Thousands Flock to Grand Opening of Answers in Genesis’ Ark Encounter

Ark-compressedWILLIAMSTOWN, Ky. — Thousands flocked to the grand opening of Answers in Genesis’ Ark Encounter on Thursday, a project of biblical proportions that has been two years in the making.

As previously reported, the Ark Encounter is a theme park in Williamstown that features a full-scale replica of the ark that God instructed Noah to build to escape the coming flood, as outlined in the book of Genesis.

“As the largest timber-frame structure in the US, the 510-foot-long full-size Ark is designed to be family-oriented, historically authentic, and environmentally friendly,” the website for the theme park outlines.

Scripture states that at the time of the flood, “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Noah, a “preacher of righteousness,” warned the world to turn from their sins lest they face judgment, but all refused.

Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham says that he desires for the attraction to provide visitors with the same message for today’s world.

“A major reason for rebuilding the ark today is to proclaim the message of salvation—that just as Noah and his family had to go through the doorway to be saved, we also need to go through a doorway,” he outlined in 2014 when construction first began. “The Lord Jesus is our door—the only way to be saved.”

Inside of the ark are life-size mannequins and sculpted creatures that tell the biblical story, as well as a 2,100 seat restaurant and gift shop. The site also includes an animal exhibit called the Ararat Ridge Zoo, complete with alpacas, donkeys, emus, goats, sheep, yaks and more.

  • Connect with Christian News

On Tuesday, an estimated 8,000 people gathered outside of the Ark Encounter for an invite-only ribbon cutting ceremony for donors, and on Thursday, several thousand more arrived for the grand opening.

“It actually takes you—and I was surprised to see this—from the beginning [of the world] to the very end for the crucifixion [of Christ],” visitor Faye Toler told the Courier Journal. “To me, it’s seeing God’s word fulfilled. … It’s awesome just to see the size of it. We have electricity, equipment—and they were doing all this by hand. To me, that is unimaginable.”

Representatives of groups such as American Atheists, Secular Coalition of America, Freedom from Religion Foundation, United Coalition of Reason and others protested outside of the Ark Encounter as they took issue with the site’s message about Creation.

“They’re telling people the earth is 6,000 years old, [and that] evolution is not true,” one protester told reporters. “This is a dangerous concept.”

But others gathered to protest the protesters and take a stand for biblical truth.

“They’re claiming things about Christians when evolution is the worldview that has the big problem,” Eric Hovind of Creation Today told WDRD-TV. “So we’re out here to lovingly share with them.”

Ham says that he is pleased with the turnout and the support.

“I believe this project will be one of the greatest evangelistic outreaches of our day,” he wrote on the Answers in Genesis website on Thursday. “Millions of people—many of them unbelievers or unchurched Christians—will come to Northern Kentucky to tour this family-friendly, Christian attraction where they will learn about Noah, his family, the animals, the Ark, the Flood, and most importantly, the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are excited to see how God uses this project to make an impact for eternity.”

Ham also plans to build a replica of the Tower of Babel in the next few years to speak against prejudice and racism, as well as an ancient walled city like those mentioned in the Bible.


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

    Dangerous alright – to the myth of evolution.

    • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

      Amen.

    • This style ten and six

      The only myth is Noah and his ark. Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.

      • TheBottomline4This

        Evolution is a lie.

        • This style ten and six

          On one hand virtually every scientist accepts evolution, on the other hand there is you with no qualifications that I know of. I’ll go with the scientists.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You put your faith and trust in scientists.
            I put my faith and trust in God.
            God trumps you and those who think like you old man every time!!!

          • This style ten and six

            Remain ignorant if you wish, it doesn’t change the fact that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor.

          • TheBottomline4This

            God trumps you and those who think like you every time ignorant old man.

          • JoAnn Graham

            That’s true–his name was ADAM.

          • This style ten and six

            The bible creation myth is just that, a myth among many. It happens that it has become the most popular myth but that is a matter of chance and Roman politics. Believe it if you like, it doesn’t alter the fact that the cosmos was not created 6000 years ago or that all life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Why?

            I ask that genuinely. What are you basing this on? Why this deity? What makes you believe they exist at all?

            (And, to save us a step, answering “Because they’re the correct one” isn’t really the answer I’m looking for; I’m curious as to why exactly you believe in the Christian faith and not, say, Judaism, or Hinduism, or any of the other countless belief systems that claim secret wisdom.)

          • Glorious_Cause

            Evolution is a silly religion that only exists because tax dollars prop it up. (Public universities/museums)

            It would not exist without tax dollars

          • This style ten and six

            Tax dollars prop up every church in the land.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Tax dollars prop up abortion centers, public schools, etc. Your point?

          • wandakate

            Doesn’t seem like tax dollars are very beneficial being as abortion is WRONG and public schools teach evolution, take out GOD and won’t allow prayer in the schools, and now teach about homosexuality and on and on and on!

          • wandakate

            INCORRECT!!! Only the ones that belong to the 501C3 tax exempt government plan…

          • axelbeingcivil

            Actually, it’s one of the most solid scientific theories in the world with immense explanatory power, and necessary for understanding everything from ecosystem management to improving our sewer systems to producing better medicines.

            If, say, evolution isn’t true, it’d make no sense to search for new antibiotics by looking for relatives to Streptomyces griseus, since they’d all be distinct creations and it’d make no sense to expect to find anything; they’d not be relatives at all. Yet such is a promising path to finding new antibiotics.

            Likewise, if evolution isn’t true, it’d make no sense to use protein motifs as the basis of searches for species with similar biological functions. After all, if they were all created independently, why expect similarities?

            It’s a powerful theory. It works.

          • Charles

            I’m going to file that in the “If everyone jumped of a bridge would you do it too?” category. Not a good argument..

          • axelbeingcivil

            It sort of changes the argument somewhat if the people in question are experts in their field who have spent a great deal of time studying the subject intimately, dunnit?

          • Charles

            While I certainly have respect for real science.. It’s not the end of the story.. Unfortunately in todays world of science there is a lot of theories passed off as factual.. When they are anything but fact. You can study as much as you want. However, if you’ve chosen a dead end, it’s not going anywhere.. Telling everyone else that it’s a dead end, but there must somehow be another road beyond the dead end is ridiculous.. It would be better to admit you were just wrong, and try again.

          • axelbeingcivil

            In science, facts and theories mean different things and are not mutually exclusive. Gravity, for example, is a fact and a theory; a fact being the basic observation of attractive forces, and the theory being the explanation that unites a wide array of facts and makes testable predictions.

            Evolution is a fact and a theory; the fact being the observation of adaptations, descent with modification, heredity, mutation, and so on; the theory the explanation for how and why all this occurs and its implications for the world. Both the fact and the theory have been tested extensively and never really found wanting.

          • Charles

            “”In science, facts and theories mean different things and are not mutually exclusive. Gravity, for example, is a fact and a theory; a fact being the basic observation of attractive forces, and the theory being the explanation that unites a wide array of facts and makes testable predictions.””

            We don’t anything about gravity other than it’s there.. We know it’s different for the very big, and very small.. But we don’t know what we are dealing with largely.

            “”Evolution is a fact and a theory; the fact being the observation of adaptations, descent with modification, heredity, mutation, and so on; the theory the explanation for how and why all this occurs and its implications for the world. Both the fact and the theory have been tested extensively and never really found wanting.””

            There is no actual “Fact” in Evolution.. It’s all theories. Have those mutations led to anything other than adaptation to current environment (To climate) or disease? Do we see extra limbs coming out of fish that aren’t defective genetic mutations, and somehow these limbs are an actual benefit? Of course we have the transitional species Darwin predicted which are nowhere to be found. That’s because they don’t exist.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Gravity was just one example. Germ theory is another. So is aerodynamic theory. I hesitate to imagine you think we don’t know anything about the mechanisms of disease or flight.

            As for evolution, all selected mutations ever do is adapt. Sudden and wholesale spontaneous generation of entirely novel features with no antecedents would be bizarre. If a fish was suddenly born with arms despite no evidence in its ancestry otherwise… That’d be strange. That’s not how limbs evolved in early tetrapods. It’s the accumulation of adaptations over time that produces the more dramatic changes we see around us.

            Also, a transitional species is something that requires you to set terms. For example, you might refer to a transitional species between, say, ambulocetus and modern whales, and identify basilosaurus as that transitional species, but no species is, in and of itself, transitional. Transition implies an end goal; a journey towards something. That’s something that can only be applied in hindsight and, there, we’ve found tons of them in the fossil record.

            No species is universally adapted, nor any single organism. Circumstances determine what adaptations make the best trade-offs. For this reason, every species exists in a constant state of transition between what it once was and what it will some day be.

          • Charles

            Also, a transitional species is something that requires you to set terms. For example, you might refer to a transitional species between, say, ambulocetus and modern whales, and identify basilosaurus as that transitional species, but no species is, in and of itself, transitional. Transition implies an end goal; a journey towards something. That’s something that can only be applied in hindsight and, there, we’ve found tons of them in the fossil record.

            And how exactly do they come up with Ambulocetus being related to a whale or the Basilosarurus being related to either? How exactly do the determine that? They make it up? Like the hilarious Lucy “Models”? How could they possibly know without observation.

          • This style ten and six

            You have a closed mind. No new ideas allowed.

          • Charles

            Don’t have any problems with new idea.. I just have problems with ideas that don’t add up.

          • axelbeingcivil

            A number of ways, but one of the best is comparative anatomy. Certain physiological features only appear in certain clades of animals. If two animals have certain identifying features, odds are good they are related.

            In the case of Ambulocetus, it’s primarily to do with its periotic bones. Despite having a skull that might make you think of a wolf, the bones that are responsible for transmitting sound are concealed within the skull. This suggests it didn’t have external ears, but rather internal ones, that would allow it to hear underwater. The only other group of animals on this planet that shares that trait is cetaceans, suggesting this creature is related to them.

