The replica Ark that will appear at Ark Encounter. Credit: AiG The replica Ark that will appear at Ark Encounter. Credit: AiG

Ark Encounter acquires last land

The Ark Encounter project bought the last land tract it needs for its project. But the company will build the 800-acre park in phases, not all at once. The first phase will be the main attraction: a full-scale mock-up of Noah’s Ark.

Why Ark Encounter?

Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis, described his reasons to build Ark Encounter in a video he released today. (See below.) Ham conceived of what would become Ark Encounter while he built the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. That first project was Ham’s answer to secular natural-history museums, all of which told the evolutionary story of the origin of life. Instead of that, the Creation Museum tells the history of Christianity, the falling-away of American society, the results of that falling-away (“Today man decides truth whatever”), and the story of creation, as Genesis tells it.

The Creation Museum opened in May of 2007. Its exhibits include a large life-sized section of Noah’s Ark with the men who built it, and several models showing the Ark as it loaded, as it floated on the Flood waters, and finally as it ran aground.

Before the Museum had been open for a year, Ham wanted to build a complete full-scale replica of the Ark. (The Museum staff told this to your correspondent when he visited the Museum on March 28, 2008.) That replica will be the centerpiece of the Ark Encounter complex.

What might the Ark have looked like?

Tim Lovett, author of Noah’s Ark: Thinking Outside the Box, has been the resident naval architect for Answers in Genesis for several years. He has his own site where he explains his theory. He believes that the ancient wooden warships that plied the Mediterranean Sea had features that the copied from Noah’s Ark. They include especially a forward projection in the ship’s bow and a high sail-like superstructure in the stern. Lovett says that Noah’s Ark was not a simple rectilinear box, but must have had these features so that it would head into wind and waves. Heading into the wind is the safest attitude for any ship in heavy winds and seas.

Ark Encounter, LLC plans to build a wooden vessel, to the dimensions that the Bible gives, using the length of the royal Egyptian or Babylonian cubit to convert from ancient to modern units. Lovett has specified not only the likely outboard profiles and elevations but also detailed deck plans. They show Lovett’s other theories of how Noah lived on board and managed all the animals that the Ark carried.

Change of plans

Ark Encounter all areas
Ark Encounter as it will appear when complete. Drawing: Answers in Genesis

Ark Encounter, LLC have changed their original plans. They still plan to build all the eight areas of the 800-acre park that they originally designed. But they will build these exhibit areas one at a time, not all at once. The slow economy has slowed their fund-raising. So they will build the replica Ark first, and have raised more than $5 million for this phase alone. This will generate income while they raise money to build the other areas:

  • A hypothetical antediluvian city with walls. This will eventually be the entry point to the Ark Encounter park. It reflects the least level of technology that Noah must have commanded to build the Ark.
  • A petting zoo
  • An aviary
  • A play area for children, with attractions reflecting the overall “ancient” theme.
  • A concept of the Tower of Babel. This will house a 500-seat special-effects theater.
  • A hypothetical village in northern Israel during the first century. This might be a composite of Capernaum and Nazareth and would have elements that each village would have held at that time.
  • A separate indoor exhibit of Biblical history

Answers in Genesis will also expand the Creation Museum, to take advantage of the crowds that they expect Ark Encounter to draw. The Museum now has its own observatory and 1000-seat auditorium.

ARVE Error: need id and provider

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”1878026097, 0890515077, 0310234697, 0875523382, 0890511586, B002RBHDFK, 0949906689, 0890513600, 089051416X, 0890515050″ /]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

bible, creation, history, Israel, Middle East


Terry A. Hurlbut

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

Comments (110)

  • I was just at the Creation Museum a month ago. They didn’t have an observatory. Planetarium, yes… observatory, no.

    Too much light pollution from nearby Cincinnati for an observatory to be much good, anyway. These days they get built in very remote, high altitude places… like in orbit.

  • If the goal of Creation Museum folks is to make more people even distrustful of the Bible, then they are certainly succeeding with this project. People have been doubting the Ark story since the mid 1600s, long before Darwin or Lyell. The story just doesn’t make sense. You cant fit over one million different species of animals onto a boat.

        • I’ll answer your request but first it’s important to discuss a few things.

          First, “evidence” is tricky since most law schools will tell you it doesn’t speak for itself unless it’s audio and video. Thefore, people spek for the evidence by imposing their best attempt to explaian its existence. So the evidence we’re talking about here is based on observing CURRENT phenomena and drawing conclusions about the past. This is not necessarily inappropriate – in fact, it’s a reasonable practice – it’s just that neither of us is capable of witnessing the loading of the ark outside of Prof. Peabody’s time machine anymore than we could the big bang or the emergence of the first organism by abiogenesis.

          In other words, we observe current methods and practices of animal husbandry, utilize principles of naval architecture and marine engineering, study extant documentary resources, compare archeological evidence of ancient nautical cultures with an ark model, scrutinize accepted theories like rate of speciation to determine their integrity, measure rates of adaptation to ascertain how long it would take a population to emerge, etc., and piece together these lines of evidence to develop a scientifically plausible explanation of the ark event. That is, we seek an explanation that “fits” the evidence using the scientific method.

          Now you must be sensitive to the fact we need not propose 100% certainty for it to be or scientific. Scientists have conjectured all sorts of plausible explanations that have very little direct or indirect “evidence”. Dark Matter comes to mind as something that has never been observed nor has any “evidence” been provided (or why else would it’s supporters still be looking for it?) and yet it is generally accepted as scientifically a plausible explanation.

          The current research, modeling and feasibility studies that have gone into drawing a detailed picture of the ark and the events of the flood build a very plausible explanation that is also possible and therefore more probable than as not. IOW, it is an explanation that best fits the “evidence” in this case the evidence being the biblical ark narrative and the pervasiveness of ark and flood stories across the globe from different cultures and times.

          Now as to your original request, the problem of how could so many animals (species for your benefit) fit on the ark has been dealt with in articles I linked in several of my posts herein. Please read them as I think they provide a reasonable explanation and mechanism. Below are three to start.

          http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf
          http://icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2465
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v8/n1/noah

    • Alex,

      I contend that first of all, you ask the wrong question; secondly, you draw an improper conclusion based upon your false premise.

      The group of Christians putting the Ark Encounter together and those financially supporting it, are bending over backwards to demonstrate Biblical history, and help people such as yourself understand some of these things.

      The Scripture never says that all species came into the Ark. It says, “kinds.” Check out [the] any number of great creation websites and you will have your answer to how this is all scientifically possible and feasible. Here’s one for starters: http://www.icr.org

      Also, Alex – please don’t limit your understanding. Be open to other than the usual evolutionary pseudo science answers.

      • “It says, “kinds.””

        Yes, of course it does. Now please define “kind” in a way that makes sense to a biologist, i.e. me. At what taxonomic level does “kind” sit?

          • Fergus,

            Sir, below is a synopsis of baraminology I think might serve as a general response to your request for definitions.

            From http://creation.com/a-baraminology-tutorial-with-examples-from-the-grasses-poaceae:

            Many creationists share the problematic desire to have a definition of baramin that makes it easy to recognize. Marsh’s heavy emphasis on hybridization as the defining feature of a baramin has certainly contributed to this bias.10 An unambiguous criterion makes research easy, but even the hybridization criterion has serious limitations (e.g. it is inapplicable to asexual or fossil organisms). Because of these problems, baraminologists of today focus on approximating the limits of the baramin using a suite of characteristics. To assist in the approximation, we employ three terms that are derived from Marsh’s baramin:11

            1. The monobaramin is a group of organisms that share continuity, either genetic or

            2. The apobaramin is a group of organisms that is discontinuous with everything else. Creationists have long used bats as an example of animals that are unrelated to any other mammals.12,13 Since we don’t know how many kinds (baramins) of bats God created, baraminologists refer to the bats as an apobaramin.

            3. The holobaramin is roughly what we call the ‘Genesis kind’. Technically, it simply combines the definitions of monobaramin and apobaramin. A holobaramin contains a complete set of organisms that share continuity among themselves but are discontinuous with all other organisms.

            Because these definitions are not mutually exclusive, they form the basis of the baraminological method of successive approximation. If you divide groups of organisms into smaller and smaller apobaramins by subtractive evidence, you will eventually come to a point when you can legitimately divide the group no longer. Similarly, if you add more and more species to a monobaramin by additive evidence, you will eventually come to a point when you cannot legitimately add any more species. Hopefully, the point at which the apobaramin can no longer be divided and the point at which the monobaramin can no longer be expanded is the same point: the holobaramin. At this point, the ‘membership list’ of the monobaramin and the apobaramin are exactly the same; therefore, this group probably represents the holobaramin.

  • It doesn’t need evidence, on account that it is a truism, but a Google search of “number of species” would find you plenty of evidence.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/241/4872/1441.abstract
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030526103731.htm
    http://www.tb1.ethz.ch/PublicationsEO/PDFpapers/Koch_AFRICAN_INVERTEBRATES_2010_51_413-421.pdf
    http://animals.about.com/od/zoologybasics/a/howmanyspecies.htm
    http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/buginfo/bugnos.htm

    There are 900,000 species of insects (there are over 10,000 different species of ants alone): http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/buginfo/bugnos.htm

    Furthermore, animals are principally located only on certain continents.

