Disney-Pixar Promoting Evolution? Ken Ham Warns Parents About ‘The Good Dinosaur’ Movie

Good Dinosaur-compressedA well-known Christian apologist has spoken out about the “evolutionary indoctrination” in Disney-Pixar’s latest animated film, saying parents should be aware of the unbiblical presuppositions permeating the movie.

Ken Ham, president of Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis-USA, has expressed concern about Disney-Pixar’s latest film, “The Good Dinosaur.” In a blog post last week, Ham described the animated movie as an “evolutionary indoctrination film.”

“This new movie claims to show what might have happened if the supposed asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs in the most popular evolutionary dinosaur extinction theory had missed Earth,” Ham wrote. “In the trailer, an Apatosaurus meets up with a young boy and they travel together.”

In an earlier critique of the film, Ham said humans and dinosaurs did indeed once live together, as they were likely both created on Day Six of Creation Week, according to the Bible. Ancient artistic depictions of dinosaur-like creatures bear witness to the coexistence of man and dinosaur, he said.

How then does “The Good Dinosaur” advance unbiblical teachings? Ham says the evolutionary underpinnings are evident in the film’s portrayal of one of the main characters.

“The evolutionary presuppositions behind the film come out in the depiction of the boy in the trailer,” Ham wrote. “He acts more like an animal than a human and appears not to be very intelligent. He growls, howls, and bites, but never speaks. It seems to me that the intended impression is that this young boy has not quite yet evolved to be fully human.”

Many Christians believe that dinosaurs went extinct because most of them were destroyed by the Great Flood of Noah’s day. As for the dinosaurs taken on-board Noah’s Ark, they had trouble adjusting to the altered climactic conditions following the deluge and eventually died off.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The Good Dinosaur” presents a different story.

“What if the asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs missed?” the movie’s trailer asks.

Ham says this belief—that dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid millions of years ago—is “false.”

“Unfortunately, this new film will be watched by many children and will only reinforce evolutionary ideas about the history of Earth,” he opined. “Even though it’s fiction, nonetheless it will buttress the false beliefs about dinosaurs that children are taught through much of the media and education system.”

Despite the evolutionary assumptions therein, Ham believes Disney-Pixar’s new film, which will come to movie theaters on Thanksgiving Day, could be used as an evangelistic conversation-starter.

“Now, despite the evolutionary presuppositions behind The Good Dinosaur (and the evolutionary content that will likely be part of the film), this movie can also be used as a touch point with the culture to start gospel-centered conversations,” he said. “Just like in Acts 17 when the Apostle Paul took a pagan altar and used it as a way to proclaim Christ, so can we take a movie like The Good Dinosaur and use it to point to God’s Word and the gospel.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • bowie1

    One aspect that goes contrary to modern science is the presence of the little boy since scientists don’t believe humans and dinosaurs were living at the same time. So, in that sense it is “politically incorrect.”

    • Cosmic Mastermind

      The story is set in an alternate history:

      “In an alternate timeline in which Earth was never hit by an asteroid and dinosaurs never became extinct, a young Apatosaurus
      named Arlo loses his father in a tragic accident. One day, Arlo falls
      into a river and gets knocked out by a rock, finding himself far away
      from his home. While trying to find a way back to the Clawed-Tooth
      Mountains, he befriends a human caveboy that he names Spot”

      • bowie1

        Of course.

      • dog2000x

        Dammit. You ruined the movie for me. Now I know the whole story.

    • Steven Thompson

      Also, strictly speaking, most paleontologists and biologists believe that humans and dinosaurs were and are living at the same time, although this applies only to the maniraptoran theropods known as “birds.”

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Also, surely it should be a girl? Boys are also politically incorrect, you know.

  • April J

    It’s fiction. It’s a story.

  • Nidalap

    Hey! The Flintstones lived with dinosaurs too! (^_^)

    • Reason2012

      When humanity started out, they weren’t populated upon the entire Earth – why could there not be dinosaurs on other parts of the Earth apart from mankind before they were wiped out?

      • Nidalap

        Could be! It seems I’ve heard of some kind of fossil evidence of Man and dinos existing simultaneously too…

  • BarkingDawg

    Seriously?