            Likewise, Ambulocetus’s teeth closely resemble those of early cetaceans, and the overall skull structure is similar as well. Despite clearly having limbs like a land-walking animal, it was clearly an aquatic creature.

            Ambulocetus (and its more ancestral relatives, the pakicetids) are found in the fossil record a scant seven million years or so before the first finds of basilosaurs or dorudons, both of which are fully aquatic early whales but whose morphologies are stunningly similar to those of ambulocetids.

            (Incidentally, both dorudons and basilosaurs have tiny hinds legs; purely vestigial features that have disappeared in modern whales save for the occasional atavism, like toes in horses. Their forelimb morphology is also highly similar to that of ambulocetids as well.)

            In short, there’s plenty of observation going on here.

          • Charles

            That’s interesting.. But not fact.. Just speculation.

          • This style ten and six

            It is fact.

          • Charles

            How many more “Missing Links” are you people going to lie about? Case closed. You so desperately want it to be true, it really is a faith based religion.

          • This style ten and six

            You were given names of links which are not missing and still you close your eyes, ears and mind.

            I could detail scores of errors, contradictions and impossibilities in the bible if I so wished. That is the bible which you, no doubt, would say is divinely inspired, without error and authoritative foe all aspects of life. You call the theory of evolution faith based, give me a break. planks and specks come to mind.

          • Charles

            The so called “Missing Links” are frauds and so is Evolution.

            “”I could detail scores of errors, contradictions and impossibilities in the bible if I so wished.””

            Go for it. Just keep in mind you are blinded to the words.. So you have no idea what it really says.

            You don’t think they’ve been trying to do that for thousands of years? Hasn’t worked out for you so far…

          • axelbeingcivil

            How are they frauds, exactly?

          • Charles

            Couple of books point out the shenanigans that have gone on throughout the years.. A couple of books “The Bone Peddlers”, and “Ape Men” will give you an idea of the desperation of the fossil hunters and the means of deception they used to advance some of their careers or finally “Prove” where we came from. Again, many will say anything to advance the agenda true of false. The other interesting things about many of these finds though.. When they originally found these bones they were always hailed in the media as the the “Missing Links”. However, when found to be frauds, inaccurate, or mistaken bones, it seems to take them forever to get rid of the false data (If at all), or publicly retract the lies. Hence, they are making sure they can brainwash (The youth) and everyone else long enough you won’t question it. The only “Missing Link” to man is on my bike chain.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Well… No, there’s a great many facts there; the morphological similarity, the geological succession, the genetic relationships between whales and hippos, and so on.

            If you came across a body with several knife wounds, and followed a trail of blood leading from it to a man stained with blood, holding a bloodied knife, and who ostensibly has motive to kill the victim, it’s not guaranteed that they did the deed, but the facts very much support it. There is no form of evidence that, beyond any shadow of a doubt, guarantees a certain conclusion is correct, but all evidence does make some explanations more likely than others and can discount a great many of them.

          • Charles

            “”If you came across a body with several knife wounds, and followed a trail of blood leading from it to a man stained with blood, holding a bloodied knife, and who ostensibly has motive to kill the victim, it’s not guaranteed that they did the deed, but the facts very much support it. “”

            You have no such evidence.. No different than the years and years of failures of trying to link apes with man.. Why not just say, “You know what? Maybe we are on the wrong path here.”.. You can’t do that because you know if you do, that means there really could be a God, and you would have to account for it.. Man sure loves his sin. It’s the wrong fork in the road.

          • axelbeingcivil

            You misunderstand the point of analogy: Nobody saw the person be murdered. Nobody saw the act occur. Nobody has any way to say with absolute certainty that the person with means, motive, opportunity, found near the scene, holding the knife is the one who committed the crime. But when you have sufficient evidence, it’s the only natural conclusion.

            The same is true when seeing the morphological, behavioural, and genetic similarities between humans and other apes, combined with the fossil record. Humans are a species of ape. We share >95% of our DNA with chimpanzees; the differences that exist are pretty much entirely regulatory elements. That seems fairly conclusive.

            As for belief, I really don’t know where you’re getting that from. There’s a huge number of people who accept evolution while believing in some form of deity. Hundreds of millions of Christians alone accept it without issue.

          • Charles

            “”You misunderstand the point of analogy: Nobody saw the person be murdered. Nobody saw the act occur. Nobody has any way to say with absolute certainty that the person with means, motive, opportunity, found near the scene, holding the knife is the one who committed the crime. But when you have sufficient evidence, it’s the only natural conclusion.””

            I get the concept.. It’s just you are wrong.. In this analogy, you don’t have anyone holding the bloody knife.. It simply a suspense novel.

            “”The same is true when seeing the morphological, behavioural, and genetic similarities between humans and other apes, combined with the fossil record. Humans are a species of ape. We share >95% of our DNA with chimpanzees; the differences that exist are pretty much entirely regulatory elements. That seems fairly conclusive.””

            That’s my point.. There IS no fossil record pointing to man coming from apes.. You should really start questioning the theory.. If it takes them 40 years to discover some terribly faked fraud(s).. Don’t you think that maybe they aren’t being honest with you? They suppress, and even outright withhold important evidence that doesn’t fit their theory.. Why? Aren’t you looking for the truth? Does THAT sound like objective science to you? Does that sound like they are looking for the truth? They’ve already been caught in so many lies, it’s hard to keep up with them… I will say some are searching for the truth, but they are vastly outnumbered by the indoctrinated masses.

          • axelbeingcivil

            What do you mean, there’s no fossils pointing to humans coming from apes? We have a long chain of them; from Orrorin to Ardipithecus to Australopithecus to H. habilis and so on. And even if there was absolutely zero fossil evidence at all – if the entire fossil record were wiped away – we’d still have an abundance of evidence in our morphology and genetics. Humans are morphologically exceptionally similar to other apes, and our genes are staggeringly similar.

            We have tons of fossil evidence showing our connection to apes but, even if we didn’t, it wouldn’t matter because the genetic evidence is exceptionally strong. Why do you think monkey and ape models are the best medical models for humans (short of using actual human test subjects, which, for obvious reasons, is grossly unethical)? That wouldn’t make any sense if we weren’t at all related to them.

          • Charles

            I would suggest a good read from Sciencemag called the “The Myth of 1%”. It may give you a better perspective on it. It’s not quite that cut and dry. Being similar in design says nothing more than a common designer..

          • axelbeingcivil

            What perspective is it supposed to give me, exactly?

            As for being similar suggesting a common designer, why is it that we’re more similar to great apes from the same region as our ancestors (as the fossil record suggests), and then, in turn, to Old World monkeys, and so on? If having the same designer denotes similarity, why are we not equally similar to a kangaroo? Why make us genetically similar to organisms whose ancestry traces back to Africa? Why make us more distant genetically from New World monkeys than Old World monkeys?

            There is no explanation for this similarity or these genetic distances if all creatures were created independently. Species should not be able to be tracked backwards along their clades using genetic comparisons if the world were designed.

            Or to put it another way, if there’s a designer, they certainly enjoy making everything look like evolution occurred.

          • Charles

            I don’t know.. Try reading the fakes they’ve tried to pass off for starters.. If the “Science” you are preaching has to hide, or alter information because it doesn’t fit your paradigm.. Doesn’t seem like science does it?

          • axelbeingcivil

            Who is this “they”? The entire scientific community is not made of fraudsters.

            Scientists aren’t flawless human beings. We have our fringe nuts and cranks. Other scientists are the ones exposing the fraudsters. Piltdown Man wasn’t exposed by some daring outsider, but a rather well-established scientists. One of them, Oakley, was a pioneer in using fluorine content for relative dating.

            The very thing that clued people in, incidentally, that Piltdown was a fraud was that it didn’t fit all the other evidence regarding human evolutionary history.

            Evolution requires no frauds or hoaxes to be supported, and the few that have occurred happened over a century ago. Tools and techniques today make those of that time look like dinosaurs (har har).

            Be careful, too, in pointing out the splinter in another’s eye when there’s a plank in your own. Otherwise, we might discuss all the pseudoarchaeology invoving claims of nephilim skeletons, or the Zetetic astronomers.

          • This style ten and six

            We do see fish that can crawl on adapted fins from one pool to another, the mudskipper. Who knows what these will be 100,000 years from now?

          • Charles

            The same.. A mudskipper.

          • This style ten and six

            You can foretell the future I see.

          • JoAnn Graham

            “Virtually every scientist” does NOT accept evolution. MANY are beginning to question evolution and outright REJECT it as viable science, in view of NEW scientific evidence and knowledge about DNA. That’s similar to the claim that “all” scientists accept climate change, which is an OUTRIGHT LIE.

            Here’s another fun fact for you: A DNA strand cannot “create” what it is supposed to create without a complex “program” of information that instructs it WHAT to create and HOW to create it–much like instructions in computer code. Fortunately, the program that CONTAINS those codes and instructions is BUILT-IN to each DNA strand. Bill Gates–whose technology was instrumental in the effort to map and decode the human genome described that code as “the MOST complex “software” ever created.”

            CREATED–not EVOLVED–because THE complex miracle of DNA, with its extremely complex built–in SOFTWARE that “programs” the DNA to create whatever it is meant to be, could not POSSIBLY have happened by “random chance”, which is the “scientific explanation” accepted by evolutionists about a great deal of their DOGMA.

          • This style ten and six

            DNA evolved in the same way as any other lifeform. It took a long time, 4 billion years, but it got there in the end. I suggest you read something other than creationist literature and meanwhile stop posting nonsense.

          • Amos Moses

            “there is you with no qualifications that I know of. I’ll go with the scientists.”