    So if this Ark business did happen, either:

    a) the few animals that were on board EVOLVED into a multitude of different species

    b) there is a massive conspiracy, undoubtedly the greatest the world has ever seen, encompassing no less than hundreds of millions of scientists and thousands of research institutions over the coarse of about 500 years, all which has managed to exist entirely without any central leadership. All of the species they have identified were in fact made up in order to perpetuate this hoax.

    c)”God did it.” After the Ark, He created many more species of animals, plants, fungi, microbes, etc., and scattered them across the planet, in order to ensure that there would be regional localization of different taxonomy groups. This essentially eliminates the whole point of doing the Flood in the first place (this also begs the question of why would God do the Flood to begin with if he had the power of Creation anyway).

    • The statement I asked you to support, was the notion that doubts of the Creation story pervaded Western science long before Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin. A few doubters here and there might have existed, but not to the level they would reach with those three.

      • The fact that the number of doubters exponentially increased around the time of Darwin and Lyell likely has less to do with basing thought off of those few individuals and more with the increase of critical scientific thinking. If you look at the Encyclopeida Britannica from around 1750-1850 (the 7th and 8th editions I think) you can see the change from acceptance to outright denial of a possibility of a global flood.

        Nathan, Im not limiting myself to evolutionary thought, Im limiting myself to explanations that can withstand scientific scrutiny. Ive perused ICR and Answers in Genesis but they dont really answer any real questions. Here are the problems I (or anyone who approaches this critically) has with the flood:

        1)It utterly fails to explain why certain species are only found on certain continents. It also doesn’t explain how certain animals got to those continents in the post-Flood world.
        2)The current number of animal species is, as stated previously, over one million, many of which cannot survive if immersed in water for the amount of time laid out by the Bible. This is not including the many more which have existed over time (millions if counting actual fossils discovered or billions to trillions if hypothesizing the total number that have not been preserved in the fossil record)
        3)in addition to animals, what about plants? How did terrestrial plants survive the Flood?
        4)And how about fungi? Or microbes? Likely the reason that the Bible doesn’t mention those is because people didnt know what they were back it was written. But regardless, how would all of this non-animal life survive?
        5)From a scripture standpoint, if God could create everything, why wouldn’t he just do it again?

        If one of you can answer these questions, Id be very intrigued. If not, then I must ask why it is you believe all of this without daring to question it?

        • Alex: Re: Your February 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm comment,

          I think that you are competent enough and computer savvy sufficient to be able to figure out the difference between “kinds” and “species.” But, be that as it may, I’ve provided for you a few informational links to help jump start your path to understanding some things that appear to be troubling to you vis-a-vis creation, science and the divine revelation account of Noah and the Ark:

          “Species — A Most Elusive Subject:”

          http://www.icr.org/article/species-most-elusive-subject/

          “What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution:?”

          http://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/

          “Hormone Research Unwittingly Corroborates Biblical Kinds:”

          http://www.icr.org/article/hormone-research-unwittingly-corroborates-biblical/

          • I am certainly able to distinguish the difference between “species” and “kinds”. But could the people who wrote the Bible, several thousand years ago? I doubt it. After all, they thought that the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around it. 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, and Isaiah 45:18 all seem to imply that the Earth doesn’t move (i.e. orbit anything).

            Being how you believe that the geologists and biologists are wrong in all matters science, do you suppose that the astronomers and astrophysicists are all in in league with them as well?

            My point is that the Bible was written a long, long time ago, and even if God is infallible, Man certainly isn’t. God, whether he/she/it exists or not (it doesn’t matter for the sake of this discussion) did not pick up a pen and write the Bible. Man (or men) did. So why is it so hard to believe that maybe they got a few things wrong, and that we can now correct those errors by using modern science?

          • “the difference between “kinds” and “species.””

            Actually “kind” seems to mean whatever is convenient right at that moment to the creationist using the term. If you disagree, please provide a definition of “kind” in terms of taxonomy, so I know exactly what you’re talking about.

        • You and I have very different definition of “peruse” since only a superficial search provided articles specifically in response to your questions.

          I’d like to state for the record that because a scientist who happens to be a creationist can’t answer EVERY question doesn’t mean he can’t answer ANY question. This is the same courtesy extended to scientists who happen to be evlotionists and so creationists should expect the same treatment.

          “Here are the problems I (or anyone who approaches this critically) has with the flood:

          1)It utterly fails to explain why certain species are only found on certain continents. It also doesn’t explain how certain animals got to those continents in the post-Flood world.”

          REPLY:
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n4/hitch-hiking-lemurs
          http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

          “2)The current number of animal species is, as stated previously, over one million, many of which cannot survive if immersed in water for the amount of time laid out by the Bible. This is not including the many more which have existed over time (millions if counting actual fossils discovered or billions to trillions if hypothesizing the total number that have not been preserved in the fossil record)”

          REPLY: A question wasn’t asked here. The proposed conundrum of “how did all those organisms fit on the ark” is based on current numbers of living species (some of which have been shown to be duplicates and so inflate the numbers) that fails to account for post-flood rapid speciation or adaptation and the acceptance of evolutionary taxonomy for fossils. Nevertheless, the answer to this is covered by the articles previously cited and also

          http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise
          http://creation.com/darwins-finches
          http://creation.com/after-devastation-the-recovery
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/rapid-speciation
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n3/rapid-speciation
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n2/textbooks

          “3)in addition to animals, what about plants? How did terrestrial plants survive the Flood?”

          REPLY: There are various plausible mechanisms at the disposal of plants to survive the flood environment. We observe them today, e.g., floating vegetable mats and seed pods like coconuts floating in saltwater until they embed ashore and take root.

          http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1205
          http://creation.com/how-did-fish-and-plants-survive-the-genesis-flood
          http://creation.com/after-devastation-the-recovery

          “4)And how about fungi? Or microbes? Likely the reason that the Bible doesn’t mention those is because people didnt know what they were back it was written. But regardless, how would all of this non-animal life survive?”

          REPLY: Possibly the same way it does today? This is not hard to postulate given that with a reduction in mass and size comes an equally proportional reduction in force and so a lower susceptibility to the damaging influence/s of the flood. I would hazard that it survived quite well in the water, air, floating organic matter, in and on the ark and its occupants, for starters.

          “5)From a scripture standpoint, if God could create everything, why wouldn’t he just do it again?”

          REPLY: This question falls outside the scope of scientific inquiry. The short theological answer, however, is that He is going to do it again: new heavens and new earth.

      • “The statement I asked you to support, was the notion that doubts of the Creation story pervaded Western science long before Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin.”

        Once again, Terry, your attempts to stay “on point” help you avoid actually responding to the information being presented.

        Give an actual rebuttal to what Alex has said, more than a few sentences and, hopefully, with non-religiously biased references. You must consider yourself scientifically educated enough to write these essays, so prove it. Fergus and Alex take the time to respond point-by-point and for the sake of your beliefs you owe them the same.

          • I wasn’t asking Tim Lovett to respond, I was asking you. If you’d like to cite his findings, so be it, but you cannot publish these essays with a straight face without the full knowledge to back them up.

          • Well, he’s my best source, though I can name still another one: Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, by John Woodmorappe. I’ll treat the subject myself in good time.

          • The trouble is that your “best source” is using utterly ridiculous figures. A total mass of 411 tons for two of EVERY animal species on Earth?

            I also note that his food supplies don’t include any meat. What did all the carnivores eat? Did dinosaurs go extinct because leopards ate them all on the ark?

          • Meat would not become a Divinely sanctioned staple diet for man until after the Flood. As to the voyage of the Ark, perhaps Noah and his family fed them milk.

          • I’m talking about the animals, Terry. You know, all those hundreds of carnivores.

            Milk? You’re not going to tell me the touching story of Little Tyke the vegetarian lion, are you? Here’s a tip: don’t. It won’t end well.

          • No Little Tyke? Good; I hate having to point out that that was an extremely sickly lion that was plagued with health issues for the whole of her short life.

            Now, back to Lovett’s work. How many animals were on the ark and how were they fed? What did the anteaters and pangolins eat? The koalas? The leopards? The insectivores? For that matter, what did the insects eat? If the animals were all juveniles as has been suggested, where did the milk to feed them come from?

          • In fact here’s an even more interesting question: what did the animals eat after they were RELEASED from the ark? Dead fish?

  • Oh dear, here we go again…

    “Heading into the wind is the safest attitude for any ship in heavy winds and seas.”

    Yes Terry, it is. Except you can’t do that without power, can you?

    “They include especially a forward projection in the ship’s bow and a high sail-like superstructure in the stern.”

    As I have already explained, this projection would catch the wave motion and force the hull towards a broach.

  • “Well, he’s my best source, though I can name still another one: Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, by John Woodmorappe. I’ll treat the subject myself in good time.”

    Good, I look forward to it.

    The fact that you need a “source” to support what you consider the divine word of He who created all things is very telling. At the very least, supporters of evolution are humble enough to admit they only follow the words of their fellow men.

    Anyway, I would hope this source is an indepedant body, not anything associated with the concept of “creation” or a book with a title like Why Noah’s Ark Was Totally Real or some such nonsense.