    You are upset about a cartoon dinosaur?

    • Steven Thompson

      People are often upset about the political, philosophical, or moral messages they see in movies. Some commentators denounced the anti-capitalist themes of Avatar, while others protested the anti-Iranian and pro-western themes of 300, for example. Ken Ham, admittedly, has (besides his views on science and biblical interpretations) a rather itchy trigger finger in this regard: he was also unhappy about Disney’s Dinosaur back in 2000, although I don’t see why, from his perspective, it was any more “evolutionary propaganda” than, say, The Lion King.

      • RWH

        I know of a parent who got upset with a teacher because she read the story Chicken Licken. Since animals don’t talk like humans, the story is teaching evolution. The parent was dead serious. I don’t know how the Board nor the Principal coped with this guy without actually laughing in his face.

  • ASH: DoggySpew

    When did stating scientific facts become such hard thing for people to cope? Do they think their beliefs have anything to do with reality? Those who can’t accept reality are delusional beyond measure.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Indeed. Why don’t these people accept reality and abandon their delusions about evolution. The realty is it was never possible anyway.

  • Jade

    It just amazes me how Christian extremist are in a complete loss with reality. Ken Ham has made millions of dollars knowing that he can use brain-washed extremist for his own benefit. To believe that the earth is only 6000 years old is not incorrect by a million years, it is incorrect by a million times! Please stop your madness.

    • bowie1

      Just can’t stand a different opinion eh?

      • Jade

        It is not just an opinion. Some Sunday schools are teaching this 6000 year old earth with Adam and Eve’s children playing with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs became extinct around 65 million years ago and man appeared on earth between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. There was zero chance that they co-existed. To teach such a belief is not just an opinion, it is madness.

        • bowie1

          So you were there to verify all this? That would be the only way to prove it, or by someone at the time who witnessed the events. Other than that whatever view one holds it must be taken on faith.

          • Jade

            If you really need to believe your creation story to be a credible alternative to reality, then I won’t spoil your delusion.

          • bowie1

            How do you know it is a reality your particular understanding of it?

          • Steven Thompson

            On that view, we might as well fire every medical examiner, arson investigator, and crime scene technician in the country (and no more introducing DNA evidence at trials — if it can’t overturn eyewitness testimony, how could it support it?). Or, conversely, we can admit that reconstructing unobserved past events from present evidence is possible, and often as reliable, or more so, than relying on eyewitness testimony (eyewitnesses can lie — even about being eyewitnesses!, or be mistaken, or be misunderstood).

          • bowie1

            If, however they wait too long, any remnants of evidence will be contaminated and/or lost forever. They need to go through a chain of evidence for a proper conclusion. The problem with reconstructing past events is we don’t know what type of catastrophes or condtions might have affected the events, assuming a gradual change over milleniums of time, but in fact happening much more quickly.

          • Josey

            What I find astonishing is these ppl believe a science book that man has written and yet discount God’s Holy Word, now there is an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one.

      • dog2000x

        No, just your opinions. You’re not allowed to have them any more, since you’ve abused the privilege. Please go sit in the corner and stop bothering the other kids.

        • bowie1

          A little sarcasm eh?

    • Names_Stan

      Jade, that part doesn’t surprise me, since I live among so many fundamentalists.

      What I’ve never understood is what their theology says about God. Whether discussing the fossil record or the fact that light from stars take billions of years to reach us, an honest Young Earther must admit their ideal of God is of a deceptive creator.

      I just can’t get on board with the God-as-deceiver motif.

      • Reason2012

        We need to get on board with what God says, not with what man’s “wisdom” insists is true instead.

        “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
        2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

        “He [Jesus] answered and said unto them, ‘Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

        And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”
        Matthew 13:11-15

        • Names_Stan

          Calvinism is fine, and it certainly has its share of biblical “proof”. Of course so does Arminianism and Universalism and Purgatory and pretrib/posttrib/partytimetrib. Any one of a thousand theologies can arise from sacred scripture through selective passages.

          The problem for the Calvin ideal of God is not that it must be untrue…in fact God could be the exact deity they imagine Him to be.

          The problem is, He is neither good or just.

