Apologist Ken Ham's response to atheists, skeptics who 'scoff' at Noah's Ark
By: Billy Hallowell
The flood was a real global event as it was described. It was an earth changing event from the near perfect world of creation to the present less stable version it is now. All the earth quake and volcanic activity, the axis it’s on now and the polar ice as well as all the mixed up fossil layers are due to this event. It was real and did happen, despite the naysaying of the atheists among us.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Apologist Ken Ham, CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis, is no stranger to making headlines as he embraces innovative and uncommon ways of spreading the Christian faith.
But he attracted an entirely new level of international attention when he opened the Ark Encounter in 2016, a lifesize replica of Noah’s Ark, located in Williamstown, Kentucky.
Ham, author of the new book, Will They Stand: Parenting Kids to Face the Giants , recently shared with the “Edifi With Billy Hallowell” podcast the path that led him to build the 510-foot long structure, and his quest to help people better understand scripture.
“Noah’s flood is a very important event … and yet it’s so scoffed at by atheists,” he said, noting that a persistent question always plagued him when he worked as a teacher back in the 1970s.
Listen to Ham discuss this question, his response — and his plea for parents to properly equip their kids to face the giants of the day:
Ham said students would often try to poke holes in the Noah narrative, questioning how all of the animals could have possibly fit inside the ark. They argued that, due to the seemingly insurmountable task, the worldwide flood account simply couldn’t be a real-life story.
This persistent question and argument later left Ham pondering what he could do to better bring the biblical account to life — and that’s where the roots of the Ark Encounter were set.
“What if we built Noah’s Ark to scale using the measurements in the Bible?” he pondered.
That quest culminated in the creation of the massive ark replica, an attraction that is one-and-a-half times the length of a football field. With three decks of exhibits inside the Ark Encounter, Ham believes he’s giving visitors the chance to see the biblical epic in a much clearer light.
“It makes the Bible come alive in a way that people can’t experience elsewhere,” Ham said. “And it answers these skeptical questions.”
The apologist believes the Ark Encounter underscores the great flood as an “integral event in history” and as a reminder of God’s love.
“Noah’s Ark, itself, is a picture of Jesus, as Noah and his family went through one door to be saved,” Ham said. “So we need to go through a door to be saved.”
Listen to Ham discuss the ark as well as his new book urging parents to better equip children for an increasingly chaotic culture here.
Tags
Who is online
30 visitors
The flood was a real global event as it was described. It was an earth changing event from the near perfect world of creation to the present less stable version it is now. All the earth quake and volcanic activity, the axis it’s on now and the polar ice as well as all the mixed up fossil layers are due to this event. It was real and did happen, despite the naysaying of the atheists among us.
No it did not. That's just another biblical myth. I'd explain why it didn't really didn't happen, but since you reject real science and scoff at observable and proven facts, I won't waste my time
oh come on, is that any way to talk to a distant cousin?
Decent folk get to respectfully disagree.
are those the same folks that think they're descendants of noah's family houseboat orgy?
Yep. That might have been the case. Not everything I say is for everyone I know, either.
One of the key foundational purposes behind all of the rules in Leviticus is that the Hebrew people were supposed to live differently from their Egyptian and Canaanite neighbors. Not that there was anything wrong with the way Egyptians and Canaanites lived. It's just that the Hebrews were going to follow different rules. It solidified them as a community.
That's literally what it meant to be "Holy" - i.e. "set apart." So it's actually more consistent to imagine that this event and the rainbow were meant only for these people. The Bible is a collection of writings, stories, and songs that tell the story of this specific culture and their particular relationship with God.
That's a terrible argument. There is no reason to think that time or space was a concern for the people who wrote down the scriptures. The was no mandate from the editor like, "Make sure you can get this story told in four chapters, because our readers hate a long story, and GODDAMMIT I'M NOT MADE OF PAPYRUS!!!"
There is tons of stuff in scripture that couldn't possibly be relevant to future generations, particularly in other parts of the world. Genealogies of Adam? Including their ages? Does anyone need to know that a guy named Enosh lived to be nine hundred and five years old?
Then how and where did it recede ? Did it evaporate really fast ? Lol
Always loved Bill Cosby's version of noah talking togod and after getting the "measurements " of the Ark, asks, "what's a cubit"?
and what was considered a year back then? 30 days?
Rational folk do not believe in fairy tales, much less accept them as fact or truth. Especially when there is evidence to the contrary.
I addressed points like that in a previous article.
This seed is not speaking of general belief in a god. It is expressing the ridiculous specific beliefs of Young Earth Creationism.
Young Earth Creationism beliefs are demonstrably irrational.
For example, do you believe that human beings coexisted with dinosaurs? Do you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old?