    • Everybody needs a source. I’m a journalist, not a primary laboratorian. What laboratory do you work in?

      • “Everybody needs a source.”

        I thought your source was the Bible, a book interpreting the words of a supreme, perfect being? Is that not good enough?

        “I’m a journalist, not a primary laboratorian.”

        Journalists investigate current events and report facts, they don’t speculate on divine intervention using cheap rhetorical language. From what I can see on this site you’re no more a journalist than I am. If you hold some sort of degree, than you are debasing it. And if you consider someone building a giant fake boat “news” than you need to pull your head out of your bum.

        “What laboratory do you work in?”

        Ah, the old “Oh yeah, what do YOU know?” trick. You are the one claiming that thousands of years ago a man hundreds of years old somehow wrangled hundreds of animals onto a giant wooden ship, YOU back it up. I’m not a scientist or a journalist, but I’ve never made a claim so infantile in my life, not even as an infant. When you willfully spout crap like that you can’t back away when it starts to stink.

  • An interesting question about the flood story is this:

    If God was so disappointed with man being evil, why not just wipe out man with a whim instead of destroying the world and practically every living thing on it to make a point? As your own recap states, after God created everything before humans they were deemed to be “good” in God’s own view.

    More to the point, the whole hydroplate story spun by Walt Brown depends on the assumption that the planet was designed to be like a set of dominoes waiting to be set into action. That in turn implies that the world was built with the intention of destroying it, even when Adam and Eve were in the Garden before eating the apple.

    So if man didn’t have to fall from grace and everything that followed was purely the result of our free will at work, it’s remarkable that God chose to locate his innocent creations on top of a powder keg, metaphorically speaking. That implies foreknowledge of our failure, just as Jesus “the Son of The Father” existing for as long as God the Father implies that a savior was needed from the start. It only makes sense if failure was expected, and since God was the designer that means the very fallibility that He made contingency plans for was therefore built into us by design.

  • Alex – regarding your February 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm reply response to my comment:

    Perhaps, if you would regard the Scriptures from another and (clear) viewpoint, you would then be bereft of some of the questions that perplex you:

    I quote from a portion of my last Sunday’s topical message: ……….

    Reasons Why Non Christians Can Never Understand the Holy Scriptures

    5 Principles of Biblical Interpretation

    * Scripture’s purpose is to reveal the Messiah, the Savior

    * Scripture must be understood, as a whole

    * Scripture interprets Scripture – it interprets itself

    * Scripture must be understood (first) by its clearest passages. Other passages [verses, — whether figurative, allegorical, or, whatever] then, are correctly interpreted in the light [on the basis] of the clear passages of Scripture.

    * Scripture must be understood as God “inspired” [authored] – See 2 Timothy 3:14-17

    “Trusting a Theory or Trusting the God of Human History:”
    http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2012/02/trusting-theory-or-trusting-god-of.html

    Now, specifically adressing your observation that the Scripture speaks of the earth being flat. That, is easily explained. Don’t today, in our modern “scientific” world we still speak of the “sun rising” and “setting?” When people spoke in terms (they could easily understand and comphrehend) about the earth’s massive entirety, it is no wonder that such phrases were also utilized, such as, “the ends of the earth” and the “four corners of the earth.”

    Alex – Also, the following topical message may also be helpful for you. It, also, explains some principles of Biblical interpretation. Check it out, at will. Scroll down a little until you come to the following:

    “Correctly, understanding the divine revelation – the Scriptures:……”

    “Why are many people hard of spiritual hearing? — Why will many human souls end up experiencing eternal damnation:?”

    http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2011/02/why-are-many-people-hard-of-spiritual.html

  • Hang on. Firstly, if you read Gen 9, it only says that Noah et al were allowed to eat meat from that point. It says nothing about the lions being vegetarian.

    And milk? Really? How many gallons a day? From the 1 cow aboard? It’s when creationists leap to absurd claims like this that we have to think that they’re making it up as they go along. Confronted with the fact that there isn’t enough room on the ark for the animals and the food to support them… they drank milk. Why not manna? After all the Bible is silent on the matter, so it could be Coke for all we know.

    In addition, do you have any idea how long it would take people to feed and muck out the stalls for all those animals… whilst the ark is being shunted around by the tsunamis caused by the magnitude 12 earthquakes and whilst they’re being bathed in radiation? It’s simply not physically possible.

    • It’ll be interesting to see what kind of exhibits they come up with at the Ark Encounter to show the feasibility of one family caring for all these animals.

      Just take the idea of feeding with milk alone – how much grain and fresh water is needed to for any given animal to create a pint of milk, and how much waste is generated in the process that has to be removed?

      If people wanted to really show the feasibility of the Ark as described in the Bible, they’d build one and tow it around the world, and to drive home the point, spend a full hurricane season adrift in the Atlantic with no motorized assistance.

      But hey, it’s a lot easier to create a theme park and take money from people who want to believe, so you can walk them through a landlocked mockup and show them displays that say it’s feasible without any proof. That’s not preaching the faith or proving the Ark narrative – it’s just show business.

      • “the idea of feeding with milk”

        Not to mention the fact that many adult animals are lactose intolerant. I have cats, and if you want to turn them into diarrhoea cannons the quickest way to do it is to give them milk.

  • One other note, on this excerpt from the article:

    “Lovett has specified not only the likely outboard profiles and elevations but also detailed deck plans. They show Lovett’s other theories of how Noah lived on board and managed all the animals that the Ark carried.”

    Just like the person in Europe who built an ark exhibit, this is not a working prototype, but an exhibit and tourist space mocked up to resemble what people think the Biblical ark would be like.

    If Ken Ham’s goal was to prove the viability of the ark story instead of just fleecing tourists, his group could do one basic experiment. Build the replica on land, not as an exhibit, but as a “living laboratory” where pairs of animals representing each of the “kinds”, including birds, insects, amphibians, both large and small, are all able to be maintained in an acceptable state of health for the duration called for in the Bible, tended only by a staff of 4 male and 4 female volunteers, and a finite supply of fresh water and provisions sealed into the replica at the start of the experiment. This experiment skips the requirement to do this while surviving storm-tossed seas – it’s just a question of viability, and if this is all possible without supernatural intervention then the results will be irrefutable.

    Webcams can stream and record the experience so there’s no need to use space on the vessel for anything other than what was required for the voyage. Think of the Biosphere experiments, and you see what I’m describing.

    When the experiment is shown to be a success, the interior space can be converted back to one that is exhibit and visitor-friendly, and donations to do that conversion wouldn’t be a problem after such a triumphant achievement.

    Except…it’s not viable, and Mr. Ham and his foundation know it no matter what they tell the public. They’re just in this for the money, and they can’t claim otherwise because all they’re doing is putting up stage sets that even they admit are based on speculation and “hypothetical” simulations.

    The Ark Encounter is as close an attempt to recreate an authentic ark experience as Pirates of the Carribean is a replication of that experience and lifestyle. If they want to call it a theme park and entertainment complex that’s fine, but to describe it as “authentic” on any level is just being deceitful.

    • An excellent point. If the viability of the ark as an animal carrier could be established it would silence a lot of rationalist arguments against the flood myth, so you’d think someone with the financial resources of Ham would be eager to carry out this experiment. Except… he isn’t. I wonder why not?

      As a further refinement I’d suggest that the replica was built on the Pacific coast and towed round to the east coast via the Drake Passage. If it made it it could be dismantled, moved by road to its final location and reassembled there. However if it sank on the way then I think all our questions would be answered.

      • The main problem with floating an “authentic” replica ark is that it would put lives at risk. That’s why I like the idea if a “bio dome” type experiment instead. It’s easier to set up, control, and cancel when things go wrong – which they certainly will. The biggest practical issue with my suggestion is that no entity charged with protecting the welfare of animals would allow the conditions simulating an ark to take place.

        • If the replica was towed it would be possible to just ballast it to a realistic weight and not have any animals or people on board. That way, when it started to break up and sink, the tug could just cut the cable and let it go.

          Animal welfare is a very valid objection to the sustainability experiment. However actual animals wouldn’t be required; the volunteers could carry out representative tasks, such as adding ensuring feed and water were placed in empty cages then removing and disposing of them to simulate waste removal. The aspect that really needs tested is the ability of the crew to manage these tasks; I think we all know that actual animals kept in those conditions for a year would die.

  • Oh, and I forgot to comment on this remark by Terry:

    “I’m a journalist, not a primary laboratorian.”

    Ethical journalists are obliged to disclose any information that would otherwise appear to be a conflict of interest to the reader.

    It’s probably just an oversight that an article promoting Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter and the nearby Creation Museum fails to disclose that Terry is a director of the Creation Science Hall of Fame, which is looking “to construct a brick-and-mortar museum between Answers in Genesis Ark Encounter and The Creation Museum for all to visit, so that the world can see that creation scientists are ready and able to give and answer for what they believe.”

    Promoting Ken Ham’s theme parks builds interest in the area where your group is looking to build its own tourist attraction. Nothing improper about that, of course, but being transparent about the benefit your Hall of Fame receives from increased attendance at Ham’s theme parks is the ethical thing to do.