            OK …………. WHAT are YOUR BONA FIDES on this subject ………… and why should we believe you about anything you have said ……… you seem to make the statement that you are not a scientist ……….. so you are just here bloviating ……………

          • wandakate

            Did scientist give you life from your mother’s womb? Did they breathe breath into your body and give you life?
            Without GOD’s spirit you wouldn’t be breathing today and at the minute when he’s ready to take that breath away you are going to die, like it or not! You would think you would realize that or at least be thankful for it, but apparently not.
            GOD made heaven and hell and where you spend your eternity is based on your life today and your beliefs. It is your choice however…GOD doesn’t send anybody to hell, they send themselves.

          • This style ten and six

            We all die and when we do our fate will be the same. Consciousness will cease and our bodies will decay. We will be dead and only live in the memories of our families and friends.

          • wandakate

            The consciousness will cease part is correct, the body will decay is right, and then our hope is the resurrection of those dead souls. JESUS will be back to raise them UP from their graves and they will GO ON to either eternal life with Him or eternal damnation in hell with satan and his demons. SO, it’s your choice now where you want to wound up. I hope you turn around and face the facts, the truth and make a better decision for your own sake…

          • This style ten and six

            Why do Christians take such delight in contemplating people burning in agony for ever and ever?

          • wandakate

            Did I say I took delight in that. Actually hell is TOTAL separation from GOD forever, no turning back. It’s everlasting torment, agony and regret.
            JESUS said, I have come to seek and to save those which are lost. He doesn’t delight in the punishment of the wicked lost souls, and neither do I. I have said that I hope you turn around and face the facts, the truth and make a better decision for your own sake. Does that sound like I delight in you going to hell or suffering any type of agony?????

          • This style ten and six

            Yes it does. You bring it up so often that you must get off on it.

      • JoAnn Graham

        Evolution is 19th Century Science based on a lot of IGNORANCE and MANY false assumptions with absolutely NO hard scientific evidence to back up MANY of its “articles of faith”. If you look at the OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports the Creation account and worldwide flood as described in Genesis, and compare it with the actual OBSERVABLE SCIENCE to support evolution, it takes a LOT more faith to believe in evolution than Genesis!

        Ask ANY evolutionist to name an example where an organism actually ADDED something to its DNA strand to “evolve”. The “mutations” that evolutionists say account for species’ “evolving” REQUIRES THAT. But when mutations occur, DNA information is always LOST, NEVER ADDED. And NO evolutionists can name even ONE instance where DNA information has been spontaneously ADDED in nature to create a new species–because there ARE no such examples.

        This SCIENTIFIC FACT is simply IGNORED by the evolution “faithful”.

        • axelbeingcivil

          Scientist here. That’s absolute bunk.

          DNA doesn’t have some Platonic form; some ideal shape. It is a molecule consisting of a string of nucleotides, the patterns of which form various features that regulate cellular activities and allow for the coding of new proteins. If you have an open reading frame withing DNA (a section of DNA that codes for a protein), and change a nucleotide subsequent to the start codon, it will still produce something. What it produces might be exceptionally different to what came before (though, statistically, it’s more likely to not change at all due to codon redundancy), but it will produce something.

          Because of the codon reading system by which DNA is transcribed, the insertion of a single nucleotide can produce a frame shift mutation; changing the reading frame of the sequence and potentially altering the structure of the resulting protein in drastic ways. This means that the resultant amino acid chain could have an exceptionally different sequence and folded structure. That means that an entirely new structure with potentially exceptionally high information content has been created. All through the chance insertion of a single nucleotide, something we can observe happen in the lab over and over and over again.

          As far as the creation of a new species goes, you have to realize, the definition of a species is arbitrary. If you mean a population of organisms that can only interbreed within that population and closely related populations, we see new species form all the time in the form of polyploid plants that undergo chromosomal duplication.

          This isn’t abstract stuff. It’s something that’s observed daily in labs around the world.

          • JoAnn Graham

            Yes, but we’re not talking about “inserting things” into DNA to produce a mutation. WHO did the “inserting?”. That is done in laboratories, but in nature? Not so much. Evolution requires that this happen SPONTANEOUSLY by random chance. And all your scientific BLATHER just paraphrased–in a much more complicated and pseudo-impressive way– pretty much the SAME process I described.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I think you misunderstand: No-one has to do the inserting. It happens occasionally by pure chance. It’s called an insertion mutation.

            The proteins that assemble DNA during duplication or repair aren’t perfect. Sometimes they make mistakes; accidentally inserting an incorrect or additional nucleotide. If the error isn’t “noticed” before the next round of division, the added nucleotide is copied normally, like any other DNA fragment.

            No-one has to do any insertion. It just happens by mechanical fluke.

            As for my “blather”, I described a process whereby information is added.

          • Amos Moses

            ” No-one has to do the inserting. It happens occasionally by pure chance. It’s called an insertion mutation.”

            So it is all an accident ………… so you are an accident …….. all Gods children is an accident ………. and this is your “science” ……….. again …. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA …………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            Are you going to actually weigh evidence or just feel smug?

          • Amos Moses

            If you ever get any evidence it will be weighed ………… until then ……….. i will just point out the errors ……….. because that is all there is …………………….. error ………..

          • Amos Moses

            Again ………. FACT ….. we all have the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE ………… the difference is the mind LOOKING at the evidence ………… if your mind excludes God …….. then you are failing to have an “open mind” and your “theories” are skewed to the point of unreliability ……………

          • axelbeingcivil

            A question for you, Amos: Is there any evidence that could possibly exist that would convince you evolutionary theory is correct?

          • Amos Moses

            What part ……………. what kind of evolution ……….. that it took 65 million years …….. no …. do birds and bees and other animals change over time ……….. sure ………. without question ……… do new species arise from nothing ……….. no ……….. did we “evolve” from “other species” ………. no ….

          • axelbeingcivil

            So, if no amount of evidence would convince you, aren’t you the one with the closed mind? It sounds like you’ve a priori accepted a conclusion.

          • Amos Moses

            What kind of evolution ………….. and if the evidence is misread, misinterpreted ……. as much of what “science” of evolution is ….. why would i ………….

          • axelbeingcivil

            There’s not really different kinds of biological evolution. Evolution is change in allele frequencies over time within a population due to a variety of factors. With enough time, those changes add up.

            Also, if no amount of evidence would sway you on something, you’re, by definition, closed-minded. You’ve decided already it’s wrong and won’t accept new information.

          • Amos Moses

            ” if no amount of evidence would sway you on something, you’re, by definition, closed-minded.”

            AGAIN ………… we all have the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE ………… the difference is the mind LOOKING at the evidence ………… if your mind excludes God …….. then you are failing to have an “open mind” and your “theories” are skewed to the point of unreliability …….. WHY would i be persuaded by YOUR unreliability ………….. no matter how much “evidence” you think you have ……….

          • axelbeingcivil

            Divine intervention isn’t a priori excluded. It’s just never passed muster for evidence.

            But I’ve asked you what evidence would change your mind, any evidence at all, and you’ve said nothing. If that’s the case, you’re closed-minded; nothing I can say or show you will convince you. There’s no real reason for us to continue this discussion if you’re not willing to consider even the possibility of changing your mind.

          • Amos Moses

            “Divine intervention isn’t a priori excluded. It’s just never passed muster for evidence.”
            “But I’ve asked you what evidence would change your mind”

            What is being challenged is not the evidence …………… it is YOUR VIEW of the evidence …. if you cannot see the evidence of God ………….. YOUR view is suspect ……….. the evidence is not in dispute ………. YOUR VIEW IS ……….

          • axelbeingcivil

            The thing is, the conclusions I have are drawn from the evidence. If there were new or different evidence, my conclusions would change. Can you say the same? Is there any evidence that would convince you that biological evolution has occurred over an immense time scale?

          • Amos Moses

            And because your VIEWING of the evidence does not include God ……… your VIEW of the evidence is unreliable and in ERROR ……… see …………. here is your admission ………. “Divine intervention isn’t a priori excluded. It’s just never passed muster for evidence.” …… you have said you cannot or refuse to see part of the evidence ……….. and you IGNORE that which is right in front of you ………… so your VIEW of the evidence is in ERROR …………. and you VIEW is unreliable …… no matter what you think it is based on …………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            If you want to present evidence, present evidence. You’re still deliberately avoiding my question.

            What could make you change your mind?

          • Amos Moses

            The evidence is presented to you ………….. you ignore the evidence ……. your view of the evidence denies Gods part in what you are viewing ……….

            “What could make you change your mind?”

            Stop denying Gods part in it …….. become a christian…… Duh ………………. until your view of the evidence changes ……….. you have no chance …… it is your VIEW of the evidence that is at issue ……… NOT THE EVIDENCE ….. so there in no “evidence to present” ………… your corrupted view of the evidence is the problem ……… but of course ………. this you either will not or cannot do ……………. because that would be abhorrent to you ………….. it would require YOU to change ………….

          • axelbeingcivil

            You are trying REALLY hard not to answer my question.

          • Amos Moses

            i just did ……….. can you read ……….. here ………… let me say it again …………

            “What could make you change your mind?”

            Stop denying Gods part in it …….. become a christian…… Duh ………………. until your view of the evidence changes ……….. you have no chance …… it is your VIEW of the evidence that is at issue ……… NOT THE EVIDENCE ….. so there in no “evidence to present” ………… your corrupted view of the evidence is the problem ……… but of course ………. this you either will not or cannot do ……………. because that would be abhorrent to you ………….. it would require YOU to change ………….

            Do i need to bold it for you or can you manage to get the answer this time ………….

          • axelbeingcivil

            You’re really not answering my question. I am asking what new evidence would make YOU change YOUR mind. You’re telling me things I should do to change my mind, which is not the answer to my question.

