Evidence for Evolution

[Josh]

Whilst I don’t personally care for Ken Ham… what’s wrong with that book?

[ohio jones]

Because many of the creationist types who promote themselves are frauds.

They are frauds because they promote themselves, not necessarily because they are creationists.

[Ken]

Whilst I don’t personally care for Ken Ham… what’s wrong with that book?

It tells lies about both science and the Bible.

Do we live in a world where I can make up any lie I want about the Bible and turn it into a children's book?

For example, can I make a Gay Jesus coloring book for kids? One can probably make a much more plausible and compelling argument that Jesus was gay than one can that Noah brought all the dinosaurs onto the ark or that Noah's descendants rode around on dinosaurs. Or that there were vegetarian T-Rex's frolicking in the Garden of Eden and using their sharp teeth to make lemonade for Adam and Eve.

I mean of course I can make any coloring book I want. We have freedom of press. But would you APPROVE of a Gay Jesus coloring book for kids with page after page of pictures depicting a gay Jesus doing "gay" stuff?

You are free to go ahead and tell your kids whatever lies or religious fantasies that you want. But when they get old enough to know better do you want them tossing the Bible out as made up nonsense along with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy? Because I would suggest that is the road you are going down with this sort of thing.

[MaxPC]

They are frauds because they promote themselves, not necessarily because they are creationists.

Indeed and agreed. Likewise I have found as much fanaticism and fraud among some who denigrate the Bible as they claim they see in pro-creationist supporters.

[Soloist]

It tells lies about both science and the Bible.

Do tell what lies these men tell. I’m curious what you decided was lies and not a matter of opinion.

[Ken]

Because many of the creationist types who promote themselves are frauds.

They are frauds because they promote themselves, not necessarily because they are creationists.

Yes, I meant precisely what I wrote.

You will notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that creationism is a fraud. What i have written is that it isn't science. And to try to present it as science is fraudulent. But as a belief system it isn't fraudulent. It is simply religious dogma like any other that requires faith rather than science to support.

And for whatever reason, creationism has generated a motley crew of hucksters trying to capitalize financially on it and cash in on people's faith. Back when we lived in Texas we lived near the Glen Rose Texas where there is cool state park: Dinosaur Valley State Park: https://tpwd.texas.gov/state-parks/dinosaur-valley where you can see fossilized Cretaceous-era dinosaur footprints from when that part of Texas was a shallow sea.

Right outside the park there is the Creation Evidence Museum run by Carl Baugh where he makes his living selling admission to his museum and peddling overpriced stuffed animals and stuff like Ken Ham's book about dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.

Carl Baugh is another fraud. He claims to have two PhDs in archeology and third in education. But they are all from correspondence diploma mills. His first PhD in archaeology is from the California Graduate School of Theology which has no web site only has a Facebook page, isn't accredited by any legitimate accreditation agency, and who's address points to a Baptist Church in Garden Grove CA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zxt3ubkGjpWc91Px7

Baugh claims his second PhD in archaeology from Pacific International University in Melbourne Australia which is another fly-by-night diploma mill with no address, only a PO Box and that lists Carl Baugh himself as the president.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_I ... University

His PhD in Education is from Pacific College, another diploma mill in Australia run by Australian creationist Clifford Wilson, an associate of Carl Baugh. The "school's "College of Advanced Education" where Baugh claims his degree is a division of the International Baptist College, of which Baugh himself is president.

So the whole thing is circular musical chair game of fraudulent credentials and claims.

[Ken]

It tells lies about both science and the Bible.

Do tell what lies these men tell. I’m curious what you decided was lies and not a matter of opinion.

That Noah brought dinosaurs onto the Ark, for example. There are 120 distinct animals or animal species mentioned in the Bible but curiously not one single dinosaur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _the_Bible You would think that the ancient Hebrews would have noticed T-Rexes and Sauropods if they were walking around Canaan or Mesopotamia.

Now a pretty fundamental principle of Christianity is that you don't put words into God's mouth (or Abraham's mouth) that aren't actually there. You can call that sort of thing opinion if you want. But it doesn't make it true. It isn't remotely scientific. And it isn't supported by scripture. So if it isn't true then it is by definition an "untruth"

If we can make up anything we want about the Bible and call it "opinion" then the whole book becomes meaningless. And I would suggest that teaching children lies about the Bible is especially damaging. Because when they figure out it is all a bunch of nonsense (and they eventually will) they will wonder how much else of what they have been taught is nonsense too.

[Soloist]

That Noah brought dinosaurs onto the Ark, for example. There are 120 distinct animals or animal species mentioned in the Bible but curiously not one single dinosaur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _the_Bible You would think that the ancient Hebrews would have noticed T-Rexes and Sauropods if they were walking around Canaan.