          The only way to make Him so is to completely change the definition of the words. And that is a serious philosophical fallacy.

          • Reason2012

            Who said anything about Calvinism, Arminianism, Universalism, Purgatory or anything else? Denominations that offer their own doctrines have nothing to do with it – it has to do with God’s Word and what He makes quite plain in the Bible.

            So if a judge ignores crimes and turns a blind eye to it, letting criminals go, he is “just” and “good”? No, he would be crooked. God will and does judge all sin. But of course criminals (that we all are, myself included) want to pretend to call Him evil just because He will not turn a blind eye to our sin – which actually instead shows how wicked and evil WE are and how we deserve the judgment we refuse to be forgiven for.

            He offers forgiveness if we but humble ourselves and admit our guilt before Him, have the sincere change of mind to no longer want/do such things (the Bible calls this “repentance”) and simply ask for forgiveness.

            “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
            Romans 10:9-10

            To refuse that forgiveness, then turn around and try to judge God only proves how wicked and evil we truly are, and how much we’ll deserve what we refuse to avoid.

            So do you want forgiveness or not? If you do not, it’s silly to judge God over the judgment you demand to receive, refuse to avoid, when He went to the cross to take your punishment for you and offered forgiveness while you had the chance.

            “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
            Romans 5:6-8

            It’s between each person and God – I’m nothing, am as deserving of_hell as anyone, and cannot convince anyone of anything: I can only provide the information.

          • Names_Stan

            it has to do with God’s Word and what He makes quite plain in the Bible.

            Lots of things are plain. Just depends on which ones you choose to ignore or change the plain meaning of…

            “That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” 1Tim 4:10

            I don’t play favorites though. Annihilationism is just as plain in other places.

            So if a judge ignores crimes and turns a blind eye to it, letting criminals go, he is “just” and “good”? No, he would be crooked. God will and does judge all sin.

            Predictable fallacy. Nobody is denying judgement. The problem for you is not a judge that turns a blind eye. It’s a judge that delivers punishment far in excess of punishment earned.

            By any…any…definition, that is evil incarnate. The bible teaches that God is the opposite of that. The bible doesn’t teach that He practices “eternal” judgement. In some places things happen for an “age”, and in others we’re told it’s an “age and another age”.

            If one age is forever, there couldn’t be another age. So there’s no such thing as “forever and ever” as translated in English.

            As for Calvinism, call it what you want. I’m not aware of another significant school of thought that teaches God created most of humanity for the sole purpose of choosing for them ahead of time an eternity of torture.

            The verses you chose are generally used as “proof” of that position.
            But whadda I know…maybe you’re a Branch Davidian or somethin.

            So do you want forgiveness or not?

            I thought you said in your last post that God fixed it so I couldn’t/wouldn’t choose that? Which is it?
            No wonder you’re confused about denominations.

          • Reason2012

            Lots of things are plain. Just depends on which ones you choose to ignore or change the plain meaning of…

            Well consider: you just got done claiming you do not believe that God would deceive people, but then I show you how it’s made plain that God WOULD make sure many believe a lie and how He allows many to remain Spiritually blind, perhaps for their entire life. So you’ve already proven you wish to ignore what God makes plain and want to make a false version of God that doesn’t do these things, it’s God you’ll have to convince.

            Predictable fallacy. Nobody is denying judgement. The problem for you is not a judge that turns a blind eye. It’s a judge that delivers punishment far in excess of punishment earned.

            Sin is a big deal to God – to you it’s not. Just becaues it’s not a big deal to you doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a big deal to God. Crime and murder is not a big deal to criminals but it’s a big deal to those who avoid such things. God makes it clear sin is punishable by death. You don’t like that it is. God took on the form of Christ and went to the cross for us, showing how big of a deal sin is. And knowing that the consequences of sin is death, and to continue in a lifetime of sin anyway, mocking God’s offer of forgiveness as well, only proves how wicked we truly are, myself included, when we get away from God.

            By any…any…definition, that is evil incarnate. The bible teaches that God is the opposite of that.

            By the definition of criminals and law breakers, sure they consider judges and jail evil. And we’re all criminals / sinners, so of course by any of our defintions God’s judgment is ‘evil’.