          • JoAnn Graham

            I guess you’re a lot smarter than the most eminent “evolutionists”, then, because when THEY were asked at a symposium to name a SINGLE example of an organism that spontaneously ADDED something to its DNA strand to “evolve” into a new species, they responded with “ums” and BLANK STARES.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Scientists aren’t all omniscient. They might not have answers off the top of their head. I’m lucky here; I’ve got time to think and compose my responses from a comfortable chair, so I get to seem more eloquent than I might be on a stage.

            Try studying this stuff. Not from a creationist website but a proper university level textbook. Read about the chemical mechanisms at work here. I promise you that it’s fascinating.

      • Amos Moses

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ………………… oh ………… sorry …….. but that was a good one ……… you don’t actually think evolution is science ………… do you ………. FACT ….. we all have the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE ………… the difference is the mind LOOKING at the evidence ………… if your mind excludes God …….. then you are failing to have an “open mind” and your “theories” are skewed to the point of unreliability …………

        • This style ten and six

          If you ever learn to write a proper sentence I might take you more seriously.

          • Amos Moses

            If you ever talk about REAL science … we might take you seriously ….. but not until ….

      • bowie1

        And that’s all it is – a theory.

        • This style ten and six

          It is theory supported by a mass of evidence. That is the way science works.

        • This style ten and six

          Just like the theory of gravity.

  • Becky

    “Representatives of groups such as American Atheists, Secular Coalition of America, Freedom from Religion Foundation, United Coalition of Reason and others protested outside of the Ark Encounter as they took issue with the site’s message about Creation. ‘They’re telling people the earth is 6,000 years old, [and that] evolution is not true,’ one protester told reporters. ‘This is a dangerous concept.'”

    More evidence…”freethinkers” don’t want others to think for themselves and make up their own minds. What’s the matter heathens…afraid this “dangerous concept” might convince you lot of the truth? Hypocrites and liars they are.

    • axelbeingcivil

      If someone told you that the idea that vaccines cause autism was a dangerous concept, would you assume it was because they were afraid it might convince them of “the truth”, or because people believing it causes them not to vaccinate their kids, weakening herd immunity and exposing others to danger?

      Turns out that a lot of people disagreeing with you doesn’t actually strengthen your argument.

      • Michael A. Todd

        You need to not listen to media reports of vaccine efficacy. Listen instead to parents who children changed virtually overnight after receiving vaccines. Nothing you can say will change their minds as to what caused their childs health problems. Some people have to get hit over the head with this type of issue before they believe it for themselves.

        At £3.7 billion ($5.38 billion), GlaxoSmithKline’s vaccines revenue contributed 16% of the company’s total 2015 haul. The unit brought in £966 million ($1.4 billion) in profit–a 9% decrease from 2014–with an operating margin of 26.4%, 5.2% lower than in 2014.

        Money is the driver behind vaccines, not healthcare. Same for the cancer industry, and I’ve lost 4 family members to cancer. Most likely there’s been a cure for years but treating the illness is more profitable.

        The top ten cancer drugs brought in $40 Billion dollars in 2015. Again, more money managing cancer than from curing it.

        • axelbeingcivil

          If nothing you say can change a person’s mind, they’re not exactly reasonable. Every reasonable person can and should be willing to change their mind on a topic given sufficient evidence. Likewise, people should be aware that confirmation bias is a thing; that their expectations about what they witness may be correlation without causation.

          I’m not sure why money being the driver behind the pharmaceutical industry is supposed to be shocking either. Am I supposed to believe that all other industries on our planet exist purely for the good intentions and well-wishes of the people involved? That the mining industry, manufacturing industry, electronics industry, and all others that made our communication here possible contain only people working out of the goodness of their hearts and for some higher vision.

        • JoAnn Graham

          While there is debate whether single vaccines cause autism, there is NO debate that HEAVY DOSES of MULTIPLE VACCINES–as are routinely given to very young infants–are simply too much for their immature and developing neurological systems to handle. At the very LEAST, they need to stop loading up multiple vaccines into “super shots” and injecting them into young children whose nervous systems are still developing and cannot cope with that load of neurological toxins being dumped into their bodies. Will the government even concede THAT much in their determination to force parents to do their bidding? Doubtful!

          And you are RIGHT about cancer treatment. It is a KNOWN FACT that chemo only benefits one out of TWENTY cancer patients. For others they do NO good at all, and MORE harm than good. And yet, KNOWING THIS, the cancer treatment industry pushes ALL cancer patients to have chemo. That is what happened to my son, and while it did a lot of damage to him, it did NOTHING to even SLOW DOWN his cancer, much LESS “cure” it! He died less than a year afterward.

          • wandakate

            I am SO SORRY for your lost, GOD be with you and give you comfort. My daughter was diagnosed with cancer of the breast when she was in her later 30’s. She is 46 and in remission now. I know the pain and it’s real, and it seems to me to be ALL about GREED…money, the almighty dollar.
            Those in the industry don’t give a darn about lives, it’s ALL about how much money they can make.
            We know though that judgment day is coming…

        • wandakate

          Heartbreaking and truth at the same time. First my condolences on the loss of your 4 family members to cancer. My oldest daughter had breast cancer from her late 30’s. I do realize the drugs kill them before the actual cancer will. My neighbor from a place I used to live in just passed away with brain cancer and she was only 33, how sad. My friend’s son passed away with it and he was only 52, and 2 more neighbors with fatty liver disease (cancer) and one with stomach cancer. I know the pain of it all and it’s real.
          YES, it’s all about the almighty DOLLAR, and they will rot in hell too b/c of their sinfulness and their earthly worldly GREED!
          There has been a cure for cancer, but as you say the cure wasn’t profitable was it? What will stop this insaneness????? Remember the scriptures tell us, that the first will be last, and the last will be first on that day of judgment…These pharmaceutical companies may be first now, but rest assured they will be LAST on judgment day. Your sins will find you out. GOD “hates” greed, but loves a cheerful giver and one that heals and brings hope to mankind and not despair.

      • JoAnn Graham

        Depends on who the “lot of people” ARE, axel.

      • Jolanda Tiellemans

        If someone told you that the idea that vaccines cause autism was a dangerous concept,

        Oh yeah, didn’t Trump say that?

    • JoAnn Graham

      Fortunately, this is not a “government property” they can BULLY into equating Christians with Satanists and all manner of evil cults or removing non-secular displays entirely.

      • This style ten and six

        Perfectly true. You can put up whatever you like on private property but no level of government is allowed to show preference to any one form of religion. You should be in support of this as the founders of the US left countries where there was an official state religion. They wanted to found a country where all religions were respected (actually I think the Puritans would have happily coerced everyone into their peculiar brand of Christianity but that is another story). So a government body can allow all forms of religious display or none, can open meetings with all sorts of invocations or none. Isn’t that what freedom of religion is all about? Or do you think that onle your own religion should be represented?

    • Amos Moses

      Is that not what happened to Noah when he was building the first one ………. people standing around the ark and decrying it ……………… till the flood came …… and they could not get in it ………….

      • wandakate

        He told them, begged them, warned them to repent and enter the ark, but they claimed there had never been any rain and so it wasn’t going to rain. They didn’t listen to him, just like they don’t listen today either until they find it’s too late. People were stubborn then, and they’re just as stubborn now and even “stupid” sorry to say.
        People were so sinful then, just like now. They were warned then, and they are warned today by apostles, prophets, men and women of GOD who are shouting from the rooftops and much to no avail…
        Next time it will be by fire, and that will be horrible, but they were warned.

        • Amos Moses

          “He told them, begged them, warned them to repent and enter the ark”

          Yep ………. for 100 years ……..

  • axelbeingcivil

    It is a profound irony that this place is built right next to the Kope Formation, a fossil bed containing the remains of Ordovician sea creatures.

  • TheBottomline4This

    What a great idea!!!
    Some who support abortions say, If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one. Well…if you don’t like this, don’t go.

    • Jalapeno

      If you don’t like the protests, don’t look.

      • TheBottomline4This

        What protests are you referring to?

        • Jalapeno

          The people standing outside saying that they didn’t like the exhibit that the article is about…

          Seemed like you were talking against the protesters, so I’m suggesting that you should apply your standards to yourself.

          • TheBottomline4This

            People can protest the ark all they want. It’s not going anywhere 🙂 The millions that will come each year to visit it will prove that.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Also, which standard specifically do you think I should apply to myself?

          • Jalapeno

            I assumed you were taking issue with people protesting beacsuse they could just not go and there is no reason to take issue.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I have no problem with peaceful protests. I hope you don’t either.

          • Jalapeno

            Absolutely not, I just figured you were speaking against the protests mentioned in the article.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Whatever side of an issue one is on, if the protests are peaceful then they are fine. If there are protests protesting the protesters that is fine too, as long as both sides are doing it peacefully.
            Stupid groups like the Westboro “Baptist Church” are one example of protesters I don’t agree with in how they protest. It’s not peaceful. For the record, imho, they are not Christian, nor Baptist.

          • wandakate

            Westboro Baptist, is that one of the churches of satan?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The actual Church of Satan is a nicer bunch than those guys.

          • wandakate

            It’s possible they’re all related, cousins or something! They spread HATRED! Satan came to steal, kill and destroy, so apparently they have something there in common.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The COfS doesn’t go around telling people “Satan hates (fill in the blank)”

          • Amos Moses

            satan loves everybody ………. who does not listen to God ……. until he decides different ……….. satan is a liar ………. he loves no one …. but satan ….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You know the Church of Satan I’m talking about are actually atheists and/or agnostics and don’t believe in Satan as anything but a symbol?

            Tell me, though, I’m no Bible expert, I don’t pretend to be….what are the lies that Satan tells in the Bible?

          • Amos Moses

            And symbols are what ………… they are representations of ideas ………… the idea of satan exists ……. therefore he exists ………. because people …. whether they believe him or not …. act on their beliefs ………… “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist.” ……… sounds like A-Theists and Agnostics ……

            “what are the lies that Satan tells in the Bible?”