    • Regardless of what you’re trying to make of that, the Creation Science Hall of Fame has nothing to do with Answers in Genesis, and the directorates of the two organizations do not interlock in any way, shape or form.

      • Of course the directorates of the Creation Science Hall of Fame and Answers in Genesis interlock – they both believe in the same creation mythology.

        • That’s not what an interlocking directorate is. Boards of directors interlock when the same individual(s) hold(s) seats on both Boards. That is not the case with the Creation Science Hall of Fame.

  • To be clear, I’m not implying any improper relationship or activity on the part of your Hall of Fame project, or that you have a direct relationship with Mr. Ham’s projects.

    What I am saying, though, is that when you act in the role of a journalist, and publish articles that increase interest in a tourist area, the standards of ethical journalism call for you to disclose that you are a director of an organization seeking to build a tourist attraction in the same area.

    That level of disclosure is the difference between journalism and marketing for your group’s ultimate benefit, so if you’re goal is to practice journalism then disclosure is part of the practice, that’s all.

    • Then why prate about “ethical” journalism? Your use of that phrase implies one thing, and one thing only: you accuse me of improper conduct, and an attempt to cover up the same.

        • That’s not for you to judge. I find that the more a journalist stands on “credentials,” the more biased he is, as a direct result of the policies and procedures of the “credentialling” authority.

          • It’s not a matter of “judgement.” In fact, I obviously can’t judge your skills as a journalist because you aren’t one. The problem is, you called yourself one to negate your responsibility to re-examine/defend the factual accuracy of your article (you followed “I am a journalist” with “not a laboratorian”).

            “I find that the more a journalist stands on “credentials,” the more biased he is, as a direct result of the policies and procedures of the “credentialling” authority.”

            That’s pretty convienient, isn’t it? You can call yourself a journalist with a straight face and create a website with the word “news” in it, but in your mind you needn’t have undergone any training, technical or ethical, to earn that title. I don’t know how that training, or “procedures” as you call it, would somehow make a person biased. That’s like saying guitar lessons will force you to think in terms of notes and chords and stifle your creativity.

          • Ask yourself why nine out of ten graduates of the Columbia School of Journalism vote Democratic. IF that is not evidence of systematic bias, I do not know what would so qualify in your sight.

          • I know that statistic from repeated polls in which self-identified graduates of the Columbia University School of Journalism have not only confessed but avowed that they vote Democratic, that the very reason that they chose journalism as a career was “to make a difference in the human condition,” and that as far as they’re concerned, they’re not biased, but they regard Progressive policy positions to be true and correct, in the same sense that the sum of two plus two is equal to four.

  • There’s a difference between deliberately misleading people and not realizing that something should be disclosed.

    One last time, I am NOT accusing you of intentionally misleading or deceiving people. I said that it’s probably an oversight on your part that you didn’t disclose your Hall of Fame’s interest in building a tourist attraction in the same area you’re promoting.

    The statement that your Hall of Fame is looking to locate itself between both of Mr. Ham’s parks comes straight from the Hall of Fame website – any implied “When you’re visiting them come on by since we’re right there too” is something you’re openly promoting yourself.

    You’re calling yourself a journalist, and I’m pointing out that an ethical journalist would disclose this other interest your group has in promoting Mr. Ham’s theme parks. That’s like someone pointing out anything that they felt required correction or modification in one of your pieces – it’s our opinion that a revision is warranted, and it’s your decision whether we’re correct or not. If you feel your non-disclosure is ethical, that’s your call, but from my perspective it warranted a comment, and no further comment is required.

  • “Ask yourself why nine out of ten graduates of the Columbia School of Journalism vote Democratic. IF that is not evidence of systematic bias, I do not know what would so qualify in your sight.”

    I don’t have to ask myself that. Obviously that particular school is liberal-minded. There is a difference between having a political perspective and having a bias, and bias is especially hard to prove when it comes to matters of political opinion, debate, and social perspective, not simply facts.

    Are there conservative-minded schools of journalism? If yes, then why debase the entire profession? If no, why not? Is every conservative thinker so stubborn and easily defeated that they feel they should not bother participating in an institution that has progressed for hundreds of years and, in fact, can encompass a wide range of political perspectives?

    • That’s the trouble. There are no conservative-minded schools of journalism. Those who go to liberal-minded schools of journalism must profess liberal mindsets as a condition of graduation, or so it seems to this outsider.

      More to the point, I don’t need you, or the dean at the Columbia School of Journalism, or George Soros, or Barack Hussein Obama, or William Ayers, or anyone else to “keep the gate” and tell me whether I am a journalist—or not.

      • “There are no conservative-minded schools of journalism.”

        First of all, I highly doubt that. I read a number of conservative/right-wing news sources regularly, where did they all come from? Second, nothing in your response actually answers my question: why not? Why have conservatives removed themselves from a process that liberals find necessary to train and educate those that will go on to promote their ideology via the news?

        “Those who go to liberal-minded schools of journalism must profess liberal mindsets as a condition of graduation, or so it seems to this outsider.”

        Yeah, so it seems to you because you practice a fringe ideology and believe in scientific impossibilities. I’ve met many conservatives who don’t think homosexuals will be tortured forever in an afterlife, they don’t think liberal ideology is evil and/or destructive, and they don’t take the Bible as a literal truth. I’m sure they do just fine at journalism school. Your kind of thinking does not thrive there, it has little if anything to do with “liberal vs. conservative” bias. I am a graduate of a “liberal/progressive” university and in my experience professors were open to many different opinions, as long as they were presented in a reasonable way, i.e. “I see some holes in your theory and I’d like to talk about them” as opposed to “Evolution is a myth!”

        “More to the point, I don’t need you, or the dean at the Columbia School of Journalism, or George Soros, or Barack Hussein Obama, or William Ayers, or anyone else to “keep the gate” and tell me whether I am a journalist—or not.”

        In terms of the adult, professional world it is a technical term. I know CPR, firt aid, and helped a friend deal with the pain of a broken bone last week but I am not a doctor. I’ve written screenplays but I would not call myself a “screenwriter” until I either underwent technical training or earned a professional salary to do so. You need a much greater sense of humility, Terry.

      • This is the problem with right-wingers: the cart is put in front of the horse on a regular basis.

        Where you see the absence of “conservative-minded schools of journalism” as some kind of conspiracy, it’s far more likely that wherever you have a group of people being taught to investigate facts, they will realise that right-wing policies are self-serving garbage.

      • Terry – Re: Your February 18, 2012 at 3:04 pm comment:

        People such as those who would like to denigrate your journalistic abilities and person, are a dime a dozen. It seems that they can only think with myopic capabilities because they have been so propagandized by an inbred educational liberal extremist mindset that is basically anti Constitutional, anti Biblical, anti traditional and pro evolutionist.

        Not only peppered with the aforementioned, they may even possess smatterings of human secularlism with a pinch of Margret Sanger eugenic’s mentality. This would explain some of the pro-death [“pro-choice”] crowd. I’m convinced that many of these [above] type, described people, cannot, for the life of them, think outside their mesmerized boxes.

        When historical exhibits such as the Ark are presented them, they chafe. They become all bent out of shape because they are presented with the reality that their world is not what they would like it to be. Hence, they go on the attack and nitpick. Their ungodly unbelief, becomes very obvious.

        Not only do such become highly skeptical, they attempt to berate and belittle, while at the same time joining forces with those who would surpress First Amendment expression. Their covert and overt actions end up with cat calls of bigotry, racism and sexism. If they are still unsuccessful in their attempts to do their opposition in, they will gear up for maleovent type Acorn and Alinsky tactics.

        Terry – take comfort in what Christ stated in the Gospel of Luke, 6 – “…..woe unto you when all men speak well of you.”

        • “When historical exhibits such as the Ark are presented them, they chafe.”

          Except the ark isn’t a historical exhibit, is it? It’s just speculation. However if you look above you’ll see that both DinsdaleP and I have suggested experiments which could validate some aspects of the ark story and make it at least credible, even if it still wouldn’t be confirmed. If creationists want to be taken seriously you need to carry out these experiments.

          “smatterings of human secularlism with a pinch of Margret Sanger eugenic’s mentality.”

          Eugenics is completely against the principles of secular humanism; basically, this comment is paranoid rubbish and you should be ashamed of it.

          • Well, now, we really cannot know the principles of secular humanism, can we? That, to borrow a phrase from IT, is a “user-defined school of thought.” Which means that it mean exactly what you, Fergus Mason, say it means, any time you say it. Or maybe it means exactly what Eugenie Scott means, any time she says it.

            And maybe it once meant exactly what Margaret Sanger said it meant, any time she said it.

          • Well no, not really. There are several declarations and manifestos, and while they differ in details they all have the same core principles. None of these principles condone eugenics, and neither do Eugenie Scott or I.

          • Of course the ark isn’t a historical exhibit – it’s not even a boat, but a large barn constructed (to 21st century building code regulations!) to look a little bit like a boat. But it will never float.

          • Fergus: Re: Your February 18, 2012 at 11:13 pm comment,

            I can read between your posted comment lines, enough to know that you are “history selective.” To you, the historical account of Noah’s Ark, seems illogical, far fetched and out of the realm of reason.