Those are two (of many) irrational YEC beliefs.
Yes. Belief in general is irrational. Especially when claims are made based on nothing but belief or otherwise contrary to established evidence or facts.
True. I already addressed that irrationality a few months back.
Best bet is to vote for the most rational of the irrationals. Options do tend to be limited.
And yet we are wasting mucho moolah on the fairy tale of extraterrestrial life. Zero evidence supports the billions of dollars being wasted on launching our disposable junk into space to pollute the rest of the solar system. The Perseverance rover is as much a theme park publicity stunt as Ken Ham's Ark Encounter. And the Perseverance rover cost a helluva lot more than did the Ark Encounter; just so the NASA publicity department can show us pictures of a dead planet and beg for more public money.
Claiming that rational folk don't believe in fairy tales simply isn't true. NASA is proof of that.
Again, you demonstrate that you willfully conflate the goals of science and religion. Religion looks for that which confirms its preconceived conclusions. Science follows the evidence. Perseverance wasn't launched on the assumption that life or evidence of past life would be found on Mars. If it finds it, fine. If not, also fine.
Yeah, right. NASA spins a fairy tale and then spends boatloads of of public money to obtain evidence. And if the evidence doesn't support the fairy tale then NASA just does a rewrite. As long as the money keeps flowing then all is good.
The only goal of science is to obtain money and resources. That's it. And what does science provide for all the resources it takes away from society? Science provides no comfort and offers no hope. Every new scientific discovery establishes a new existential crisis that requires diverting resources away from public use.
Science would twist the flood story into an existential crisis. It's happened before and it can happen again. We must spend hundreds of 12-zeros to study, watch, and prepare. But science never seems ready when a crisis actually arrives. Science always needs more money and resources but it's never enough.
Your resentment of science is obvious. What do you have against knowledge?
Nerm, science is the reason you lived past childhood.
That's a strawman argument that falsely elevates science as the only source of knowledge. You do realize that the Biblical stories are based upon and presents knowledge of human behavior. The Bible isn't about God; the Bible is about humans. And the knowledge presented in the Bible isn't very flattering, is it?
Science sycophants apparently wish to divert attention away from the knowledge contained in the Bible so they can repeat the human failings that Biblical knowledge tells us about.
That is an unsupported claim that could easily be refuted by a narcissistic telling of my life story. I choose to heed the knowledge presented in the Bible (because I have been granted free will) and avoid the hubris of extroverted grab-asses.
Spare us your anti-science rhetoric. Searching for life is as much about exploring the universe (especially our own solar system) around us as it is looking for life. And there's plenty of evidence that life may exist elsewhere.
And I suppose you think the moon landings were faked too?
Money well spent.
Nice ad hom attack.
NASA explores because of the evidence.
As Sandy correctly points out, "Your resentment of science is obvious."
Science is why you can live in a house and not a cave. Science is why you can live a long life and be reasonably healthy too. Science is why you can travel practically anywhere in the world instead of having to walk everywhere. Science is why you can post your hatred of it on the internet in forums like this. Science is why we can enjoy modern luxuries.
Science contradicts the flood story.
Within that parameter, the bible is no more different or special than many other books printed which highlights or deals with the human condition.
You fail to understand the purpose of science then.
That claim is a demonstrable fact, as shown through the lens of medical advancements. More children survive infancy and childhood thanks to medical science. People in general can survive serious injury or disease thanks to science. People live longer and more active lives thanks to science. To disagree or claim otherwise is just plain willfully ignorant and in denial of fact!
Another strawman argument. Disney World isn't fake. But the purpose of Disney World is to make money. The same is true of space exploration. Neil Armstrong risked his life for NASA's future funding requests. We sent men to the moon, they took pictures, and we all got T-shirts.
NASA obtains evidence after spinning a fairy tale. And if the evidence doesn't match the fairy tale then NASA just rewrites the fairy tale. What happened with OCO-2?
When did presenting truth become resentment? Answering that question may provide insight into science's resentment of religion.
Now that is irrational cynicism. Either you have your own special definition for the word ‘science’ or you have no concept of science.
That's a strawman on your part. Where did I say science was the only source of knowledge?
Your comment reveals a resentment of the search for knowledge via science.
Any amateur psychologist can tell us as much about human nature as the Bible, with no fairy tales or empty threats needed.
Not at all. The idea of the Mars rovers being publicity stunts is no different than the claims of faked moon landings. Many probably thought the moon landings were fakes as a publicity stunt too.
A false equivalency.
Another baseless anti science allegation.
Your own bias is not truth. You seem to want to spin your own idea of truth. Science doesn't deal with religion. The idea that science resents religion is a fantasy you made up in your own mind.