            Genesis 3:4-5
            The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

            John 8:44
            ……….. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

            2 Corinthians 11:14
            No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

            2 Corinthians 11:3
            But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

            So many more ………..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “the idea of satan exists ……. therefore he exists”

            Hmm…are you saying anything people believe exists does? Interesting thought, but I’m not buying that.

            So, of the 4 things you came up with, 3 of them are just CALLING Satan a liar. Not really what I was asking about. And I don’t know about the story in Genesis you mentioned…..earlier, God tells Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Adam ate it, but hardly died that day. (and neither did Eve) According to Genesis 5:5, he lived 930 (!) years. Wouldn’t that be what “the serpent” was talking about? “You will surely not die (this day)”

          • Amos Moses

            “Hmm…are you saying anything people believe exists does?”

            There are things that exist independent of our thoughts ……….. and we cannot make things disappear just because we do not believe it …….. also just because we refuse to accept a thing does not negate its influence …………. cant see gravity ….. cant really quantify it beyond a few observable affects ………. but jump off a building and see where you end up …..

            So lets say that you choose to not believe satan exists ……….. but another does and acts on that …… that action affects others ……… there is a pretty much universal idea of a reptilian/serpent deity running through EVERY culture on this planet …… cultures that had no connection to christianity or judaism or islam ……….. that is not an accident nor is denial of it altering that reality one iota ……

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Meh. I’m not really going to dispute anything you just said there, but it didn’t really answer anything I said, and I don’t think it necessarily proves anything. I don’t know about all those “reptilian/serpent deities,” but I’d bet a good number of them didn’t have a lot in common with the way Satan is depicted.

          • Amos Moses

            Sure they do ………… that is why when scripture says satan rules the powers and principalities of this world, of the air ………. it is true ……. satan is depicted in scripture as a winged serpent …… as with the mayans and the native americans and most other cultures ….. Quetzalcoatl, Ka Amaru, Caduceus, Itzamna, Japan and China all recognize winged serpent gods, Ancient Egyptians had snake gods, Misi-kinepikw (“great snake”)—Cree, Msi-kinepikwa (“great snake”)—Shawnee, Misi-ginebig (“great snake”)—Oji-Cree, Mishi-ginebig (“great snake”)—Ojibwe, Pita-skog (“great snake”)—Abenaki, Sinti lapitta—Choctaw, Unktehi or Unktehila—Dakota, Olobit—Natchez, Uktena—aniyunwiya, and on and on ………

            A cherub is a winged and very powerful angel …….
            28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
            28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
            28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
            28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
            28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
            28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

            But he does not exist ………… really ………… because ……….. you choose not to believe it ….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “But he does not exist ………… really ………… because ……….. you choose not to believe it”

            If you think that’s what I was saying, you need to pay more attention. Anyway, though, let’s just look at Quetzalcoatl, since you mentioned that….portrayed as a feathered serpent, the Aztec god of wind and learning, contributed to creation of mankind…..does that really sound much like Satan, aside from the serpent part?? Interestingly, I see that some Mormons thought that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus. Caduceus? That’s not even a deity.

          • Amos Moses

            “portrayed as a feathered serpent, the Aztec god of wind and learning, contributed to creation of mankind…..does that really sound much like Satan, aside from the serpent part??”

            From a christian and biblical perspective ……….. absolutely ………. he is a liar as he lies about creation and who brought it about …… he claims to bring “knowledge” (learning) and is the “illuminated one” ( he appears as an angel of light) …….. he is a winged serpent …. as is satan ………. if you are looking for a red-tinged horned devil with a pitchfork ….. you are not looking at scripture ……… i gave you the scripture about satans appearance ….. here is another ……… the name Lucifer means “the illuminated one” or “shining one, light-bearer” ……. you asked for the lies satan has said ………. they are here …… the “I Wills” of Lucifer …..

            14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
            14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
            14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
            14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
            14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
            14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
            14:18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
            14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
            14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, first of all, there’s apparently some doubt as to whether Lucifer is actually referring to Satan, or maybe it’s a king of Babylon. Anyway, even if it is Satan, it’s just talking about what he supposedly “said in his heart”…

          • Amos Moses

            No doubt about who is being talked about…………. his name was Lucifer in the garden ………… when he was cast out …. when a change appeared in him ………… God changed his name to satan …….. as He did to Abram, and Sarai, and Jacob, and many others and even those who believe Him to this day ……….. We just have not been given that new name yet …….. but it is recorded ………

            Ge 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

            Ge 17:15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

            Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

            Sure, he “said in his heart” ………… and this is the iniquity that God saw ………. and this is what God tries …….

            17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
            17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

          • wandakate

            The TEXAS protest started out peacefully and turned into the murder of 5 people and the injury of 7 more. Last night protest in Baton Rouge, La. were also peaceful, but wait and see what happens, and also in Atlanta, Go, peaceful and then they decided to go out and BLOCK a major highway, and then one thing usually leads to another. So much for peaceful protests! People are too violent, crazy, stupid and paranoid to protest peacefully b/c somebody in the crowd usually takes it a step farther…then many others just follow along.

    • wandakate

      If you don’t like abortions, don’t get pregnant in the first place. And yes, if you don’t want to see anything like this, then simply do not ever go, and that will take care of that.

  • Gena B

    Boy it sure is big…good to know where it is, in case we may need to take a ride on it later.

  • Reason2012

    Jesus makes it clear the flood is a historical fact.
    Luke 17:26-27 “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.”

    • This style ten and six

      A global flood is impossible.

      • TheBottomline4This

        You thinking correctly is more impossible.

        • This style ten and six

          Insults now, the only argument you have.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I usually go to insults when the ignorance of the one I’m insulting is obvious.

          • This style ten and six

            Says the guy who believes in Noah’s ark

          • TheBottomline4This

            Says the old guy who believes in millions of years ago, lol.

          • This style ten and six

            You seem to have a thing about age, are you still in grade school?

          • TheBottomline4This

            No old man.

          • Glorious_Cause

            How is a global flood impossible?

            Please explain polystrate fossils.

          • axelbeingcivil

            John William Dawson explained them as far back as 1868: Polystrate fossils are always trees, and are pretty universally of the sort that are found in pull-apart basins and coastal flood plains. The root systems of such trees are intact, and usually underlaid by a fossilized clay layer indicating that these trees were not tempest-tossed when they were submerged. Instead, it suggests a relatively rapid (but not violent) sedimentation, as is common in these regions.

            A better question is, why don’t we find, say, polystrate animal fossils? Or out-of-sequence organisms? These should be expected if there was a global flood but somehow they prove ever elusive.

          • JoAnn Graham

            It wasn’t just “rain”. It was also the “waters of the deep” — waters from the underground aquifers, etc. There is MORE scientific evidence of a worldwide flood than there is for alternate explanations.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I just want to take a moment to point out that water is incompressible, meaning that – apart from the sorts of conditions that can force it into unusual forms of ice, which aren’t really attainable on our planet – any volume of water under the ground would need to equal the volume between the Earth’s surface and the top of the tallest mountains to fulfill the Noahic account.

            Since the volume of a region of a sphere rises exponentially with the radius, you should probably quickly see the problem that, even if the crust on the Earth were uniformly 25 km thick, you’d have to transform the entire ~10 sextillion cubic meters of material into water to fill the subsequent eight kilometers to cover the tallest mountain.

          • This style ten and six

            Facts go nowhere with a creationist.

          • This style ten and six

            No, there isn’t.

          • getstryker

            Thank you – you are absolutely correct as I attempted to point out if he/she had read the Bible narrative.

      • Michael A. Todd

        And you know this how?

        • TheBottomline4This

          He’s old and knows nothing.

          • wandakate

            He may not be old, who knows. A picture is there but they may not be the person.
            Being old isn’t a crime or a sin. If you live long enough you will age and be considered old, but age is actually ONLY a number. My mind is running about 20 years or more younger than my chronological age…
            Living makes us wise. We gain knowledge with age. The young think they “know it all”, but truth is they don’t know half of what they “think” they know.
            They have NOT lived enough. They have NOT been there and done that.
            It’s the young that “know nothing”, and the older ones that have wisdom, knowledge and a measure of common sense. The young don’t teach the old, the old teach the young. You thinking must be backwards, to say he’s old and knows nothing…
            How many presidents can you name? Do you know how many books are actually in the bible? Where is the center of the earth? AHHH, what time did JESUS die on the cross? How many actual days was He in the tomb (grave)? How old was He at His death? Who’s more likely to know a 20 year old or a 70 year old?

          • This style ten and six

            Thank you for that. My avatar is a reproduction of a Saxon chieftain’s ceremonial helmet. The remains of the original were found in his ship burial, along with other artefacts, at Sutton Hoo in England. The chieftain is thought to be Raedwald, the ruler of the East Angles.

          • wandakate

            Excuse me, but what on earth does that have to do with the comment that I had made to you above? You didn’t answer any of my questions either.

          • This style ten and six

            I like to tell people about Saxons. I assumed your questions were aimed at Bottom. I wonder if he wears an ass’s head.

          • wandakate

            If they were aimed at him, they would have been under his name, but they were not, so I would assume it means they were aimed at you and apparently you don’t have any answers for me, or you would have proudly presented them…

          • This style ten and six

            I don’t know what your questions are. I am trying to be nice here.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Where is the center of the earth? Somewhere in the middle, I think.

            (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

          • wandakate

            I would assume that GOD would know since he’s the one that created it all in the first place.
            Where does man say it is, or where does science tell us it is?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Why do you think there’s some kind of doubt or question as to where the center of the earth is? Seems like a silly question to be asking. It’s the center of the earth, it’s in, uh, the center.