            However, having stated my perception of your historical uncertainty, I take great pride, knowing what Christ stated (in the New Testament Christian Gospel) about the days of Noah. If Christ did not have a problem of acceptance with history before him, then I ask myself, “Why should I or any Christian, despite the unbelief of those who cannot, and / or refuse to accept the accounts of history.”

            Finally, if you would be honest with yourself, (based upon your skepticism of older history) you would have to question with that same skepticism, much of the past before your present time. How do you really know that there was a genuine George Washington; a Martin Luther; a Charlemagne; or even the people who sailed the North Atlantic seas, called the Vikings?

          • Good point. Few people appreciate that Jesus Christ is the Best-attested Figure in all of human history. Or the perfect, and I say again, perfect, prophetic value of the Bible. If It is a fully reliable Predictor of future events, then It is an equally reliable Record of past events. Including the Global Flood.

          • “Few people appreciate that Jesus Christ is the Best-attested Figure in all of human history.”

            That’s an odd claim. I dispute that Jesus Christ is better ‘attested’ than, say, Ronald Reagan or JFK or Samuel Clemens or the Buddha or Mohammed. But perhaps you are using a different definition of attestation. What exactly are you claiming? That more people in human history have claimed that Jesus lived than have claimed that JFK, etc., lived? That more historians have written about Jesus than JFK? That we know more about the birth, life, and death of Jesus than we know of the birth, life, and death of JFK? That more physical evidence exists for the existence of Jesus than for JFK? That more people have heard of Jesus than have heard of JFK? Some of the above things may be true, but not all of them are: so which definition are you using?

          • “Jesus Christ is the Best-attested Figure in all of human history”

            No. Just… no. Jesus is attested to in exactly ONE book, which (probably not coincidentally) is the holy book of the religion that worships him. However none of the actual HISTORIANS who were writing at the time seem to have noticed him.

          • Oh, really? How about Pliny the Younger, Dio Cassius, and many other Romans too numerous to name? How about so many historians since?

          • “If It is a fully reliable Predictor of future events”

            That’s a big “if.” Do you actually believe that Russia and the Arab nations are going to attack Israel and be defeated, and the Israelis will somehow manage to burn modern weapons as fuel? I don’t.

          • Think nuclear warheads that fall as duds and get blended down to commercial grade. Besides that, Russia and at least some Arab nations are beating the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel war drums right now, as we “speak.”

          • “How about Pliny the Younger”

            Yes, how ABOUT Pliny the Younger? Care to tell me what he actually said about JESUS, as opposed to what the christians he’d been interrogating believed? The beliefs of christians aren’t in question here; it’s the veracity of these beliefs we’re interested in.

          • Noah’s neighbors laughed at his building a barn that looked like a ship, not only on dry land but high and dry.

            That is until a big crack opened in the world…!

          • Terry’s scenario relies on some interesting assumptions:

            – That there would be dud nuclear warheads at all.
            – That no other nukes fired on Israel worked, so you wouldn’t be searching for the dud wreckage amid a smoldering radioactive hot zone, with the dud debris somehow intact at the scene.
            -That the dud did not disintegrate on impact as Mr. Mason reasonably proposes.
            -That you could safely recover enough weapons-grade fissile material from the debris field to machine into the required shape and mass to make usable fuel.
            -That if all the incredibly unlikely assumptions above were true, and you were on the receiving end of a nuclear attack, your first priority in finding weapons-grade fissile material would be take the time to reprocess it into fuel for an electrical plant, and not not re-weaponize it for your defense?

            These are the kind of replies that defy reason, Terry.

          • To be fair it’s more reasonable than some of the suggestions I’ve seen, such as the “Russia makes weapons from Lignostone” rubbish that circulates constantly on the nuttier christian blogs. However that doesn’t make it even remotely plausible. Even a ground-burst ICBM warhead would detonate 500-1000 feet above ground; “ground burts” just means the fireball touches ground, not the weapon itself. When the USA deployed earth-penetrating nuclear warheads in the 1980s they had to do it on shorter-range Pershing II missiles, because they had a lower trajectory and much lower impact speed. An ICBM warhead hitting ground would be pulverised – and probably partly vapourised – by the energy release. The fissile material would be scattered in the plume of debris from the impact, causing widespread contamination.

  • “a user-defined school of thought.”

    Oh, boy. If the phrase didn’t perfectly fit your brand of conservative Christianity, I’d eat my hat. Most conservatives I know in my own life believe in personal responsibility, fiscal independence, small government, and the rule of law. From what I can see here you prefer paranoid individualism, xenophobia over patriotism, demonization of the poor and of anything resembling liberal thought, and the absolute rule of a Book that had its chance to impose peace and order in the Middle Ages and failed horribly. Most Christians I know in my own life believe in love for their fellow men, a personal avoidance of sin, and the rule of law as long as it has a basis in Judeo-Christian history. You have betrayed the root of your own ideologies with these warped, wilfully ignorant ideas.

    Secular humanism means nothing except what the words say: a non-religious emphasis on the worth of every human being. No secular humanist would be ignorant enough to use a phrase like “Cafeteria Conservatism” as your friends at Conservapedia do so often; if someone wants to call themselves a humanist, nothing is expected of them except civility, kindness and an open mind.

    Anyway, once again you’ve carefully avoided responding to the actual issues presented by your opponents, reducing them to insults. I’ll bring some up again and expect some sort of real reply. If you will, revisit our problems with:

    1) The dietary anomalies of the animals on the Ark
    2) How the Ark withstood the tsunamis that must have occurred
    3) The conflict of interest apparent in your promotion of this exhibit
    4) The accusation that this exhibit is nothing more than a tourist trap
    5) The stated lack of conservative schools of journalism

  • If there was one “beetle kind” on Noah’s Ark, how do creationists explain the hyper-evolution necessary to creates all of today’s different species of beetles? (And of course the same question is pertinent for every other “kind”.)

    How many different “kinds” of termites were on this wooden boat, and what did they eat?

    Some human disease organisms (cholera, typhoid, typhus, smallpox, diphtheria, plague, ebola, marburg, etc, etc) are only carried by humans. How did Noah’s family survive these diseases (which kill humans rather quickly) to carry them into the post-Flood human population?

    • “How many different “kinds” of termites were on this wooden boat, and what did they eat?”

      I would imagine they ate the boat. That would rather neatly explain why no trace of it has ever been found…

  • Paul Burnett: Re: Your February 19, 2012 at 10:26 pm comment,

    Your comment suggests to me that you must torture yourself with all types of questions when it comes to the subject of historical accounts as they are documented in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. I think that your human reasoning won’t allow you to grasp the whole Great Flood account because there would be too many questions in your mind of how such a world-wide cataclysmic event could have taken place.

    I think that you, like other skeptics, have the huge problem, – the denial of the Almighty God, as historically portrayed in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Since you can’t get past the 1st verse of the first book of the Bible, you and others, therefore, can’t fathom anything but your own naturalistic reasoning and groping questions.

    Truly, I genuinely pity people without the faith to believe. I pity them more when the only faith that they seem to be able to muster is that type of pathetic belief that they originate from the primeval slim other than the makings of their Maker.

    • Pastor Bickel,

      I can’t speak for others, but for many people including myself the driving motivation for their questions is not that they actively seek to disbelieve in God or the Bible, but that when we are told that every page, every word of the Bible must be taken as literal fact/truth, we can’t reconcile that with the evidence before our eyes. The cognitive dissonance that results forces us all to make one of two basic choices:

      A) Accept that the entire Bible is the literal truth, and actively work to explain all the findings of natural science that can be independently observed, measured and confirmed in such a way that it supports the Biblical narrative. This is the position of CNaV and many others here, including yourself I’d say.

      B) Accept that the Bible is a collective and collaborative work of many human authors who were inspired as they wrote their individual books. This is also accepting that there isn’t even such a thing as “the” Bible, because leaders of various Judeo-Christian faiths could not agree on which works are canon or not, despite each of them insisting that they are correct and the truest to God’s intent. One can gain many worthwhile insights from studying Biblical text, but it is a complement to, not a replacement for, the study and findings of naturalistic science. That’s where I stand, not as an enemy of faith, but as a defender of rational thought and the freedom of each of us to practice our beliefs without having the practices of someone else’s religion imposed on us.

      There are many profound lessons contained in the Bible, but as a work it should be regarded as a collection of allegorical and metaphorical writings combined with later testimony (Gospels), rather than a history book that represents the a truth our reality has to conform to.

      The ark narrative is a good example. It can only be true if one assumes a major amount of supernatural intervention to cause the flood, gather the animals, keep everything alive and well, and repopulate the earth afterward. Explanations of how it could happen that rely on science alone don’t hold up, and my simple proposal above puts that to the test – choose enough creatures to represent the number of “kinds” required, then seal them, eight volunteers and the necessary provisions into a Biblically-accurate replica on land and see how feasible it was. It’s not going to happen without supernatural support.

      That’s why I declined to follow up when I asked Terry to debate me on the age of the Earth and he challenged me to accept Walt Brown’s hydroplate debate challenge instead. As soon as I saw the rule that it would be “based on science alone with no religious references allowed” I took it to be disingenuous. Forget the details – there’s no way to debate a theory based on planetary dominoes and how they fell if it sidesteps how the dominoes were set up that way in the first place, and there’s no naturalistic explanation for that. Dr. Brown’s book is written to support the pre-stated conclusions of the Bible, not to do independent science and see that the results align to the Bible.