Correct. Science reveals the unabashed facts of reality (as best as can be determined by existing methods).
You criticize science because it does not invent comforting alternate realities??
Lots of fear projected in that comment.
Buy a vowel.
Earth itself is the evidence! Since life exists here, it's probable it can exist elsewhere. Especially in a universe with trillions and trillions of stars and planets.
See previous statement. Given our technological limitations, finding actual life elsewhere is a challenge. All we need to absolutely prove life exists elsewhere is to find a single microbe. Imagine if the Perseverance rover finds so much as a microbe. That will be proof right there!
Apparently, some people cannot cope with actual reality. So they turn to religion to provide emotional comfort, even if it means rejecting science or actual reality.
I never said proof.
I never said it did either.
Yes, because science follows the evidence to where it leads and that can lead to new discoveries, including proof. Science never said life absolutely exists elsewhere. Only that it possibly does.
So does that mean you don't intend to get vaccinated?
Earth itself is evidence, as I previously stated. Earth is subject to the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe. We know the myriad of conditions in which life can originate and evolve. Given the number of stars and planets in the universe (and planets within their stars habitable zone), it becomes mathematically probably that there is life. That's why we're searching for it.
As we know life, but that is not to say that other forms of life don't exist.
The best part about life and science is that we don't even know the questions to ask to determine what we don't know.
This is news to you??
It is news to you that science does not declare omniscience??
Seriously, Texan, Gordy makes accurate statements and you respond as though he were contradicting himself.
Of life in the universe. The universe is capable of hosting life.
Proof is nice. But I never said proof. You did. Earth is proof that life exists in this universe. The conditions for life and the mathematics involved is evidence life could exist elsewhere in the universe. If we do find life elsewhere, even to the smallest degree, that will be proof life exists elsewhere. Some might believe there's life elsewhere in the universe, which is also irrational. But one can speculate life exists based on Earth and mathematical probability. There is neither evidence nor proof of any god/s (depending on how god/s are defined).
I would hope so, considering I have had to explain it multiple times now.
Open your mind just a tiny little bit and consider what Gordy wrote.
Earth is a product of the same fundamental physics that has produced the entire universe. Earth is evidence that these fundamental physics of reality (as we know it) can produce life.
It is possible that Earth is the only planet in the universe that has life. But it is entirely wrong-headed to ignore the fact that life did emerge from the fundamental physics of the universe. Current estimates suggest (assuming one planet per solar system) that the universe contains 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 exoplanets. All those laboratories for life, based on the same fundamental physics and many running with more time than was needed on Earth.
That is correct. If we did discover forms of life outside of how we current define or understand life (i.e. inorganic, silicon based, ect.) that would profoundly change our understanding of the universe and of life itself.
I'll go one step further and say when answers are found, it only leads to more questions to be answered. The process of discovery and learning only expands and never ends.
A blatant misrepresentation of what Gordy wrote. He did not write that exolife exists but that it is likely. Monster difference between certainty and likely.
Intellectual dishonesty.
That's a strawman argument because I never claimed the moon landing was fake. The moon program was as real as the launch of the Perseverance rover and Elon Musk's launch of a Tesla automobile into space. What I stated is that all of those real events were pursued for publicity value.
We landed men on the moon to beat the Russians. The moon program was pursued for purposes of national prestige and publicity value. That's why the moon program lost public attention so quickly and why we haven't been back. NASA couldn't spin a new fairy tale that warranted throwing more money at the moon.
And that's a lot of laboratories.
Earth itself is but 1 laboratory for life. Out of all those possible laboratories, all we need is just 1 with even the simplest of life to prove there is life elsewhere in the universe.
Are you sure that's the number of planets and not the national debt?
400 sextillion should be easy for Biden and company to beat next week.
Such silly questions. Of course I intend to get vaccinated. But I don't delude myself into believing that the vaccines are the result of scientific altruism.
Scientific knowledge has commercial value. And commercial rewards drives the pursuit of science. Greed drives science; not the pursuit of knowledge.
Well if you are not going to even acknowledge what Gordy wrote then why reply?
Read what I said again! I never said you made such a claim. I compared the claims.
I'm glad we agree on that.
Momentous events always carry public interest and publicity value. But that's just a bonus. There's nothing wrong with stirring interest and inspiration. Such events also carry scientific, economic, military, or political value too.
We were also limited by technology and understanding. But the value of going to the moon beyond publicity has been recognized for decades.
No explanation, just a nuh’uh. Note that I explain my observations. I back up my claims.
Scientific knowledge has commercial value. The next scientific breakthrough provides an opportunity to become rich overnight.
Even Ken Ham utilizes bits of science for it's commercial value. Science transformed dinosaurs into pop culture icons that has proven to be very lucrative. The Bible doesn't say anything about creatures that could be interpreted as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are only included in the Ark Encounter because science created the commercial opportunity.
