exist on Mars was once the director of NASA. You lied as to Bouw's credentials. Oh yeah, that's right, your and atheist, lying is relative.
Boris says: If you google IBSS - The Bible and Science - The Creation Controversy, you’ll see: The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) headed by Henry Morris is the leader of ... retired as editor and passed the reins over to Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw. ... The article about Bouw’s association with the ICR is on the Internet on a Christian website. Now the information may be incorrect but I didn’t make it up myself or lie about it as you claim. There’s a big difference between being incorrect and lying. So was the Christian website I got this information from just lying? Oh that’s right they’re Christians, liars for Jesus. They must have been. Using your methodology anyway.
No. I asked for you to show me one passage in the Bible that teaches the earth is flat. What you cited are examples of geocentrism, not flat earth myths. So try again.
Boris says: No, you asked who taught a flat earth and I listed some people who do and did. I also asked you for scriptural evidence that the earth moves and you conveniently ignored this and my other questions. Come on man stop avoiding my questions. What’s the matter? No answers in Genesis after all huh?
The groups you do cite as flat earthers, most of them are atheist hoaxes, and the most notorious aren't even Christian, let alone creationists. Flat earth societies haven't even existed really before the 20th century.
Boris says: All the flat earth believers, immovable earth believers, anti-evolution believers get their ideas from the same place: the Bible. Name these notorious organizations that aren’t Christian. Don’t just claim they exist. Prove it. There’s no such thing as an atheist hoax. What would an atheist need to pull a hoax for exactly? We atheists aren’t the ones making absurd anti-scientific claims about magic and miracles and invisible magical beings or that we have a paper idol people must obey. We atheists aren’t positing pseudo-science that can’t produce any viable usable results like Intelligent Design magic or creation “science.” It’s religious people that are always promoting their stupid hoaxes, hoaxes that fool only themselves.
It's the same reason you have groups of atheists who believe in panspermia, or multi-verses, or that Jesus didn't exist. There are kooks in every group.
Boris says: The kooks are the people who believe that a person whose birth and supposed resurrection were announced by angels was an actual historical figure. Jesus Christ never existed and I can provide an impressive list of respected scholars who have said the same thing. I would ask you to provide some evidence from outside the Bible that Jesus Christ actually existed but there isn’t anything. Not a word. If there were Christian apologists would not have to resort to pointing to spurious passages written by Roman historians (no contemporary Jewish writer ever mentioned Jesus) almost a century after the supposed time of Jesus. There very well could indeed be multiple universes, trillions of them for all we know. Prove there aren’t.
Short answer: To expose people's sin and keep them blind to the truth of the gospel.
Boris says: So God sends people to hell on purpose? Nice God other people have scared you with. Guess what. We atheists aren’t scared. And that is what makes you so angry. You know other people are enjoying happy satisfied lives without the guilt and fear that dominate your life. What really gets under your skin is you know it is very likely we won’t ever be punished for our “sinful” lifestyles and worldviews. We’re living the way you wish you had the guts to live. But you don’t. You knuckled under to the fear induced superstitions put in your head by other people.
The reason people are atheists, is because unbelief is the natural position to take until something has been proved. The existence of God hasn’t been proved and in fact God belief isn’t based on any evidence but only faith in some really stupid arguments. You believe them, I can see through them.
You can’t just say I didn’t answer your questions without providing information as to exactly what is wrong with my answers point by point.
Well Boris, sorry pal, I am not going to go through the myriad of problems with your citations point by point. I don't have the time, nor really the interest. I actually have family and friends I am devoted to first and foremost. Plus, the conversation here is running its course for me and I am bored with it. I have other atheists I am arguing with at my blog and I don't really have the willingness to be side tracked with some other guy in the comments of this blog. If you want to gloat, call me a coward, or what ever, go for it. If you really want to be challenged as to your atheism, I would go to Triablogue Those guys will put up a particularly good fight for you.
One thing I do want to address before I leave is this statement by you here:
If you google IBSS - The Bible and Science - The Creation Controversy, you’ll see: The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) headed by Henry Morris is the leader of ... retired as editor and passed the reins over to Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw. ... The article about Bouw’s association with the ICR is on the Internet on a Christian website.
Did you even bother checking the link and reading through it before made your claim here? Or did you just glance over the google summary? If you actually go to the link of your search parameter, it reads:
The Association for Biblical Astronomy was originally founded in 1971 by the late Dutch-Canadian educator, Walter van der Kamp. At the time it was called the Tychonian Society. In 1984 Walter retired as editor and passed the reins over to Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw. In January of 1991 the Tychonian Society was renamed the Association for Biblical Astronomy.