            The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and being cast into_hell. And there are many who believe God is just to do so and it’s amazing mercy to offer His forgiveness nonetheless – to go to the cross for us – they’re called Christians.

            “And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”
            Luke 12:4-5

            As you put it, it seems verses like these are ones some will choose to ignore or change the plain meaning of. But it’s God they’d have to convince, not mankind. They have only to ask themselves how they think that will go.

            The bible doesn’t teach that He practices “eternal” judgement. In some places things happen for an “age”, and in others we’re told it’s an “age and another age”.

            Personally it’s my impression from the Bible (cannot say for sure) that it’s eternal for fallen angels, but for human beings it might be for a certain amount of time before finally having their souls_killed. But who’s to say we are not formally angels fallen and here for possible judgment or redemption, like the prodigal son? Fact is we don’t know everything and are foolish to try pretending we have truth based upon incomplete information in some areas.

            To reject the forgiveness of God and refuse to stop sinning, it only shows how wicked and evil we are to then judge God as evil as if that’s going to justify us continuing in unrepentant sin and scoffing and God’s offer of forgiveness.

            So no worries: people can sin all they want then think they’ll tell God how evil He is when they meet Him – such people are not going to convince Christianhs their opinions supercede what God has made quite clear in the Bible that they seem intent on ignoring.

            “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”
            Revelation 14:11

            And human beings receive the Mark of the beast – so there is some proof that some human beings will be tormented forever.

            I thought you said in your last post that God fixed it so I couldn’t/wouldn’t choose that? Which is it?

            Why avoid the question – it’s an easy question. Do you want forgiveness or not?

            Your refusal to answer defaults to you not wanting forgiveness but instead to willfully continuing living in sin. It’s no wonder you’re trying to kid yourself into thinking God’s going to let you off the hook when you refused forgiveness when it was available. You’re not the first to try that approach and you won’t be the last.

            No wonder you’re confused about denominations.

            No confusion whatsoever – just pointing out how you’re willfully mocking God and choosing sin and choosing damnation, refusing to avoid it, refusing forgiveness, while pretending God is evil for enforcing the_damnation you demand. Christ shed His blood on the cross so you could have forgiveness and you reject it – end of story.

            I would think again – it’s not me you have to convince, it’s God.

            Take care.

          • Names_Stan

            So you’ve already proven you wish to ignore what God makes plain and want to make a false version of God that doesn’t do these things, it’s God you’ll have to convince.

            So the rules are, you can ignore a clear statement that Christ is the Savior of all mankind, but I have to answer the way you want…

            And, your quote of mine doesn’t come close to saying “God doesn’t do these things”. Speaking philosophically to Jade, I said I have trouble with the God-as-deceiver motif. I have trouble with it because God is obviously presented in quite different ways in other parts of scripture. If you’re claiming God is consistently shown as creating humans for the purpose of A) torturing for eternity, or B) destroying (you aren’t sure, even though you claimed plainness of scripture), then I’ve already showed that isn’t the case in my chosen passage.

            Sin is a big deal to God – to you it’s not.

            Facts not in evidence, an obvious intentional falsehood. You’re making a philosophical and theological discussion about me because you need ad hominem to cover up the inconsistency of your side.

            Your position depends entirely on showing that words like “good” and “love” and “just” don’t mean what they say. Debate rests on definitions as a foundational component. What fundamentalist apologists do is say, “well, it doesn’t really mean that”, while at the same time using “plain meaning” in other places when it’s suits purposes.

            At any rate, it’s not about me. Any attempt to infer you have knowledge of me or my own faith is clear dishonesty…but something non-fundamentalists are quite used to.

            By the definition of criminals and law breakers, sure they consider judges and jail evil. And we’re all criminals / sinners, so of course by any of our defintions God’s judgment is ‘evil’.

            Again you’re obviously dodging my key point of infinite torture for finite sin. There’s no human analogy for that, nor is there even any evidence that any human who ever lived was able to torture another human for endless years upon years. Even if there were, it would be billions of years short of the theology presented by fundamentalists of God.