Yes. And ... ?
No, he uses peoples ignorance and gullibility for that.
Actually, Steven Spielberg did that.
Mr. Hamm (among others) seems to genuinely believe dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
there is the same likely hood of other life in the universe as there is that God exists.
Did you even bother reading my other posts? I actually touched on that particular point. I'll leave it to you to figure out where.
Wrong.
There is no evidence of any god, ever. Much less the Christian God. Nothing. Just claims from human beings.
There is essentially undeniable evidence (as close to proof that one can get in reality) that life has emerged from the fundamental physics of the universe.
What one can defensibly say is this:
Texan is right on correct here.
Then you are blatantly misrepresenting what Gordy wrote as well.
What you wrote in @1.1.30 was "Not at all. The idea of the Mars rovers being publicity stunts is no different than the claims of faked moon landings. Many probably thought the moon landings were fakes as a publicity stunt too."
Publicity stunts do not require faking anything as Elon Musk demonstrated. You've made a strawman argument to establish a false equivalency by equating publicity stunts with fakes; no one claimed anything was faked.
And greed drives the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
That reads as though you believe all scientists are driven by greed. That belief is both profoundly wrong and highly cynical.
If one is driven by greed, one should major in Finance and work in the financial market. One should not pursue a career in science because those are inherently low paying careers (relatively speaking).
Nerm,
I have two daughters who are both in medical sciences and I can tell you that they follow the findings and money has nothing to do with it. Even when they were at Hopkins, all the research followed the science. How else do you think they could make all the breakthroughs they have?
There might be some fields that are influenced by money, but the majority of science research follows the scientific method.
No, he's not. And the fact that he cannot explain or support his position, but instead goes meta and makes personal attacks only demonstrates the weakness of his argument.
I didn't say anyone claimed these event were faked. Although there are those conspiracy theorists who deny the moon landings actually happened. I said claiming such endeavors are publicity stunts is not different than saying they are faked. Those who claim falsehood will also claim such "demonstrations" were a publicity stunt in themselves.
Yes, scientific endeavors require funding. But to claim or even imply that science is driven solely by greed is disingenuous and wrong!
Not silly at all.
Moving the goal posts as usual Nerm.
The FACT that the vaccine does indeed provide comfort and hope is in NO WAY diminished by the fact that it invention and production isn't a selfless act.
See above Nerm...
Welcome to one of my seeds the secular minded can’t stand.
Considering you already have a comment that was deleted, I'd say my assessment is correct.
Translation: your claims have been challenged and the responses (rare) to the challenges have been pathetic.
Hardly. More like the secular (and rational) mind just laughs at. Like Texan said, "open mike at the comedy club!"
In other words, the standard reply.
sounds like you've earned the ARC de Triumph
Always, predictable. Hard to imagine the perceived value of posting comments that are almost always obviously wrong, are shown to be wrong, and are not defended (because there is no defense).
How can anyone think that the ark story is real in spite of countless fact-based explanations showing that it is (of course) simply a story. How can these facts simply be ignored with zero consideration to verify that they might indeed be correct?
Denying all information contrary to a religious belief is the only way I can see anyone today actually holding notions such as a worldwide flood. Modern civilization is replete with easily available information on subjects like this.
Self delusion.
That's what religion can do: convince someone to reject critical thinking and anything which might contradict a belief.
Some seem to prefer to remain willfully ignorant.
uncommon, common sense, is what America has become, a country of the ignorant and dumb, who irregardlessly feel the need to prove they are off speed, pitched while caught, purchased while bought, lowered in stature, lower than i could have thought less of, cause more on, and i could go on, but against my religion, so i will, cause where there is a Will, someone must a just died, like our country but slower, as Russian to show US the weigh down, yet wait not long, as impatient's don't care about being crazy, but i find them to be intellectually Lazy, boy , girl, women, men, as it doesn't matter what the facts produce, cause facts aren't for them, and a pier to be just moored too stupid to care, but hey, look at under wear they go commando, asz none of their 'gods' need cloths of clothes for closure, they prefer ignorance, and an over exposure, and with that i'll depart without closure, but i will have some on sum, a factored in product i'll produce, sooner than later, cause like ringing rungs on a lowering former latter, i know how to clean up my mess, with a Hell of a lot to splatter, butt that is but another fecal matter, i shall soon deal with, cause i've vented on too many, and some vents, i've got too damn many a plenty, and wish to share with not all, just a few known as ANY . Good to see you TiG, be back, gotta few more graves to dig
If it doesn't, it's not science. Not sure why people have such a hard time understanding that.