        • This style ten and six

          The amount of rain needed in the time frame would have created so much heat as to have boiled Noah and all his animals alive. Just one point among many.

          • TheBottomline4This

            lol

          • Gena B

            God was in charge…you think He can’t make rain without heat? lol

          • This style ten and six

            Elementary physics says he can’t.

          • Gena B

            but I think God overules

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Agreed. The One Who created natural laws out of nothing material can surely violate them at His will.

          • wandakate

            Is physics in charge here or is it ALMIGHTY GOD! GOD overrules everything scientific and otherwise!

          • getstryker

            Did you even bother to read the Bible narrative about the flood and where ALL the water came from???
            Hint: It was NOT just due to rain – read it for yourself.

          • This style ten and six

            I know the biblical myth very well and that is what it is, a myth. There are so many impossibilities in the story that it should be obvious even to fundamentalists that it never happened.

          • getstryker

            Yeah, a ‘myth/ . . . I’ve heard that and more . . . like Heaven and Hell don’t exist either – – – ‘Time Will Tell’

          • This style ten and six

            You said it, they don’t, heaven and hell that is.

          • Amos Moses

            So you claim “science” …………. where is YOUR evidence of that assertion ………

          • wandakate

            But you are forgetting that GOD can do ANYTHING! His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are NOT our thoughts. What we can NEVER do, GOD can do in a heartbeat.
            You are trying to reason this all out from a human perspective, but it can’t be done like that. This was GOD’s doing and not the doings of man! BIG HUGE difference.

          • This style ten and six

            How is it that god always seems to do destructive things like drowning virtually all life on earth? If he is so omnipotent how come he doesn’t hand down a cure for cancer, something really useful.

          • Amos Moses

            It is Gods judgement ………… but it also serves His purposes …….. Why would He ……… if “science” is so powerful ……….. why has it not done it …..

          • wandakate

            You are unfortunately missing the entire point. GOD deserves our respect and our willingness to be obedient to Him. Sin is the transgression of the law, therefore when we sin it requires punishment. There are consequences for our disobedience. GOD didn’t do anything bad, the people were the “sinners”. They were the ones that deserved all the punishment. GOD loved them, but they were constantly living in disobedience and sinning, just as we are doing today. They didn’t believe in Him or what He was capable of doing, and neither do many today. GOD’s ways are NOT our ways, and His thoughts are NOT our thoughts…There are modern day miracles, but JESUS told us, “We have not because we ask not.” Unless we asked then we don’t have. Many have cancer and don’t asked GOD for healing, they just rush to a facility that will give them “manmade” scientific treatment for it, and most wound up dying anyway. The eventual treatment kills them, and the men have made money on the treatment.
            GOD was able to cure them from the beginning, BUT seems they didn’t asked Him too.

          • This style ten and six

            I hope you never have cancer as praying will not help you. The surgeon who fixed me no doubt has a good income and deserves every penny. The hospital didn’t make money as it is state supported. The idea that there is an industry making money off cancer is as whacky as your global flood.0

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            I know someone who did. Her son had cancer, she prayed and prayed and prayed. The child still died, since then she has turned away from Christianity.

          • wandakate

            That is heartbreaking, especially since it was a child. JESUS went to the garden and prayed to GOD the FATHER, “Thy will be done, not my will, but your will.” NOW, we must pray the same way, that it’s His will that is done and not our own.
            I know we do not understand these things, and they are devastating, however He is ultimately in charge and we are not. His will is done in the end, for His purpose of which I can’t explain. Sometime people pray and GOD answers those prayers, and other time He doesn’t.

          • Michael A. Todd

            I’ve recently seen that scientific argument. So, I’ll just rely on simply faith in a quite large regional flood. Even other civilizations have written about that. It only had to be regional enough to remove people in existence at the time, except for Noah and his family.

      • Reason2012

        Creating a human being from the dirt in the ground is also impossible.
        Raising someone back to life that’s been dead and cold for days is also impossible.
        Creating the Earth is impossible.
        Creating the Universe is impossible.
        But God did all these things.
        For us to reject one of the divine acts of God when we accept others is illogical.

        Matthew 19:26 “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”

        • This style ten and six

          You go with the bible, I’ll stick with the real world.

          • Reason2012

            The “real world” is that you’re related to fish?

            That some populations of fish or frogs or reptiles could eventually over generations learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and program computers and more, all if you just give it “enough time”?

            You believe far worse than that which you condemn.

            Global flood? Not reality you say.
            Fish, reptiles, frogs learning all of those things? “I’ll stick with that reality”.

            You only show how mankind is willfully ignorant.

            Romans 1:22 “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”

          • wandakate

            AMEN TO THAT! JESUS said, “My people perish from lack of knowledge.”

          • This style ten and six

            As all life is descended from a common ancestor we are related in some way with fish. Read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.

            Evolution is fact. The bible is not.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            Actually, Darwin himself said before he died that he couldn’t prove evolution. There is evolution amongst a species. There is no evidence of one type of animal turning into something completely different

          • This style ten and six

            You should stop spreading lies; Darwin said no such thing.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If there is ‘evolution amongst species’, what stops all those small changes over time from eventually resulting in a new species?

          • HeathTierney

            That’s an outstanding book. It was made into a BBC series as well. It’s available on Youtube. (I’m not sure if I’m allowed to post a link here, but a quick search should come up with it.)

        • wandakate

          His reasoning is flawed!!! He has no concept of TRUTH or right and wrong. Knows nothing apparently about the beginning, has no interest in the history of the world or the beginning.
          The ignorant and the poor will always be among us.
          JESUS wanted us to reach them. He said, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.”

      • bowie1

        Actually with the concern of global warming scientists believe it is possible. They have also discovered an ocean in the bowels of the earth that could potentially add to that threat.

        • axelbeingcivil

          A rise in sea levels is possible. A rise in sea level of nine kilometers, not so much.

    • wandakate

      Unbelievers will ALWAYS dismiss the judgment. They don’t believe how we started (past), they don’t realize the severe state we are now in (the present) and they have no concept of the judgment to come (the future.)
      And JESUS Himself said…”My people perish from lack of knowledge.”
      What is the duty of the Christian? To WORK and reach the lost souls, before it’s too late.
      This project of Biblical proportions may help to win lost souls to the LORD. It’s impact on the people may be enormous, just like the size of the Ark itself, HUGE! Let’s pray that this will be part of GOD’s end-time message…
      THIS WAS THE BEGINNING OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, and as the world was destroyed by water the first time, the next time it will be destroyed by fire…

    • HeathTierney

      Using the bible to support an assertion made in the bible is circular reasoning and, as such, isn’t valid.

      In order for the assertion to be valid, you will have to prove, conclusively, all of the following:
      1. That there is a God
      2. That this God is interested in human affairs
      3. That this God had a son
      4. That this son was named Jesus
      5. That this Jesus actually said what he is supposed to have said
      6. That what he said was recorded, correctly and without error, some 50+ years after his death (or more, depending upon the book)
      7. That these records have remained substantially unchanged from their recording back in the 1st century to today, with no errors, additions, deletions or other alterations.

      Once you have proven all seven of those, then you have an argument which has some veracity. But until then, it’s not valid.

      I look forward to seeing you prove all seven of those hypotheses.

      • Reason2012

        // Using the bible to support an assertion made in the bible is circular reasoning and, as such, isn’t valid.

        If I was calling it science, you would be correct.

        Now, since those who reject God are claiming it IS science that life just happened to come from non-life on its own, they have to prove it. And giving reasons to BELIEVE it is not the same, it’s circular reasoning as you say.

        Since those who reject God are claiming it IS science that some populations of fish could ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into amphibians (animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish), they have to prove it. And just giving reasons to BELIEVE it is not the same, it’s circular reasoning as you say.

        And therein is the hypocrisy of the claims you have heard and are repeating here exposed. They do that which they condemn: believing something, they can’t prove it in any way whatsoever, but still believe it to be fact AND demand it be called science, which is even worse.

        • This style ten and six

          Scientists have proved it, it is just that you refuse to follow the evidence.

          • Amos Moses

            AGAIN ………. we all have the same evidence ……….. why would we accept a CORRUPTED view of it that EXCLUDES God ……

        • axelbeingcivil

          What is your standard of “proof”? Because in science, there’s no such thing as proven; just something with exceptionally strong evidence. In the end, theories are always held to be testable and falsifiable.

          So what is your standard of evidence? What would you require to convince you that evolution is possible?

      • Reason2012

        Now that we’ve dispensed with the hypocrisy of pretending we have to PROVE that which is a belief, since those who reject God do the exact same thing: hold onto a belief they cannot prove, but are actually dishonest about it since they claim THEIR beliefs are science, here’s why we BELIEVE those things.

        // That there is a God
        There’s plenty of evidence a higher intelligence exists:

        – Our intelligence
        – Information able to be encoded in dna
        – Information encoded in dna
        – Ability for that information to be decoded and acted upon to do what the instructions say
        – Ability for these instructions to be meticulously copied.

        All of the above is an obvious sign of intelligence. To admit it when it’s human beings who are the designer, but then dismiss it instead with “nothing did it” when we do not know what the designer is (and perhaps we’re uncomfortable with the thought of who the designer might be) is just willful ignorance on our part.

        Still cannot call it science, but it’s logically undeniable nonetheless that there’s a higher intelligence responsible.

        Also consider: Is a prosthetic leg proof of an intelligent designer? Is that not PROOF? Is the information that is then followed to make more of them not proof? Is the ability to decode that information and ACT on it to do what it says to build such a leg also more of the PROOF? Of course it is. Yet we want to pretend the leg itself, which is millions of times more ingenious and complex is NOT proof of an intelligent designer, nor the information encoded in DNA on how to build it, nor that information being decoded and acted upon to build more legs nor that information being copied so it can be used again and again and again.