There is nothing here about Bouw taking over from Henry Morris as director of ICR. You're not even mistaken about this, but flat wrong. Unless you have a specific link you would like to point me to where it states what you claim about Bouw, then you need to retract your statements up above about ICR. Something tells me you will just indignantly insist you're right in spite of being shown wrong a dozen times. Geesh, does every atheist emulate Dan Barker in stupidity or what?
Fred Butler is just one more creationist wacko that I've humiliated right off this blog. Fred butler is just one more liar exposed by the truth. Bye bye coward. Bye bye liar. Bye bye loser.
Yes, yes, yes. So humiliated. Gone over to triablogue yet and engaged those guys? In fact the post of today would be a great place for you to offer your unassailable "logic."
Go over there an humiliate them for me.
Fred I'm not here to humiliate anyone other than Hank Hanegraaf. I checked this Triablogue blog out. I read the post about William Dembski. Is that the one you want me to comment on? I've read some of his work and some critiques of it. Dembski is a young earth creationist disguised in a lab coat. The thread doesn't really inspire me to comment but I suppose I can post something for your entertainment. My posts usually get a lot of responses on blogs. We'll see I guess.
Hey Fred I thought these guys at Trailblogue had some doodads. You said they could put up a good fight. What a crock. I got banned for telling the truth as soon as these losers could see the damage I would do to their shaky belief system.
Boris Has Been Banned
I've deleted his most recent posts, banned him, and hidden his posts that aren't deleted. He created two Boris screen names, probably in an attempt to have a second one in place in case his first account was banned. I suspect he knew that his behavior was bad enough to warrant a banning. He may decide to post again under other screen names. And he complains about Christian ethics.
Fred these liars are just as chicken hearted and dishonest as you are.
Get a life.
Hey Fred check it out. There is a thread called "Boris has been banned" on Triablogue and in the short time it's been up there have been forty posts so far. What did I tell you? My posts always seem to draw a lot of attention and comments. Deak I have life and it's pretty cool. Look at all the people interested in what I write.
If we don't pay attention to Boris, he'll hold his breath until he turns blue.
WOW...This is the craziest conversation. Everyone trying to change the others mind...THAT will never happen.
All I know is when Boris was asked to give examples (and he gave many), I had to laugh. Are we to believe that every word in the Bible is literal? I often talk of "money growing on trees" and about "reaching up to touch the hand of God", but I don't REALLY mean exactly that.
I'm a theistic (christian) evolutionist, and I have to blush in embarrassment and annoyance at the sheer ignorance of Hank here.
Evolution is crumbling? Daily the number of evolutionists grow, as does the irrefutable evidences, while the opposing side shrinks. Do you know why? Reality. The evidence of the real world testifies of the *fact* of evolution.
It was the *Christian* Biologist Dobzhansky who said, "Nothing in all biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Hank, did you really take the time to read this book "The Greatest Show on Earth"? As far as I can tell, you offered nothing of the real world, by means of evidence, to disprove anything he said, whereas he brought things that can be observed and tested. Where is your evidence to support your belief? "That's not what the Bible says!" holds no water in reality, when faced with evidence.
Evolutionists accept evolution based on *evidence*, anti-evolutionists base their rejection of evolution on what? Saying, "My literal interpretation of an ancient metaphorical text says it can't be!" doesn't work.
Dawkins never said we came from bananas, simply that all life is related, but you twist things to the applause of other ignorant men, while exploiting their lack of knowledge.
And your appeal to racism on the part of Darwinians is of no substance, as it doesn't do away with the mountain of irrefutable evidence to back the fact of evolution. You should know better than to use such fallacies that any intelligent man can clearly see.
Now, address the *evidence*. Explain to me the purpose of pseudogenes and resulting atavisms; vestigial organs, limbs, behaviors; the consistent distribution of fossils in the strata and the compartive anatomy of those extinct species below with existing species above; the geographical distibution of species and observed genetic drift;, etc., etc., etc.. Make sense of these *realities* in the light of creationism, and I'll make sense of them in the light of evolution.
Creationists always do this, they totally ignore the evidence and appeal to things which reveal their ignorance.
That's right. Who needs those old vestigial organs anyhow? In fact, to prove those stupid creationists wrong, I'm gonna look into having all of mine surgically removed.
Sarcasm based in ignorance won't change reality.
Hank, can you explain to me how evolution is crumbling, when the number of evolutionists grows daily?
Ignorance!
Are you kidding? I don't need my wisdom teeth because they are evolutionary leftovers from our past ancestor and they can be safely removed without any physical harm coming to me. So I don't see why I can't have my vomeronasal organ safely removed to show those hill billy creationists how stupid they are. It's about time we evolutionists stand up for scientific fact and reject this witch craft they call creationism!
Fred Butler has had his ability to think and reason removed by his religious indoctrination.
Post a Comment