Science depends upon many more people than just scientists. And science involves much more than the scientific method.
Scientific progress depends on sponsors, administrators, publicists, and publishers as much as it does on scientists. Scientists are only one cog in the machinery that is science. The organized institutional human endeavor of science is motivated by pursuit of money and resources. Science cannot advance without money and resources in our modern world. That constraint on institutional science drives research towards the next breakthrough; the next big thing that can be bubble packed, place on the shelf, and used to entice the public to spend more money.
Researchers who work toward reducing the flow of money into healthcare, reduce the environmental footprint of medicine, and improve affordability/access to medical care do not grab headlines and become rock stars in science.
Even Ken Ham has used science in the Ark Encounter to attract tourists. Dinosaurs are pop culture icons that cannot be found, in any form, in Biblical writing.
That doesn't align with what is being reported in the news. The science surrounding the vaccines have created anxieties, doubts, conflict, anger, and fear. We are witnessing the panoply of human behavior described in the Bible. The pandemic is playing out as the Bible describes the great flood.
And we've deliberately chosen to ignore the knowledge and lessons presented in the Bible.
People are hoping the vaccines work as institutional science said they would. But that sort of hope isn't providing any comfort. Institutional science could still be wrong; we just don't know.
You describe the most expansive meaning of 'science' (science writ large) which essentially includes all factors that influence science (e.g. funding, politics,ego, ...). Which is fine if that is what you are talking about. But then you use this definition as the only meaning for the word 'science' regardless of the context in which it is used.
Clearly you can see that others use the word 'science' in other contexts, especially: the application of the scientific method to pursue explanations of phenomena in reality. You see this, but do not acknowledge it. Instead you argue science writ large (as you define it) regardless of the context used by others. You substitute your writ large meaning and ignore their conventional usage.
So, for example, Perrie was referring to the application of science by her daughters. This is the conventional usage of the word 'science' — scientists engaging in pure research for the purpose of discovering useful information. She was countering your general, cynical (and wrong) declaration:
The above is cynical even when speaking of science writ large. But it is a total misrepresentation of science as conventionally used and that is what most people refer to when they use the term 'science'. When speaking of science writ large one should explicitly expand 'science' by naming the layers of politics, business, etc. of interest. To just lump all of this together and use that as the meaning of the word 'science' unqualified misrepresents the common meaning of the word.
But worse, when you see others clearly speak of science and you stubbornly argue science writ large without qualification (calling it 'science') that shows arguing for the sake of argument. Playing semantic games with a word. I suspect that makes people not want to engage.
That seems an odd comment to make on a seeded article where intellectual opposition to Ken Ham's Ark Encounter utilizes an expansive meaning of Christianity. The intellectual arguments seem based upon the idea that a tourist attraction is representative of all Christianity.
And that tourist attraction is utilizing the pop culture aspect of expansive science to attract tourists.
Unless, of course, when scientists do not use the scientific method. Observation, cataloging, and classification does not utilize the scientific method. Theoretical science does not utilize the scientific method. The scientific method is only utilized by a portion of the institutional body of science. And the portion of institutional science utilizing the scientific method appears to be shrinking. Statistical correlation has been replacing causal descriptions because statistical correlation is faster, requires fewer resources, and is less expensive.
The public has been influenced by the pop culture presentation of science. Jurassic Park is how the public perceives science. Pop culture science fiction is how the public perceives science. The public is being spoon fed the graphic novel version of science and scientists are attempting to conform to that graphic novel perception.
My comment was not an argument. It was an observation intended to illustrate a fundamental problem.
Actually, it's the type of political hyperbole contained in your comments that has created most of that.
You also seem desperate to ignore the reports in the news of people crying from relief when they get their first shot.
See, there's that hope thingy...
Perhaps not for you but for millions upon millions, it does.
We do know Nerm. 200 MILLION vaccines have been administered and the data PROVES that it is mitigating the effects and spread of the virus. EVERY study documents that.
And I presented observations that illustrate a fundamental problem with general understanding of science, too. Science is also pop culture entertainment and recreation. Pop culture portrayals of scientists are more myth than reality.
Bird watching is considered science and is utilized in science education. Collecting tree leaves is considered science and is utilized in science education. A paper mache model of a volcano with baking soda lava is considered science and is utilized in science education. Building model rockets is considered science and is utilized in science education. These activities do not require the scientific method so are they science?
Really, Nerm, very few give a shit about such a broad umbrella usage of the word 'science'. Redefining science to include 'bird watching' and 'collecting tree leaves' is pointless and obnoxious.
Now, if by 'collecting tree leaves' you are making a sarcastic, demeaning and over-simplified reference to Botany or similarly 'bird watching' as a sarcastic, demeaning and over-simplified reference to Ornithology then I see that as simply more cynicism and negativity towards science itself.