            A position you backed out of by saying you didn’t know. Which is fine, but that should have ended the debate about the eternal component. All that’s left is the God-as-deceiver idea, and whether humans do or don’t have free will.

            The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and being cast into_hell.

            Obviously those are two different things, and again, makes my point about the philosophical divide between justice and eternal torture. I suppose if a person is dead, and therefore unconscious, it doesn’t matter much how he’s burned.

            This is the likely intent of Jesus in His analogy of the valley of Hinnom. People die and some of them are burned on a garbage heap as the destitute and criminals were at Hinnom. As you suggest, this is a better support for Annihilationism than for eternal torture.

            As you put it, it seems verses like these are ones some will choose to ignore or change the plain meaning of.

            As I put it, everyone does this. You confirmed this tendency by ignoring 1Tim 4 to keep from doing a “what that really means is” apology.

            So no worries: people can sin all they want then think they’ll tell God how evil He is when they meet Him – such people are not going to convince Christianhs their opinions supercede what God has made quite clear in the Bible that they seem intent on ignoring

            Beside the point, and an implication that you know someone who is doing this. Purely ad hominem or an attempt to make yourself feel or look superior.

            Not that anyone is reading a month old thread.

            And human beings receive the Mark of the beast – so there is some proof that some human beings will be tormented forever

            Since the beast was Nero reincarnated as Domitian, the verse proves nothing, other than a background of Christian pop culture end times indoctrination…a tradition so old and established, it basically began in the 1970’s.

            No confusion whatsoever – just pointing out how you’re willfully mocking God and choosing sin and choosing damnation, refusing to avoid it, refusing forgiveness, while pretending God is evil for enforcing the_damnation you demand. Christ shed His blood on the cross so you could have forgiveness and you reject it – end of story.

            I would think again – it’s not me you have to convince, it’s God.

            Facts not in evidence. But probably understandable if you’ve never had any exposure to basic debate foundations. Which is fine, but you should change your name. It’s not “reason” to turn a philosophical logical impossibility into an ad hominem attack.

            The progression is simple:

            God can build us for the purpose of certain suffering if He chooses.

            If He does choose this, and that suffering is in the form of infinite punishment after a finite (and even deceived, per you) audition, then this is not justice by any perceived traditional definition.

            Therefore, either God is just, and judgement will be just, on both the redeemed and the lost. Or judgement will not be just, and therefore God can’t be.

            Although I haven’t stated a belief in the thread, I will gladly state that I believe the evidence from scripture and reason is that God is just.

          • Reason2012

            Your very first point is false:

            So the rules are, you can ignore a clear statement that Christ is the Savior of all mankind,

            Where does the Bible say every single person will go to heaven, as you are implying?

            Here’s what Jesus said on the matter:

            “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
            Matthew 7:13-14

            According to Jesus the majority will not be saved. According to you everyone will be saved. So Jesus is the liar, or are you perhaps wrong?

          • Names_Stan

            Where does the Bible say every single person will go to heaven, as you are implying?

            If I had said that, you would have posted it. What you actually posted was my paraphrase of the verse I quoted (and will quote yet again below). If you prefer a different translation by all means post it.
            As I’ve repeated several times, my theology isn’t the point. The point is your dishonestly of claiming there’s only one “plain” version of truth, and that I’m “creating a false version of God.
            My version is “false” only because you continue to ignore the counter-“proof” that I posted.
            This is the translation I posted that you ignored, and continue to ignore:

            “That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” 1Tim 4:10

            Your choices here are:
            1) Continue to pretend you can’t read, and therefore can’t possibly understand the point that everyone, including you, who claims “plain truth” has to pick and choose, just as you’re accusing me of. I’ve proven this point multiple times.

            2) Go do an Internet search for an apologists’ “explanation” of why the verse I posted doesn’t “really mean” what it (plainly) says. Then, to reiterate that the Calvinist view of Create-Deceive-Torture/Destroy is “plainly” the only view represented in scripture. Problem with this one is, you can only prove it by discounting verses like 1Tim 4:10

            3) Claim that your verses are “better”…which is a clear admission of choosing the verses you like, thus reverting back to #2.