      Terry’s work here follows that pattern. When 2+2=5 based on the Bible, the answer is usually that the “value of ‘2’ has changed over time, and you can’t prove that it hasn’t”. For someone who scoffs at the idea of dark energy (which is still just an idea), it’s ironic that replacing the words “dark energy” with “God” suddenly makes a whole set of questions reclassified as answered.

      This could go off on many tangents, so I’ll just bring it back to the main point. If people are going to insist on the Biblical narrative as being a literal truth backed by testable science rather than metaphor and allegory, then people will question that science and expect a reasonable defense that holds up. These are not personal attacks or Bible-bashing for the sake of it – these are defenses of the rational against the irrational when faith is portrayed as science, that’s all. I’m also as concerned with my nation drifting towards a pseudo-theocracy as you are about your “Agenda 21” conspiracy, except when I see laws being passed in Virginia forcing women’s bodies to be invasively probed for no medical reason, my concern seems a lot more real.

      None of these questions about the ark in the comments above have been conclusively answered by Terry or yourself – even the answers that have been provided are hypothetical in nature.

      If I go to the Museum of Natural History in NYC, I can see exhibits that tell a narrative, with specimens to back them up. More importantly, if I doubt something I see or have a better explanation for something, I can reach out to the scientists and researchers in the field, present my work, and both cases can be independently peer-reviewed to determine which explains reality better. “Reality” still being out there for anyone to keep examining, of course.

      If I go to the Creation Museum or the pending Ark Encounter however, you won’t see exhibits based in science that show how anything happened. You see exhibits that tell a story from the point of view of a group of individuals, and they alone are the gatekeepers for what is presented as “truth” in these institutions, with science an afterthought. As I mentioned in an earlier post, they can present their views the way Disney presents pirates in the Caribbean – it’s entertainment, with no science required. Just don’t call a theme park a “museum” – the latter is fleecing the attendees by pretending they’re getting the results of research, not imagineering.

      • DinsdaleP: Re: Your February 20, 2012 at 9:54 am comment,

        Essentially, you come up with the two choices that a person (soul) has to make. May I take the liberty to simplify your A and B choices?

        Choice A – To believe the Creator who created us.

        Choice B – To disbelieve the Creator who created us, – even, denying His existence, – thus stalling out in Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning, God created…….”

        I made the following Genesis 1:1 reference in a previous comment, to “Paul Burnett:”

        “Since you can’t get past the 1st verse of the first book of the Bible, you and others, therefore, can’t fathom anything but your own naturalistic reasoning and groping questions.”

        I rather think, that this (aforementioned), is the issue. It’s the hurdle challenge that you and other sinful souls must face.

        A second hurdle (challenge) which you and others face (before the hereafter), is, that no matter what present testimony people will have in this world (in their earthly lifetime) about spiritual realities, they will still not be convinced, to believe, even though someone comes back from the dead to attempt to convince them. [Gospel of Luke 16:19-31]

        Finally, you must grapple with the present condition and future (hereafter) condition of your sinful soul. Should you discount and / or diminish what God’s written revelation states (as given by the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures) you will have to, at best, hope for the best, finally entering the hereafter eternity upon your own lonesome. What, I believe you are doing, is playing a very serious “crap shoot game” with your priceless soul.

        Personally, I’d rather put my faith, not in myself, but Christ, the Creator and Savior. I don’t believe that the loving God would leave His creation bereft of a clue and His clear message gift, the Scriptures. [And, He didn’t]

        I wish and pray for you the best. I leave you with this:

        “The Major Reasons that the Christian Message is Rejected and Regarded as Foolish:”

        http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2011/05/major-reasons-that-christian-message-is.html

        • Thanks for your prayers – I appreciate the spirit in which they’re offered.

          I place myself in the “doubt” group instead of the “absolute belief” or “absolute rejection” groups, but if you insist on a black-and-white, all-or-nothing grouping then I don’t belong with the absolute believers.

          What I do reject is the idea that a man or woman could live a good life, practicing the values that matter starting with the Golden Rule, and still be damned by God to eternal punishment in the end because of doubts expressed in good faith? More to the point, there is a wide latitude to what one calls “being a Christian”, and I find it sad that some Christians regard other devout Christians who worship differently as damned because they choose that different form of expression.

          By your principle, all of our efforts to stand by our Jewish allies in Israel mean little, since they’re damned for eternity anyway for not accepting Christ as the Messiah. No need to touch on Mormons, let alone other faiths – all damned.

          When I read C.S. Lewis’ The Last Battle, one of the scenes that really moved me was when Aslan admitted a good man who worshipped a false god to paradise. The message was that if you lived your life as God (Aslan) intended, you were faithful to God no matter what earthly label you claimed to be following.

          If I’m going to be judged by God while not being a Biblical literalist in my life, then yes, I’m technically gambling, but the bet I’m making is that it was more important to be a good man, husband, father and member of society than to suspend my God-given ability to reason just because a group of men, not God, were telling me what I should and shouldn’t accept as truth.

        • Pastor Bickel,

          After thinking about your “simplification of the two choices” for a bit, there’s a third choice, and it must be accepted as an option whether you hold to it or not.

          Simply stated, the third choice is that there may be supernatural elements to our existence, but that it’s not as you describe.

          You had not addressed my point about defining what “the” bible is – which version out of many is the “true” one, and more importantly, how do you know? When people talk about America being a “Christian nation”, which version of Christianity are we talking about, and who gets to define the values others are expected to adopt?

          There is no single version of Christianity that can be called “superior” or “closest to God” than any other – it’s always going to come down to personal interpretation and belief. It’s not anti-Christian to point out the suffering that came from one sect of Christians persecuting another – the fault lies in the people committing the acts, but their zealotry was the vehicle.

    • It has not escaped my notice that you completely avoided his question about “kinds” and hyper-evolution.

      I myself have asked you TWICE to give a definition of “kind,” and you haven’t. Why not? Can’t you do this?

  • Re: “…historical accounts as they are documented in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.”

    Most theologians agree that the creation mythologies documented in Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are allegorical and are not and were not meant to be taken as historical fact.

    Most theologians also agree that the creation mythologies of Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are derived from the creation mythologies of Egyptian, Sumerian and other earlier religions’ scriptures. That’s a historical fact.

    In the 4th century Saint Augustine of Hippo wrote that Genesis should be reinterpreted as new knowledge became available. In the 13th century Saint Thomas Aquinas cautioned “that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

    Or do you not accept these comments by highly regarded Christian theologians?

    • I don’t. That was a ridiculous thing to say. Especially since, if anything, the uniformitarian/abiogenetic/commonly descending model is now “proved with certainty to be false.”

  • Terry – Re: Your 2/20/12 9:56 AM response to “brossa’s” 2/20/12 8:54 AM comment:

    The more I live and witness those who either discount, and / or, diminish Bible history by their arbitrary pickings and choosings,- the more I am convinced that rejection of the historicity of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, is a willful choosing to reject God.

    As the Bible says, people would rather be comfortable living in their particular lifestyle sins rather than admitting someone far greater than themselves who will some day judge them; sentence them and damn them because of their sin, based upon the holy standards of holy Creator God.

    Even pointing out to unbelieving souls, extra Biblical history will not be enough to move these unbelieving souls from their set path to perdition.

    I love the parable of Christ about the Rich Man and Lazurus. It’s a case in point, that no matter what present testimony people will have in this world (in their earthly lifetime) about spiritual realities, they will still not be convinced, to believe, even though though someone comes back from the dead to attempt to convince them. [Gospel of Luke 16:19-31]

    • Actually people reject the historicity of the bible because large parts of it are contradicted by the evidence. The ark, of course, is just the most spectacular example of this.

      • Not only are the myths of the Bible contradicted by reality, the Bible is also internally contradictory. Examples include the two different creation myths of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 with contradicting orders of creation, Acts’ and Matthews’ contradictory stories of Judas’ death, II Samuel and I Chronicles contradictory 7 or 3 years of famine, and the infamous how many times did the cock crow?

        • Not to mention all the contradictions about Jesus’ birth and the impossibility of fitting any of the gospel stories into known history. I still crack up every time I hear about Herod massacring babies ten years after he died.

          • Fergus and Paul,

            You two make claims without evidencing your assertions. Also, you make the continued assumption that the Scriptures are riddled with inconsistencies, errors and contradictions because you cannot reconcile some things contained therein. That assumption is, of course based upon the notion that you have all the information available that there is to know to come to a viable and logical conclusion.

            The reality is, you, nor any of us know all the information about a given and supposed inconsistency, error and contradiction because that information just isn’t available and tangible to examine in our time and space frame. Yet, you two, continue with your illogical conclusions.

            In summary, both of you fail to realize “paradox:”

            “Understanding the Bible – Reasons Why Non Christians Don’t Comprehend the Holy Scriptures:”

            http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2012/02/understanding-bible-reasons-why-non.html

          • But the bible IS riddled with inconsistencies, errors and contradictions. For example how could Jesus have been born during the census called by Quirinius (6 CE) and also while Herod the Great (died 4 BCE) was king? It simply doesn’t work.