I have no interest discussing science with someone who demeans scientific research itself and has some strange chip-on-shoulder bias against science.
I cannot understand how or why someone would hold such mentalities regarding science too.
Really? What does efficacy mean? Why do people who have been vaccinated still need to wear a mask? Why the concern over mutations and variants? Why do the experts keep moving the possibility of returning to normal into the future? Is vaccination necessary to open schools or not?
Well, let's state it in a more realistic manner. People are hoping they haven't been misled by the experts.
Yes really.
Those two sentences are contradictory...
Are those serious questions, or are you trying to be obtuse again?
And it is not just in the science arena. Look at the money changers in our religious communities (including this Noah's Ark - dinosaurs are a great way to draw in kids & with them comes mommy & daddy & their billfolds).
why are there ad links left in the body of this article?
( christian grift? )
You just concentrate on the discussion.
Because you haven't lived until you have drunk apple cider vinegar straight. Also I really need to know what I have to do every day so I don't need Viagra.
Am I sharing too much?
Lazy seed publishing
Cuz apparently god can do anything except print money.
not if you tell me where all the asian and russian women are in my town that prefer old men.
you just concentrate on poor group moderation.
Please do not do any kinds of promotion without my permission. TY
It’s simply an article as written directly from the Christian Post. And I did delete all the adds that were there within the article at the source.
Ken Hamm is a ham and a professional grifter.
Biblical account? From a cadre of men using ignorance and fear to maintain power.
I'll assume extremist political bunk wasn't creating enough divisiveness so we're switching back extremist religious bunk.
noah's ark - follow the wacky adventures of an incestuous xtian family crowded on a houseboat with their own private zoo during the monsoon season. season 1, episode 1 - the dinosaurs are hungry again.
Just the first 3 points use the Bible to "prove" the Bible.
Circular argument.
[deleted]
That's not what a religion does. You either take it on faith or you don't.
When someone tries to make a religious argument, that argument is subject to the same rules of logic as any other argument. Circular religious arguments are fallacious as are circular non-religious arguments.
It is common to argue (in not so few words) that the Bible is divine because the Bible says so.
Of course circular arguments are one of the things religion "does". "It's true because we say it's true." That doesn't mean it's actually true.
Do you hold that the ark story is true ... that there was a global flood that destroyed all life except that preserved by the ark and that all creatures are descendants of the ark inhabitants?
Do you also hold that dinosaurs were on the ark?
Do you hold that the Earth is < 10,000 years old?
The weather started getting rough, the tiny ship was tossed.
If not for the courage of the fearless crew the Minnow would be lost.
@3.1.9 is simply the pasting of another's words. I ignore those comments and I suspect most others do as well.
Don't be a hater. Let's see you spend six weeks on a boat and keep it in your pants with no internet porn.
The words of Christians in science who express far better than I the points I want to have made here. Whether one with their mind already made up reads them or not is of no concern to me.
There were for sets of husbands and wives on that ship. No reason at all for any incest aboard it. And they likely spent over a year on the ship from the angel closing the door to opening it.
... are wasted. Pasting the equivalent of a seed in a comment — especially when you provide zero summary to indicate the point you wish to convey — encourages people to ignore your comment. So you wind up wasting your time.
Not as much as you wasted typing words I’ll never consider. Not counting the counter seed I’ll never post on.
The counter seed is for others. Your participation is not important; in fact, it is probably best that you continue to play your little boycott game.
Circular argument plus ad hominem.
Weak.
No. No there is not! Just the opposite actually.
If religion makes an affirmative claim, especially as fact (as it often does), it subjects itself to logical scrutiny. Faith doesn't make something factual or true. Neither does belief equal fact.
That sounds like my version of Hell.
So much for honest debate or discourse. You merely demonstrate an extreme bias.
I don’t believe dinosaurs were on the ark. I believe that they were left outside to not survive to the post flood earth. I disagree with Ham on that. I believe that Adam and Eve sinned less than 10,000 years ago. I make no claim as to the time between their creation and their fall to sin.
I will almost never post in a seed from a group owned by a secularist and or progressive member here. My posts rarely get fair treatment in those places from their owners and their designees.
The secularists never take Gods words seriously
The dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years before human beings existed. So there were no dinosaurs around to even be denied entrance to the ark. But second, what is your biblical basis for thinking God excluded dinosaurs? This one sentence makes me think that you purposely write the most outrageous, stupid comments you can devise. How you find that valuable is a mystery.
Human beings have been around for 200,000 years. While there is no single Adam and Eve human beings from which we are all descended, if there were, they would have existed 200,000 years ago.