        Not to mention the entire body it’s attached to, the brain that controls it by thoughts, the lung to breath air and air to be breathed, the heart to pump blood and blood to BE pumped, eyes to see, brain to process it and act upon it, ears to hear, brain to process it and act upon it and so many, many more systems. To pretend all of that is NOT proof of an intelligent designer, but a plastic prosthetic limb IS, is just willful ignorance on our part.

        The only faith part is who that designer is: God.

        And to break that tie about why to believe in God instead of some fake god:

        The Bible is the only ‘religious’ book that dares to make prophecies, not to mention several hundred came true after the fact, even up to thousands of years later.

        Although it is not a science textbook, there are dozens of scientific facts in the Bible that scientists didn’t and couldn’t figure out until hundreds and thousands of years later.

        The grave of all false religions’ prophets has their bones – the grave of Christ is empty.

        You can_kill thousands in the name of a false religion and people of that country will bend over backwards to help you build a church where you did it. You dare mention Christ, hand out a tract, and you’re met with the utmost hatred.

        People who profess faith in Christ have major changes instantly from the inside out that they were unable to overcome over a lifetime.

        It won’t really make people believe who need to reject the truth of God, but we know all we need to know – but the world seeks to keep us blind to the truth of God. When we face Him, it won’t work to say “well how was I supposed to know?” We know all we need to know and will be without excuse when we face God.

        // That this God is interested in human affairs
        Jesus has said it, and we believe Him.
        John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

        John 17:6 “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.”

        His Only begotten Son is Jesus, the Christ:
        Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”

        In the end faith comes from God – because without God we do what you’re doing and insist on remaining willfully ignorant and instead believe fish to mankind stories, and “life just happened from non-life” stories, and “the universe just happened from something we’ll call a big bang” stories instead.

        If anyone’s sincerely curious about God and faith in Him, they should read the gospels again, sincerely wondering what Christ did and said while He was here. Even a curiosity about God could be God trying to get your attention. And spending hours daily attacking God when a person claims not to believe is more evidence their conscience knows the truth.

        Take care.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Very nice teleological argument – combined with some good philosophy too – thanks for taking the time to put that together.

          • Reason2012

            Glad it was a Blessing!

            Reminds me of
            1 Peter 3:15-16 “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.”

            May God bless!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Indeed! You fulfill the apologia verse most beautifully. Keep up the great work, Reason!

        • Sher Ed Mack

          !!!

        • axelbeingcivil

          Out of curiosity, what is your explanation for Loa loa filariasis? If you’re unfamiliar, it’s the parasite nicknamed the African eyeworm for its tendency to burrow into, and swell within, the human eye. It is a parasitic nematode that, until the past few decades, had no treatment and causes rather intense pain as it swims around inside the eye of the victim; a state that has been recorded lasting almost two decades.

          This parasite is complex. It has a genetic code, just like every other organism. It is, indeed, a highly complex genetic code, with the same capacity for repair and reinforcement as any other, containing millions of nucleotides in proper sequence whose only purpose is the existence of an aggressive parasite that exists to replicate itself; uncaring of the pain and misery it causes along the way.

          There are so many flawed assumptions with your argument, but I am curious where this parasite exists in the Grand Design; why the intelligent designer you admire would create a tiny worm that exists only to infect, destroy, and feed; to cause misery chiefly in those who are most vulnerable.

          After all, if the eye is so complex as to require a designer, and indicates the designer’s thoughtfulness, surely a worm that exists solely to feed on that eye requires even more thoughtfulness on the part of said designer?

          • [email protected]

            God created a perfect world without disease or death, then sin entered the picture and changed everything. Sin, disease, and death now stalk us. Someday there will be a new heaven and earth and all will be restored as God created it. In the meantime, our only hope is in Jesus Christ.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Then God didn’t create this nematode?

          • [email protected]

            God created everything, including this nematode, but sin has changed things. I don’t know exactly how this nematode fit into the original creation. All we know is that God pronounced everything as “good” after he completed his creation.

          • axelbeingcivil

            So, a nematode that can only survive by burrowing into human eyes and causing great pain is good? Flies that bite and spread infection, also good?

      • Chet

        Christians have nothing to prove to you or anyone else as we elect to believe God rather than man in simple childlioke faith, nothing doubting. Nevertheless, just don’t look forward to seeing us believers in Hell cause we aren’t going to be there. Thanks, exclusively, to God’s love for all us sinners and the sacrifice of his only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary’s Cross on our behalf, his resurrection and soon coming again for his own… Jesus saves and his precious blood washes even the vilest sinner whiter than snow. Salvation for all, from the guttermost to the uttermost, that’s our great God Almighty.

      • Charles

        Well.. Evolution uses “Circular reasoning” to date layers and fossils. Did you know that?

        the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain. The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships. Thus the main evidence for evolution is based on the assumption of evolution.

        Weird huh? So when you can prove the dates other than the Carbon dating .99 test at your local Walmart.. Not to mention all of the findings they “Omit” to conceal the real truth.. If you have to suppress information because it doesn’t match your theory well.. Should tell you right there the whole thing is based on a lie.

        • This style ten and six

          How about the lie that a virgin gave birth and a man rose from the dead.

          • Charles

            Prove it’s a lie. Because there is eyewitness testimony in the Bible.. What do you have?

          • This style ten and six

            You must know that these things are impossible. If you believe them it is for you to convince me. If you want to that is.

          • Charles

            They are impossible for us to do without the Lord. Do you think the Lord the creator of the Universe would have any issues with those miracles?

            Psa 147:4-5 MKJV
            (4) He appoints the number of the stars; He calls them all by their names.
            (5) Great is our LORD, and of great power; There is no limit to His understanding.

            I can tell you that I’m unable to “Convince” you of anything you don’t wish to believe.. However, God certainly can convince you he exist.. I used to think as you do. Wasn’t an easy road for me.. I was very stubborn.. ha ha…

          • This style ten and six

            I am not as gullible as you seem to be.

          • Charles

            Ha.. ha.. Right.. Gullible.

          • axelbeingcivil

            There’s eye-witness testimony in the Bhagavad Gita, too, but somehow I don’t imagine you believe Krishna incarnated as Arjuna’s chariot driver.

        • axelbeingcivil

          What you’re talking about is relative dating; something that acts as a kind of geological short-hand. Once it’s well-established that a given index fossil only occurs in layers of a certain age, it’s a useful clue.

          That is not, however, the only means by which we can date rock layers and fossils. Far from it. The chief way to determine rock age is absolute dating. Most people are familiar with radiometric dating but other methods exist, including thermoluminescence dating and electron spin resonance. These methods assess either direct measures of decay or their by-products (since decaying materials produce things like halos in the rock, and the size of those halos correlate to the amount of initial material which then decays at a steady rate).

          Incidentally, carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating, and it’s most definitely not the one you use on most fossils. Carbon dating’s upper bounds of sensitivity currently sit at ~55,000 years, and even the best and most experimental technology can only push that to ~200,000 years.

          We have dozens of dating methods at this point, and these are only a handful and they are all in wonderfully clear agreement with one another.

          • Charles

            “We have dozens of dating methods at this point, and these are only a handful and they are all in wonderfully clear agreement with one another.”

            Look you have a fundamental problem.. Since the the Sun affects the decay rate, and not knowing the decay rate “65 Million” or a “Millon” years ago.. How do you calibrate the test for an unknown rate? But it doesn’t change the facts that they use circular reasoning. They use index fossils to date the rock, they use the rock layers to date the fossils.

          • axelbeingcivil

            How, exactly, does the Sun affect the decay rate?

          • Charles

            a paper published by Stanford just a few years ago about affects the sun on the radioactive decay rate.. SO, in other words unless you know the the rate of the Suns radiation at any given time (Which hasn’t been the same rate over thousands of years), you won’t get an accurate result for carbon dating. The other problem is that God had said there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere, which of course would stop much of the Suns radiation hitting the atmosphere/surface/animals, throwing off the dates even further.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’m aware of the Stanford paper. The problem is, that paper’s been discredited. Jere Jenkins, the researcher who noticed the abnormalities, was using a gas detector at the time to measure the decay of manganese-54. The problem is, gas detectors are known to be prone to that sort of fluctuation. When the experiment was repeated using liquid scintillation methods – a far more robust technique – the variation basically vanishes. It was an equipment abnormality. That’s all.

            (Source: Karsten Kossert, Ole J. Nähle: “Long-term measurements of 36Cl to investigate potential solar influence on the decay rate.” Astroparticle Physics 55 (2014) 33-36)

            In addition, if solar neutrinos were indeed messing with decay rates and radically inconstant, we shouldn’t expect to find consistency in dating of objects of known age. Humans have been very good at recording our history for the past few thousand years and producing lots of trash heaps full of material of known age. We likewise have fossilized wood that we can track the age of back a few tens of thousands of years, and ice cores going back about 100,000 years or so. Carbon dating methods agree with all of these known dates, which mean that, if neutrinos have been having any effect on radioactive decay, there’s no actual sign of it affecting our readings.

            Furthermore, any canopy of ice above our atmosphere would either melt, shatter, or kill all life on Earth (possibly all three). Water absorbs light energy really, really well, with high energy bands preferentially absorbed. 200 meters of water is all it takes for 99% of all light to be cut off. This is assuming that the pressure of all that water mass compressing the atmosphere didn’t cook everything inside first, or the gravitational stresses didn’t make the ice shell just shatter.

            Not to mention the question of where all this ice went anyway afterwards, since, to surround the Earth, it would fill a truly colossal volume; something like 5e7 cubic kilometers. That’s about twice what we have currently in the world’s icecaps, glaciers, and other permanent snows, and you can see what adding that to the oceans would do.

            (That is, incidentally, presuming there’d even be an Earth left to begin with; the energetic release of 5e16 metric tonnes of water striking the Earth is something I can scarcely fathom.)