            The only theological opinion I’ve offered is that God is just. How you can miss this fact, without purposefully pretending challenges with reading, is beyond me.

            The discussion is about the nature of God, not who gets to heaven, or gets tortured, or gets destroyed (you already said you didn’t know).

            The discussion is about whether the bible presents one nature/view of God, or more than one. Here again, you’ve admitted it presents both torture and death. So you’ve already punted on claiming a singular viewpoint in scripture.

            All I did was add a third option presented in scripture…the ultimate redemption of everyone. Not whether I favor that one…just that it’s in fact well represented in scripture.

            They all exist. You just have to decide on how to respond to the third option in the above three choices…or admit that there are passages that present an ultimate perfecting of all things. (Here’s a hint: it’s impossible to deny, even with your Google searches. Augustine himself said that this was the majority view of church fathers in his day and previous to him. That’s easily searchable as well.)

            So now I’ve said the same thing six different ways in multiple posts. But feel free to pretend to not understand and put words in my mouth. It’s your only out.

            As to the nature of God question:
            The fact that you’ve been taught only one version, or chose only one, proves nothing. You can only prove this Create-Deceive-You-Aren’t-Sure position by negating every single verse that espouses universal perfection and perfect justice.

            To complete my full circle, I say again your way to do that is to break out the fundamentalist apologetics concordance to basically ignore all these verses or dishonestly explain them away.

            Or, you can argue the philosophical point that eternal torture is just. Only your human analogies won’t work for this. Nor will changing the definition of “just” to mean “whatever God says it is”. You can’t be a “literalist” and make this claim. Or else you negate every verse in the bible due to us being unable to know what any words mean to God.
            (Plus you can’t use this anyway, because you obviously think anyone conversing on philosophical points (like me) are going to hell…or dying, you aren’t sure.)

          • Reason2012

            So you admit it’s not true that this verse “Christ is the savior of all mankind” means “everyone goes to heaven”. Glad we cleared that up. Hence you then also realize it does not contradict how Jesus points out the majority are going to end up in_hell, yet you tried to use it to counter this point made by Jesus.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Names_Stan

            Again no quote posted, which exposes dishonest reframing.
            But honestly I shouldn’t have assumed you had an awareness of more than one historical perspective of exegesis.

            If you had even a Trivial Pursuit level knowledge of very early debates, or at least knew who Origen or Gregory of Nyssa were, you would have never made the embarrassing attempt to post a couple of sentences to dodge the entire debate.

            My main error however, was continuing to give you the benefit of a doubt on content comprehension. It’s entirely elementary by now that the only position I took was a belief in a just God. And my basis for this was showing clearly there are three different views presented in scripture. You were only aware of two, and didn’t know which one was “plain”, as you originally claimed.

            I’m glad to quit at this point and allow my last two posts going unanswered to be the basis for the result. You’re welcome to work on your apologetics and give it a go in future threads. It’s not like there aren’t millions of pages online that could assist one in defending the fundamentalist paradoxical ideal of God’s nature.

            There’s also plenty of assistance in how to best throw out passages on eventual reconciliation that you don’t like. This is a smarter move than pretending not to notice a repetitive scripture posting. You’ll find that even the most intellectually dishonest apologist will discourage this strategy, because it highlights the dishonesty much too clearly.

            Way smarter to try an outlandish response like “Paul was only writing that to post-Hellenistic Essenes” or some similar ridiculousness. It’s still void of integrity, but claims of inerrancy fall way too easily with non-responsiveness.

            The debate lesson is free, by the way.

    • Reason2012

      All dating methods proven to be a farce, based completely on assumptions and verified to give utterly false dates of everything we can verify:

      answersingenesis
      .org
      /articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

      “Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.”

      creation
      .com/templeton-confounded-by-lyell

      “10-year-old rocks from Mount St Helen’s were dated from 390,000 to 2.7 million years old, and rocks from the ad 1800 lava flow in Hawaii returned dates of 160 million to 3 billion years.”

      Those ranges were given by cross checking all dating methods – they didn’t just use one dating method. As anyone will tell you, scientists know to cross-check results of any dating method with other methods and henced they came up with dates of rocks that were merely a few decades old of up to 3 MILLION years in spite of all their standard cross-checking.