Also, good grief man, there is physical evidence of civilized human beings dating back more than 10,000 years. Jericho has evidence of existing as a civilization 11,000 years ago. There are artifacts of human beings (well prior to civilization) dating back over 165,000 years.
You have nothing to complain about my treatment of you on my articles. Your claim of mistreatment is just a bullshit excuse.
No one will survive this world to the next without faith. Caiaphas and his co conspirators will one day see the signs and wonders they once demanded at the trial they presided over.
There have not been high priests in about 2,000 years after the destruction of the second temple, so what are you talking about?
Of course not. Why would we?
Anyway, those mostly weren't the supposed words of your supposed god. They were the words of somebody weaponizing belief in your god, badly. A familiar tactic.
This trial took place a little more than 30 years before what you describe.
As a geologist, I find your (and the author's) belief in rapid sedimentation to be fanciful, as well as just plain wrong.
Pick up a geology textbook. It will enlighten you.
Unlikely. That would require a desire to be enlightened, rather than confirmed in one's prior beliefs.
MAGA's primary resources in these debates come from Answers in Genesis, which specializes in deliberate confirmation bias, dishonesty encouraged.
Yup. All through the rock, too. Deep down, not just on the surface where the 'flood' would have deposited them.
Makes sense...
I can't believe obviously fraudulent stuff like this is still making rounds.
Hey MAGA, do you ever stop and think about the crap you post?
That's what religion would say or have one believe. But I'm not one to merely accept the words of a proverbial used car salesman, no questions asked. Especially since those who make such declaration cannot possibly know what God would do or allow. Such arrogant presumption does not lend credibility, much less inspire any kind of faith.
Not without at least some evidence. Why would anyone?
Perhaps because you never offer any evidence or logical summary for your posts. All you offer is empty declarations and cut and pasting.
What makes either you or Hamm right on that? If you can't even agree on the same fairy tale, then how can such a story have validity?
Neither do the small 'c' christians.
Now that's a classic.
She's lying, there is an Apple on her computer....
Do you actually believe this bullshit? Seriously, man, Dr. Purdom is arguing that the evidence of a global flood is that if there were not a global flood then the Noah story would be inconsistent. For example, she notes that the rainbow is a reminder that no such flood will ever occur. Thus since there are rainbows, God certainly was not referring to a local flood (which occur all the time) and thus Noah's flood had to be global.
This is nothing more than a variation of trying to use the Bible itself as evidence that the Bible is true.
Surely you see the problem with that, right?
That's essentially trying make the evidence fit one's own conclusion. It's intellectually dishonest at the very least.
Circular logic, which is a logical fallacy. Of course, some don't really care about that and are not interested in logic or intellectual honesty.
Doubtful.
Since there is no god; we just don't take religionist' words seriously.
And since there is no evidence for any god/s, we do not take the claims of or on behalf of a god seriously.
Basically Mr. Freefaller, the political bunk and the religious bunk are identical.
Not completely but there is some considerable connection between the holding of certain religious and political beliefs that are not very popular on big tech social media. There are though some thoroughly secular conservatives and a few deeply religious lefties out there and even here.
There are always outliers on everything. It means nothing. Truth is truth, fact is fact and those who accept it understand and those who don't------don't.
Not sure I completely agree with that, I would say the reasons for the seeder posting both (and anything else) are identical
Please don't respond to a comment and then 19 hours later decide to flag for being off topic per seeder.
Very bad form.
Request denied
Cheek in tongue. Thanks for proving my point.
Who is this we you are accusing of posting extremist political and religious content?
That huckster is still in business somehow and still pitching that dumbass ark thing?
One more theory:
The Old Testament is a mix of history and allegory, you will do your God a great disservice if you claim them to be one in the same.
Well in regards to the seeded issue, Jesus Himself is quoted saying Noah and the flood were quite real and he said that it was a preview of what the human condition would be at His second coming. Noah and the global flood were mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament as well. While that may not persuade an atheist, a self professed Christian who doesn’t believe in a literal global flood is basically calling Jesus a liar and opening up everything He said to their cafeteria style pick what you want to believe and pass on the rest version of faux Christianity.
... like teavangelicals are so adept at doing, otherwise known as cherry-picking.
We agree we on something! In order to be a real Christian you have to buy every bit of bullshit in the Bible hook line and sinker. If not then you are admitting the Bible is mostly crap and in that case why believe any of it?
No, to be a true Christian you have to force yourself to believe some of the most absurd crap ever written down, and absolutely look like an idiot defending it. And that right there is the central problem of religion, you have to live in an alternate reality in order to really believe it.
Circular argument and ad hom, again. It's almost like that's all you have.
How many generations have passed since 'Jesus Himself' said that Xx?