Oddly enough there are many species not mentioned that were likely on the ark. Saying that Noah brought dinosaurs on isn’t a lie but a reasonable assumption if one believes in a 6000-10000 year old planet. There are some species described that could be dinosaurs.
Although I tend to agree that you would think David would have mentioned fighting velociraptors along with the bear and lion.

Now a pretty fundamental principle of Christianity is that you don't put words into God's mouth (or Abraham's mouth) that aren't actually there. You can call that sort of thing opinion if you want. But it doesn't make it true. It isn't remotely scientific. And it isn't supported by scripture. So if it isn't true then it is by definition an "untruth"

I think arguing what animals were on the ark or not is a silly argument. God didn’t tell us that hippos were on the ark… it doesn’t mean hippos weren’t on the ark.
Likewise just because God didn’t say that a velociraptor was on the ark doesn’t mean that there weren’t velociraptors on the ark.
For all we know the early man pre-flood killed most of the dinosaurs. maybe that’s why God sent the flood. I mean they are pretty cool animals. It says later that God will destroy the earth with fire for those who destroy the earth so maybe they destroy the other species and get fire. This is pure speculation of course but just speculating or stating that someone probably took dinosaurs on the ark is not a lie.

If we can make up anything we want about the Bible and call it "opinion" then the whole book becomes meaningless. And I would suggest that teaching children lies about the Bible is especially damaging. Because when they figure out it is all a bunch of nonsense (and they eventually will) they will wonder how much else of what they have been taught is nonsense too.

I don’t think teaching children that dinosaur are on the ark is a lie. This is really no different then arguing the height of goliath or if Jesus had long hair.
I don’t think Jesus had long hair but I’m not going to call someone a liar for thinking that.
Likewise I don’t really think you are lying when you are arguing for evolution even though it’s completely false.
So whether or not dinosaurs were on the ark isn’t really a lie. The issue is more that they are profiting off of peoples ignorance in multiple ways. In my experience their research had holes and simplified things too much.
There was some research that wasn’t just the “gotcha” research and that was fascinating. That sort of stuff though was few and far between. The actual research papers on evolution have holes and are not very well wrote papers. I’ve read up on some of these so-called missing links and I find that they are just as suspect as the dinosaur pottery being produced in Mexico.

I do agree though that if we’re teaching children something that is not in the Bible and saying it is in the Bible that is damaging to trust but I don’t really think dinosaurs are the points you should pursue. I think it’s far more damaging to say you don’t need to do what Jesus taught.
It’s far more damaging to teach Santa Claus…. Why would someone believe in Jesus when they find out that their parents lied about Santa Claus? I mean their parents might’ve lied about Jesus too right?
Talk about their lack of ethics sure, talk about how silly it is to think that Jesus rode on dinosaurs, sure. Call them liars for saying dinosaurs were on the ark… I think you are missing it.

[NedFlanders]

Because many of the creationist types who promote themselves are frauds.

They are frauds because they promote themselves, not necessarily because they are creationists.

Yes, I meant precisely what I wrote.

You will notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that creationism is a fraud. What i have written is that it isn't science. And to try to present it as science is fraudulent. But as a belief system it isn't fraudulent. It is simply religious dogma like any other that requires faith rather than science to support.

So the whole thing is circular musical chair game of fraudulent credentials and claims.

You will notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that evolution of things like humans evolving from monkeys is a fraud. What i have written is that it isn't science. And to try to present it as science is fraudulent. But as a belief system it isn't fraudulent. It is simply religious dogma like any other that requires faith rather than science to support.

So the whole thing is circular musical chair game of fraudulent credentials and claims.

There fixed it for you!

Do you see the double standard you are playing Ken?

[Ken]

I think arguing what animals were on the ark or not is a silly argument. God didn’t tell us that hippos were on the ark… it doesn’t mean hippos weren’t on the ark.
Likewise just because God didn’t say that a velociraptor was on the ark doesn’t mean that there weren’t velociraptors on the ark.
For all we know the early man pre-flood killed most of the dinosaurs. maybe that’s why God sent the flood. I mean they are pretty cool animals. It says later that God will destroy the earth with fire for those who destroy the earth so maybe they destroy the other species and get fire. This is pure speculation of course but just speculating or stating that someone probably took dinosaurs on the ark is not a lie. [/quote]

Not the same thing. The verse in question is Genesis 6:19-22 which repeats God's command to Noah:

19You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

Hippos were living creatures 6000 years ago or whenever you believe the flood happened. So by definition they would have been included in God's command and the story tells us that Noah did everything that God commanded.

Dinosaurs were not living creatures at the time of Noah. They went extinct during the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction 66 million years ago. At least all the big ones did. So the only traces of dinosaurs that would have existed during the time of Noah would have been the same fossils we have today. Not living creatures.

Furthermore, Ham's book claims that dinosaurs survived the flood (since they were all on the Ark) and that the descendants of Noah were riding around on dinosaurs as he depicts on one of the pages that I posted.