      It’s similar to fossils “dated” millions of years old (different dating methods than for rocks), but then having red blood cells and soft tissue found in them, proving they can’t be more than thousands of years old. What do evolutionists do? Ignore the scientific fact that red blood cells and soft tissue would never survive millions of years and pretend they now do.

      Even original animal proteins found in fossils proves they can’t be hundreds of millions of years old, but instead only thousands. What do evolutionists do? Dismiss more observable, scientific fact and pretend such facts are no longer true: that soft tissue and red blood cells can now last countless millions of years.

      creation
      .com/original-animal-protein-fossils

      Behold the anti-science deception of evolutionism – they’re not in a hurry to publish this information but they are certainly keen on censoring it and ignoring it.

  • Dave_L

    If you take away the God/Miracle possibility, this is what you are left with. Since the natural person cannot discern spiritual truth, they’ve only very seriously damaged carnal reasoning to work with. I.e., a cartoon about evolution.

  • Dave_L

    If you overlook history as recorded in Genesis and the possibility of God working Miracles, this cartoon would make perfect sense.

    • Steven Thompson

      The problem is whether we should invoke miracles not even hinted at in the Bible (e.g. massive, synchronized changes to the decay rates of dozens of radioisotopes, or floods managing to sort animals and plants by taxonomy rather than size) to explain why we see, e.g. evidence for millions of centuries of biology and geology rather than for six millennia and a global flood.

      • Dave_L

        I cannot go beyond what I understand Scripture to say. But I believe the older the universe appears (assuming science is true), the greater the miracle. To me Science glorifies God (unintentionally) when claims contradict the Bible since it would require a miracle to reconcile them.

  • Steven Thompson

    Strictly speaking, Apatosaurus apparently went extinct a million centuries or so before the K-Pg boundary impact. Even species that were alive at the end of the Cretaceous would not, from an evolutionary standpoint, be expected to still be around 65 million years later (nor would one expect recognizable humans, or even apes as we know them, to evolve in such a radically altered environment). Perhaps, in the spirit of outreach and finding common ground, evolutionary biologists and creationists could join in protesting the incorrect ideas propagated by this movie.

  • acontraryview

    LOL. What a loon.

  • davidevarts

    Calling Mr. Ham a “Christian apologist” is a bit much. In fact, I wonder why his views would be covered by Christian News. He’s a young-earthist. His interpretation of the Bible is unique and is not based in Christianity or the Bible as much, as it’s based in anti-evolutionary ideas. Mr. Ham’s opposition to the evidence that God has given us, in creation itself, should be enough to convince folks that anti-evolutionary ideas are not biblical. It’s interesting that Mr. Ham should have a problem with the cartoon as his beliefs require that apatosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

  • dog2000x

    First of all, this is a kids’ movie. To argue about a cartoon is ludicrous. But since we’re discussing it, I can’t believe that modern adults are still debating evolution. How many times do you have to be hit with the baseball bat of reality before you realize that religion is simply a grouping of moral fables (best meant for kids, like a cartoon about a dinosaur). If you need religion to keep you from murdering your neighbor or raping their kids, you’ve got some serious issues and need to be put down like a rabid dog. Grow up, be an adult, and quit waiting for God to solve all your problems.

  • Reason2012

    Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so.

    Here’s what is science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) Ignore that scientific fact

    (b) Make up a belief contrary to that scientific fact

    (c) Where that belief never happens, can only be believed in and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

    Fish to men evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

    Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen.

    • P.S

      ok ok u clearly dont understand how it works, at least do some actual research first. Back then there was no distinction between species. they were all single celled life forms. they just existed in the ocean. it is a common misconception

  • P.S

    May i say, this is just a kids movie, if either side of the theorists used it to spread their beliefs, then they should be ashamed. secondly, the only people who do not believe in evolution are christians or certain other religions, and presently, you are greatly out numbered in opinion.

    Though it might seem so, i greatly respect your right to believe what you want to believe, but i refuse to look past, or standby and let you force others to believe what you wish them to believe.

    children are especially easy to lead, as they have no prior knowledge to anything, and they only know what their told by others.

    P.S