Thanks for mentioning that. I need clarification. I'm still stuck on the 'seafood' thing. Can you help?
Nothing almost about it. More like certain.
C'mon Xx, how many generations have passed? Easy question.
Don't be surprised if you don't get an answer.
Jesus Himself is quoted saying ...
Lol. There are historical records of many contemporaries in the time frame of Jesus. There is nothing of historical record that lends evidence towards his supposed existence. Think about that - the one figure that tens of billions of faithful believers over time, for whom they would consider arguably to be the most important figure in the history of mankind, and there are no historical references to him. The argument used to be that literacy was so uncommon in that era that it’s not surprising that there’s not a single historical reference to Jesus that exists in any non-biblical context. But a few years back archeologists had made a discovery that included ancient writings from commoners of that era, like shopping lists. The explanation is simple - Jesus is a creation of man. His legend is pure fiction. There might have been some random mental case with his name, the equivalent of a modern day street preacher, who shot his mouth off enough to get himself executed, but he sure as hell wasn’t worth remembering.
As I said, Christus or whatever his name was could have been some random nutcase that got himself executed. But a superhuman who can walk on water, multiply food, heal the sick, raise people from the dead, etc. - hell no. Anyone with those kinds of abilities in that time period would certainly have been written about prolifically. Didn’t happen.
I can’t get past the “no wearing different types of fabric” thing.
That one is just plain stupid and makes no sense. Unless ancient people were such fashionistas that they forbade different fabrics as the ultimate fashion faux pas.
Not for at least a 100 years after what is considered the death of Jesus. The 20th century biblical scholar Fredrick Fyvie Bruce talks about Sextus Julius Africanus in c. 220 quoting the lost historian Thallos in 55 CE as the first non-biblical mentions of Jesus. Jewish historian Josephus wrote the Antiquities of the Jews around 93-94 AD and included two references to the biblical Jesus. There are doubts on the authenticity of the writings. Tacitus referred to Chistus and and his execution by Pontius Pilate in c. AD 116.
The evidence suggests that clothing of mixed wool and linen was worn exclusively by the high priest. That it was considered as a consecrated kind of clothing. Thus, it was a prohibition against common people dressing as only the high priest could.
Still just plain stupid.
This, alone, shows you have a lot to learn about it before you go making the claims you’re making.
Circular argument and ad hom, again. It's almost like that's all you have.
Everyone has their own limitations....
Point out where my comments contain circular reasoning.
This, alone, shows you have a lot to learn about it before you go making the claims you’re making .
From c4p’s link above:
“Some scholars also believe Roman historian Suetonius references Jesus in noting that Emperor Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome who “were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.””
Lol. Common sense isn’t learned, it’s inherent. Unfortunately some folks have none. Imagine you lived in an age where disease is rampant and totally misunderstood, and famine was rampant because there is no practical agricultural scientific understanding. They don’t even know where babies come from. Along comes a guy who can overcome all of that with a wave of his hand. On top of that he can walk on water and raise people from the dead. I don’t care what comes out of that guy’s mouth, the last thing any human in that day and age would consider doing is killing him. The whole story is so fucking stupid that it had to twist itself into the pretzel logic of “he had to die to save us from our sins”. Dumbest. Story. Ever.
It doesn't. It's the Pee Wee Herman tactic of repeating what you say. It's just a juvenile response when one has no valid or rational argument to make.
Yeah, same problem. So much wrong there.
Perhaps, in a round about way, what MAGA is attempting to say, to me at least is, go open up the corner bar found on a circle, and drink till you and i think on the same plain, and if we do, may the pilot be a Kamikazee , Drinker like thinker.
In vino veritas?
don't you have access to Sodium Pentothal as well ??? It sure would be interesting to meet up somewhere for a weekend, and interact and socialize with members that we rarely agree with, as well as ones we do, get drunk, and see where it goes, cause I know i would, and anyone in my proximity, would have a fckn blast and a smokin jokin and tokin good time, as eye tend to have far more effect, whence in the eye direct, people can stare, as i don't CARE, and am quite capable of entertaining thoughts and stories, so true and bazar , many doubt they're real, but, give me one drinking adventure out and about with about and out, about N E WON, cause i'll guarantee too much damn FUN, for sum, and they will become to believe, and/or B leavin, but, OH WELL cause the time would be Swell, cause i can slice a piece of Heaven, out of a pie(circle) from Hell, and , eye think you could See this as well, cause i don't have to be in Vegas to bet it would be an adventure where parts had to remain unidentified and left behind, cause even though there are many that i'm never confused with knot, wood eye not be interesting case study inn a
HELL OF A LOT
cause any can see i'm not write, but is it all a dawg and pony show....well, know
Fresh out of truth serum, but it does sound fun.