            And don’t tell me that Quirinius might have been governor previously, because that won’t work either. Firstly Judea didn’t become a Roman province until 6 CE, so it didn’t have any previous governors. And secondly Galilee, where Nazareth is, was a client kingdom and not part of Judea province. So the census wouldn’t have affected Mary and Jospeh anyway.

          • That one is so old…! Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was the garrison commander in Antioch years before, when the census began. This was a regular census, and all that verse said was that the first year that the Augustan census took place, was when Quirinius was the ranking general in Syria. Not when he was proconsul there; that would come later.

            The Greek grammar should read thus: “In those days, an executive order went out from Augustus Caesar that all the Roman world should register in regular censuses. The first year that this happened was when Quirinius was the garrison commander in Antioch. Everyone would go to register, each to his particular city. So in the year in question (not the year that Quirinius first held that command), Joseph went up…to register with Mary…”

          • “This was a regular census”

            Yes – AFTER 6 CE, when Judea became a Roman province. Not before.

            Anyway, what’s your evidence that Quirinius was in Antioch before 4 BCE? From 12 BCE to 8BCE he was in Rome as Consul. From 8 BCE to 3 BCE he was in Turkey, then back to Rome until he became governor of Syria.

            “The Greek grammar should read thus: “In those days, an executive order went out from Augustus Caesar that all the Roman world should register in regular censuses.”

            Well no. That’s just what you WANT it to read. No translator in history seems to agree. In any case, as I said, Judea didn’t come under direct Imperial authority until 6 CE and therefore wouldn’t have had an Imperial census before that.

            I note that you completely ignored the fact that Galilee wasn’t included in the census. And why would the Romans want people to return to the city of their ancestors? The whole point of a census was to assess people for tax, and it was done in their place of residence.

  • Nathan, here’s an assertion with evidence: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” (Matthew 1:16) Any problem there?

    But then there’s “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…” (Luke 3:23) [06]

    So who is right? Matthew or Luke? Would you agree that’s a pretty straightforward inconsistency / error / contradiction?

    • Know what? You missed Matthew saying, “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.” That sentence goes on to say that Jesus was born from Mary, not Joseph. Of course, you probably don’t know that ancient Greek (and modern Greek, too) assigns gender to relative pronouns. English doesn’t. So when any translator renders a word as “who” or “whom,” they lose something in the translation.

      You further missed Matthew’s description beginning “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise…” Matthew goes on to say this: Joseph and Mary were at the engagement step in their relationship. In Jewish law, engagement is a very serious matter. And then, boom! Mary turns out to be pregnant. Joseph, of course, doesn’t know a thing about Mary’s visions. But because he doesn’t want to be a jerk, he decides to call it quits (which he has the right to do) but not make a public stink about it. So then an angel visits him and says, “Joseph, don’t worry about Mary. That Child she’s carrying has Divine origin. You are to give Him the Name Yeshua, and He will be quite famous.” So Joseph went through with the marriage anyway. And because he now knew everything, he wasn’t intimate with her until the Child was born.

      That’s absolutely compatible with Luke, who goes into far greater detail in Chapter 1, about how the pregnancy happened, and Chapter 2, about the Birth Itself.

      Any other questions?

  • You’re stirring in lots of extraneous information. Let’s stick to basics: Matthew said “And Jacob begat Joseph…” while Luke said “…Joseph, which was the son of Heli…”

    The subject is who does the Bible say Joseph’s father was. Mary and Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus aren’t part of this particular discussion, nor are ancient Greek or Jewish law part of this discussion.

    Matthew says Joseph’s father was Jacob, and Luke says Joseph’s father was Heli. Open and shut. Blatant inconsistency / error / contradiction.

    And if you want to invoke Levirate marriage (because Jacob and Heli were brothers), why wouldn’t Luke and Matthew agree on which brother was the genetic father of Joseph and which was the Levirate marriage “father”?

    • Luke is making a matrilineal trace. And to anticipate another objection: no such word or phrase as “son-in-law” existed in ancient Greek. So “son of Heli” really meant “son-in-law of Heli.” Heli was the father of Mary, not Joseph.

      As a further clue: Luke and Matthew’s genealogies converge on King David. But Matthew went through King Solomon (though he omitted three kings whom he deemed not worth mentioning), whereas Luke went through Prince Nathan, one of Solomon’s many half brothers. After that, Luke went back through Abraham and clear up to Adam; Matthew did not do that, for his own reasons.

      The reason for this: Matthew was tracing a lawful line of descent through King David. But Luke had to account for this fact: God said of one of the last Kings of Judah, “Write this man childless.” Luke also wanted to establish a blood relationship.

          • Yes Terry, and I think we both know what he was doing.

            Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,
            24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi…

            And on, and on, and tediously on. That’s a lineage of Joseph. Mary isn’t even mentioned.

  • In response to questions about the diets of carnivores aboard the ark:

    Carnivorous dinosaurs—if any were meat-eaters before the Flood—could have eaten dried meat, reconstituted dried meat, or slaughtered animals. Giant tortoises would have been ideal to use as food in this regard. They were large and needed little food to be maintained themselves. There are also exotic sources of meat, such as fish that wrap themselves in dry cocoons.

    This is a plausible solution.

    Probability and possibility is another discussion that doesn’t interest me.

    In response to the taxonomy of kinds:

    Statistical and cognitive baraminology are the creationist classification tools explained for starters here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/ark-kinds-flood-baraminology-cognitum.

    My apologies. I’m normally reluctant to paste and run but this is too broad a subject to insult with one line. My intent is to make aware that thoughtful creationist taxonomic methods exist and are being refined.

  • Alex says: February 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm:

    I am certainly able to distinguish the difference between “species” and “kinds”. But could the people who wrote the Bible, several thousand years ago? I doubt it. After all, they thought that the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around it. 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, and Isaiah 45:18 all seem to imply that the Earth doesn’t move (i.e. orbit anything).

    REPLY:

    Two observations:

    1. How one would go about determining that by the implication of your assertion that “all” the people who wrote the books of the Bible (which would be say forty) believed the earth was flat or in geocentrism is problematic at best. They are not available for interview on these matters and appealing to demonstrable figurative Hebrew is unhelpful.. Besides, these beliefs were promoted more so by pagans than by theists, e.g., Aristotle and Ptolemy developed geocentrism not Moses and David.

    2. It’s interesting if not humorous that the skeptic spurns the textual reliability of scripture when an opponent references it to support their position, e.g., a global flood or ark, but invokes the selfsame unreliable scripture with some level of confidence to support their own criticism – usually defending this tactic as a concession to his opponent’s beliefs.

    Being how you believe that the geologists and biologists are wrong in all matters science, do you suppose that the astronomers and astrophysicists are all in in league with them as well?

    REPLY: Speaking for myself, as a creationist and not a straw man, I don’t think they’re wrong in ALL matters of science. That’s just silly. Where I become skeptical is when they depart from the scientific method and replace it with forensic inference. It’s one thing to measure a fossil and quite another to imagine scenarios of their demise from things like constipation to cometary impacts whilst leaving their contemporaries relatively unharmed to flourish as the apparent stronger organism/s.

    • “imagine scenarios of their demise from things like constipation to cometary impacts”

      Except of course that’s not what’s happening. In the case of the K-T Event, for example, there is a huge crater in the Gulf of Mexico which is associated with a global iridium layer. Precisely at that layer, huge numbers of species abruptly disappear from the fossil record forever. This is all evidence for a mass extinction caused by a meteor impact, and so hypothesising such an impact is fully in accordance with the scientific method. There is nothing unscientific about forensic inference.

      • Couple of things. First, I’ve said as much already in a previous post . . .

        . . . “evidence” is tricky since most law schools will tell you it doesn’t speak for itself unless it’s audio and video. Therefore, people speak for the evidence by imposing their best attempt to explain its existence. So the evidence we’re talking about here is based on observing CURRENT phenomena and drawing conclusions about the past. This is not necessarily inappropriate – in fact, it’s a reasonable practice – it’s just that neither of us is capable of witnessing the loading of the ark outside of Prof. Peabody’s time machine anymore than we could the big bang or the emergence of the first organism by abiogenesis. In other words, we observe current methods and practices of animal husbandry, utilize principles of naval architecture and marine engineering, study extant documentary resources, compare archeological evidence of ancient nautical cultures with an ark model, scrutinize accepted theories like rate of speciation to determine their integrity, measure rates of adaptation to ascertain how long it would take a population to emerge, etc., and piece together these lines of evidence to develop a scientifically plausible explanation of the ark event. That is, we seek an explanation that “fits” the evidence using the scientific method. Now you must be sensitive to the fact we need not propose 100% certainty for it to be or scientific. Scientists have conjectured all sorts of plausible explanations that have very little direct or indirect “evidence”. Dark Matter comes to mind as something that has never been [directly] observed nor has any [material] “evidence” been provided (or why else would it’s supporters still be looking for it?) and yet it is generally accepted as a scientifically plausible explanation. The current research, modeling and feasibility studies that have gone into drawing a detailed picture of the ark and the events of the flood build a very plausible explanation that is also possible and therefore more probable than as not. IOW, it is an explanation that best fits the “evidence” in this case the evidence being the biblical ark narrative and the pervasiveness of ark and flood stories across the globe from different cultures and times.”

        Second, your example of the Chicxulub murderoid demonstrates an easy willingness to jettison skepticism and accept as “science” forensic inferences (or what I regard as speculation) for presumed ELEs from by evolutionists with whom you happen to philosophically agree while denying the same academic privilege to supporters of the ark who have provided at least as plausible, if not better, an explanation (with associated mechanisms) to accommodate the “evidence”. This behavior really is the epitome of ideological narrow mindedness.

        It should not go unremarked that the Mexican Monster Murderoid has fallen under some disrepute by evolutionists lately (The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy by Officer and Page, comes to mind) and that a K-T layer is just as easily explained by volcanism. Volcanism which is also part of the Flood model and biblical record. Overall, there is simply no strong correlation of iridium anomalies with the extinction event/s. Again, this is not just my opinion, but also those of evolutionists who have retained their healthy skepticism of their peers.

        Ironically, only one known impact crater in Australia is associated with increased concentrations of iridium in the soil. Whereas volcanism – as opposed to ancient asteroids – has been OBSERVED to raise iridium levels. In 1983 Kilauea produced iridium levels of 630 ppb, 11,500 times the concentration in Hawaiian volcanic rocks. Surprisingly, the FURTHER away from the eruption, the higher the iridium levels in the soils – much like the “global” distribution of iridium oft cited by evolutionists as “evidence” for their cometary case. It was discovered by OBSERVATION and DIRECT measurement as a consequence of these eruptions that iridium binds to finer particles, which remain airborne for greater distances spreading it across the globe.

        • “. . . “evidence” is tricky since most law schools will tell you”

          Irrelevant; we’re talking about science here, not law, so the opinions of law schools don’t matter even slightly.

          “supporters of the ark who have provided at least as plausible, if not better, an explanation (with associated mechanisms) to accommodate the “evidence”.”

          No, I have seen no credible mechanism to explain a global flood and nothing to suggest that the ark is even remotely practical. All the suggested mechanisms violate well-understood facts about the universe. This is why none of them has gained any scientific backing whatsoever.

          “the Mexican Monster Murderoid has fallen under some disrepute by evolutionists lately”

          Not really. There are certainly alternative hypotheses, and other craters which may be associated with it have been found, but we know that iridium is a lot more common in asteroids than it is on Earth. As for vulcanism, the chief volcanic suspect in the K-T event is the Deccan Traps. 65 million years ago that was directly opposite the Chixulub crater and the impact may have trigered the vulcanism.

          • March 7, 2012 at 2:49 am Fergus Mason says: Irrelevant; we’re talking about science here, not law, so the opinions of law schools don’t matter even slightly.

            REPLY: A dismissal certainly but not a thoughtful rebuttal.  I loathe engaging in  boorish “let me remind you what you just said in your post I just replied to”  discussion but I’ll indulge this once: let me remind you that you mentioned “evidence” yourself (“This is all evidence . . .”).  So I think i was entirely accurate.  Anyway, with a retort like yours – not unlike ones I’ve experienced with science fetishists – I don’t think you have any idea what evidence is.  

            Frankly, what “we’re” talking about at least for this topic in this forum on this web page has everything to do with  “evidence” and science as it relates to evidence for the ark and by extension evidence for a flood and how this has impassioned the Ark Encounter. I have to ask, what exactly do you think the difference is between evidence and scientific evidence? I’ve worked successfully in applied science and engineering for over twenty-five years and my definition has served myself and my colleagues well so I’d be interested to know, since I believe you said you’re a biologist – what the life science definition is.  I’ll then run it by both Webster and a friend of mine who has both a PhD in chemistry and a J.D.  

            March 7, 2012 at 2:49 am Fergus Mason says: “No, I have seen no credible mechanism . . . ”

            REPLY: Ergo, none exist, is that it?  Well that might be truth for you but not for me.

            March 7, 2012 at 2:49 am Fergus Mason says: ” . . . to explain a global flood and nothing to suggest that the ark is even remotely practical.”

            REPLY:  You have got to be kidding me.  So let me get this straight.  NASA geologists look at Mars and from 100 million miles imagine (i.e., not observed occurring and no direct evidence to measure, quantify, test, repeat and falsify) – but all very scientific you understand – an ‘epoch’ in Mars’ geological past called the Noachian Epoch because it’s associated with a ‘flood of biblical proportions’ and you don’t see any, I mean any, evidence for an event like that on Earth? At all? Anywhere? Hint: even with all the water currently lying around this blue planet as say compared to the red one? (And I bet you accept the “scientific” plausibility that alien astronauts built the pyramids and then disappeared without a trace.)

            And the ark not “remotely” practical? Honestly? This despite actual scale models built to the proportions defined in the bible demonstrating its sea keeping ability.  Stability studies and weight and moment surveys supporting the integrity of its derived hydrostatic and hydrodynamic properties. Ancient shipbuilding techniques most likely used in Noah’s time and, using the materials specified in the bible, shown today how they can be used to build the ark with sufficient primary hull girder strength and section modulus. Time management and manpower studies deducing how 8 people could build the ark in accordance with the biblical schedule. Feasibilty studies demonstrating simple and practical animal husbandry methods capable of being used on a vessel like the ark.  And so forth.  So nothing? Nothing remotely, not infinitesimally, demonstrating the practical plausibility and possibility of the ark?

            But of course there’s just a mountain of evidence for dark matter, accretion disks, spontaneous generation via abiogenesis, multiverses, millions upon millions of transitional fossils, a global flood on Mars and alien astronauts. We’re just tripping over it to picket the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter.

            March 7, 2012 at 2:49 am Fergus Mason says: “All the suggested mechanisms violate well-understood facts about the universe. This is why none of them has gained any scientific backing whatsoever.”

            REPLY: You’re funny. Now you’ve even stretched the credulity of someone who believes in the flying spaghetti monster. So now science is facts? And here I thought facts were facts and science was an attempt at the best explanation or approximation of the “facts”.  Or is that evidence? Oh it gets all so confusing sometimes.

            So now do tell, name just a few of the mechanisms that violate these so called inviolate facts?  Because I just read the fact that man would never fly, we’d never break the sound barrier and space travel was impossible. And please don’t limit yourself to just one model like Dr. Brown’s hydroplate since his is not the only model/theory. (Oh, and then demonstrate how these facts are violated on Earth but not on Mars.)

            You also leveled a similar challenge regarding creationist biosystematics (“kinds”) essentially charging that one did not exist – or at least made sense to a biologist such as yourself. Yet I supplied you with ample documentation to the contrary explaining and nary a peep.  Now mind you, you just asked for a definition. But I suppose until the High Priests of Science and Authority – may they forever be praised and never questioned, selah – decide by “consensus” that baraminology is science it will never be so, amen. And that’s just the coward’s fighting withdrawal.  Understandable.

            It’s a wonder how we ever make scientific progress when we have to consistently deal in every generation with the superior High Priests of Science and Authority telling country bumpkins like the Wright brothers what they could and couldn’t do because – all bow your heads in reified obedience – science “says” so.

            I think what you mean is not “scientific backing” but backing by scientists or rather those scientists of acceptable secular pedigree who have been granted Permission to Speak. Since I argue there’s plenty of science – from hydrology to geology and from naval architecture to materials engineering – to back it up.

            March 7, 2012 at 2:49 am Fergus Mason says: “Not really. There are certainly alternative hypotheses, and other craters which may be associated with it have been found, but we know that iridium is a lot more common in asteroids than it is on Earth. As for vulcanism, the chief volcanic suspect in the K-T event is the Deccan Traps. 65 million years ago that was directly opposite the Chixulub crater and the impact may have trigered the vulcanism.”

            REPLY: No really.  Again, we have observed – observed – using our senses today (not those of our ancestors 65 million years ago) and scientific measurement volcanoes depositing iridium layers but we have not observed – only imagined with I’ll agree some very sophisticated CGI and wonderful narration – the Mexican Murderoid. In science, while imagination is invaluable, observation trumps imagination every time.  At least the science I’ve experienced.  

            Saying “we know iridium is a lot more common in asteroids than it is on Earth” (which I suspect is more inferred and less demonstrated since there’s supposedly a whole layer of it around the globe and it’s belched out of volcanoes) is interesting but it’s a far cry from convincingly explaining or saying a Mexican Murderoid was able to selective kill large swaths of organisms but left others completely unharmed to not only survive but thrive in the devastation who eventually became us (those same us-es that are constantly being wiped out by murderoids in SyFy specials!  Apparently, as little ancient shrews we could survive the aftermath of asteroid impact but as evolved higher-order humans with I-pads and twitter we don’t stand a chance. Feh.)

            And that’s the fabulous plasticity of the science you defend.  Pick a hypothesis any hypothesis to protect the central core philosophy. Anything but the Flood. Flatulence, murderoids, constipation, famine, fire, flu, predation, aliens, sure, absolutely scientifically possible but please not the Flood. There’s absolutely no evidence. Now wait for it.  Wait for it. It’s impossible. . . . except on Mars.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.



© All Rights Reserved. Conservative News and Views.

Back to Top