            While I’m at it, in response to your other post:

            1. Index fossils are used for *relative* dating, not *absolute* dating. Relative dating is a rule of thumb; an established guide post. To actually tell you the precise date of the rock, you need to do absolute dating. That’s what scientists do. Nobody says with absolute certainty the date of a layer of rock just based on the fossils, or vice versa.

            2. Radiometric dating rates are calibrated by a really, really wide variety of methods. Carbon dating is certainly the easiest, but older methods have their own ways. I’ve already kind of gone over carbon here, though, and I have written an exceedingly long post here. If you want more info, ask or research it.

          • Charles

            Kool.. I’ll look into it.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Please do. Another thing worth looking into is radiation halos and the current rates of known decay. There’s some fantastic math out there showing how, if the same amounts of energy as would be required to make the marks on the world that existed today were released in a period of only a few thousand years, our world would cook.

      • Oboehner

        Circular reasoning is very scientific, just ask an evolutionist.

      • Amos Moses

        Using a science book to support an assertion made in a science book is circular reasoning and, as such, isn’t valid.

        • HeathTierney

          That would be accurate if the science book was the one and only reference.

          However – and I’m sure you know this – scientific theories are actually tested and verified, repeatedly. If the theory doesn’t agree with the real world, then the theory is either discarded or modified.

          Not so with religion, where the conclusion is predetermined.

          • Amos Moses

            Actually ,,,,,,, Evolution does not meet that test and therefore it is not science …… it is not testable or repeatable ……….. so thank you for pointing that out ………… it does destroy the idea that evolution is science …… and it reinforces the idea ….. that the evidence is the same for us all ………….. it is the viewer of the evidence that is wrong ………. because they refuse to acknowledge God …………… and are in error …….

          • HeathTierney

            My response is sitting as “pending” probably because it contains a link.

            Regardless, search out Dr Francis Collins – a passionate believer in every sense – on beliefnet . com and his article entitled God Is Not Threatened By Our Scientific Adventures.

          • Amos Moses

            Of course God is not threatened …………….. but evolution ……… as His process of bringing about men and the earth ……….. is a lie ………….

          • HeathTierney

            Take it up with Dr Collins and the thousands of scientists and evolutionists that happen to be Christian. Once you can convince them, then you can convince me.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry ………….. not trying to convince you of anything ………… if you want to believe a lie …… i do not care how many believe it or of what stripe ……… it is still a lie …………….. have fun …………..

          • HeathTierney

            How do you “know” it’s a lie if you won’t research what other Christians study?

            {edit} Since you have already made up your mind and are not open to learning, I’m done here. I wish you well.

          • Amos Moses

            Scripture and Christ ………….. is what a christian relies on ………….. not the philosophies and musings of men ………….

            Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

            But even if they follow Christ ………….. i am not deceived ………. will not be deceived ……. by them or any other …………. and in any event …………. evolution does not meet the standard of science ……… which you stated …………. observable, evolution is not observable …… testable, evolution is not testable …………. nor is it repeatable …………. so it fails as science on all three of those levels ……….. it is a belief system …………. and i see no reason whatsoever to substitute that belief for what Christ has said ………….. its conclusions are based on the observer of the evidence ………… not on any factual reliable viewing of the evidence …. it is basically an inkblot test ……………

          • Amos Moses

            And only you have said i have not ……………. Done ……… bye ……… dont let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya …………. my mind is open ………. just not so much that my brain falls out …………. been where you are …………. got the tee shirt ………… got two actually ………. one to blow my nose on ………… the other to cover it up with …………….

          • Amos Moses

            i used to believe in evolution …………. but then i evolved ……….. now i think it is stupid ………………

          • HeathTierney

            I used to believe in creation. Then I read, studied, compared, did my own research, evolved… now I know that evolution is fact.

          • Amos Moses

            LOL! ………. Fact is evolution is a belief and it is not science ……… for the reasons already outlined …….. it fails as science by the three metrics previously described ………… it is not science ……….. it is belief ……… you are not following facts ………… just your own base desires to reject God ……….. and a corrupted view of the evidence ……..

          • HeathTierney

            OK, believe all the falsehoods you want. I’m done here. Besides, we’re waaayyyy off topic.

          • Amos Moses

            The topic is the view that evolution is science ……………. and it AINT …………..

          • Amos Moses

            Present the observable, testable and repeatable experiment that was performed to confirm evolution as anything but a belief ……… who did the repeat of the experiment to confirm the results ………… how did you observe it ……….. even Dawkins admits evolution is not observable …………….

          • HeathTierney

            Tried to send a link but it’s “pending”. I guess this site doesn’t like links.

            Do a search on why apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46. Then read the Dover Trial documents and why a Christian Republican judge, John E Jones, ruled that creationism and intelligent design was fraudulent.

            And, by the way, evolution is observable. That’s why, when you’re prescribed an antibiotic, you are instructed to take all of them. That’s because, if you don’t, the bacteria evolve resistance.

            Anyway, I know I’m not going to change your mind, because, when presented with those pesky things known as facts, believers tend to double down, just as you have done.

            Have a good evening.

          • Amos Moses

            Bacteria are still bacteria ………… that is not evolution ……… that is adaptation ….. that is not in dispute …………

            Judges can rule that it is legal to drive your car one ceiling or that homosexuals can get married ………….. does not make it true or correct or even sane ………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Adaptation IS evolution. You believe in evolution if you believe that there is adaptation, you just believe that it (somehow) only goes so far.

          • Amos Moses

            It is at best micro-evolution and does not give rise to speciation ………. bacteria remain bacteria ……. they do not become some other life form ……….

          • ShemSilber

            Shalom, Brother Amos. You wouldn’t believe how many “highly educated” professors have blind faith in evolution, in something popping out of nothing! Our brother, the Apostle Paul, gives a good description of them in Romans 1:18-32. We can witness to them until the cows come home, but they won’t believe it. Praises to the Almighty for opening the eyes of us little people to see a little of His greatness, in Yahushua’s (Jesus’) Name, omein.

          • axelbeingcivil

            What’s the difference? It’s the exact same underlying physical processes producing the same result. The only difference is time-scale.

          • Amos Moses

            Show us a bacteria that became anything but a bacteria or a dog that became anything but a dog ….. and on and on ………. ever ………… but again ……….. this is not about evidence …… we all have the same evidence …………

            it is your corrupted view of the evidence that is at issue …….

          • axelbeingcivil

            Why can’t one become another? If you agree that beneficial mutations can accumulate, altering species traits and behaviours, what stops one from becoming another?

          • Amos Moses

            “Why can’t one become another?”

            Sure …………… show where it ever has ………… see ………. evolution …………. not observable from that point of view …………. and therefore ……… not science …………. and the person viewing the evidence is in error …………….

          • axelbeingcivil

            Actually, it is observable and repeatable; you just acknowledged as much. All the mechanisms are evident today. You just called it “microevolution” for some strange reason.

            If you acknowledge all the mechanisms at work, you must have a reason for believing something prevents it from reaching its natural conclusion given sufficient time.

          • Amos Moses

            Do organisms change due to local changing environments ………… sure ………. micro-evolution ………… but the organism does not change to a different organism …… dog to cat …. man to wolf ………. due to those changes ………… so no …………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            No single organism makes such a transition, no. A fish does not suddenly birth a frog; an ape does not suddenly birth a man. That would be bizarre and directly contrary to modern evolutionary theory.

            However, all the mechanisms exist for small, gradual mutation to change a species through modification of each generation. You agree those mechanisms exist. You agree why they occur. So why do enough adaptations not result in speciation?

          • Amos Moses

            ” gradual mutation to change a species through modification of each generation.”

            By birth ……….. right ………. so just show where it was OBSERVED to have happened ………… but since it takes “generations” ……….. you cant …… and all you have is belief …………… and that is not science ………. it is belief ..

          • axelbeingcivil

            Actually, we can show mutation and change from one generation to the next. It’s a part of how that adaptation thing you just mentioned works.

            Like I said, you agree the mechanisms exist. You just arbitrarily say “It stops here”.

          • Amos Moses

            It stops here because you cannot show that it does not …………. it is just belief ………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            That’s faulty reasoning. If you’re agreeing the mechanisms exist, but then saying there’s some factor that prevents them from operating, you have to explain what it is. If there’s nothing stopping it from occurring, what basis do you have for saying it cannot occur?

          • Amos Moses

            there is a mechanism ……….. but you cannot show that that mechanism performs in the manner you suggest …….. you need observation and data that is re-testable to prove that ……. and it does not exist …….. so a “fill in the blank” situation is used ……. that is not science ….. it is belief ……….

            “but then saying there’s some factor that prevents them from operating, you have to explain what it is.”

            No ………. it is not my job to fix the error ……… only to point it out ……. if the theory is correct ……… then find the evidence …… show where it has done so ….. but there is none …….. show where any organism has changed to another ……….

          • axelbeingcivil

            That’s the thing, Amos: The mechanism isn’t in dispute. Over time, species acquire mutations with each generation; most neutral, some deletirious, a few beneficial. The differential survival of those possessing the beneficial traits within the population changes gene frequencies with time. You agree this happens, I agree this happens, this isn’t a point of dispute.

            What also isn’t in dispute is that, over time, these mutations add up; they accumulate. Since you agree that species adapt, and since you agree that these adaptations accumulate (as you must; these are all observed in living organisms today), then the natural conclusion is that the steady accumulation of mutations will, with time, result in extreme differentiation from the ancestral species.

            No new mechanism need e invoked here. I am not saying anything happens that we cannot readily observe today. I am just stating that, if this process continues, this is the inevitable product.

            You’re saying it isn’t. You have to explain why. What factor is missing here?

            Furthermore, you ask for evidence life can evolve but then say it’s all interpreted incorrectly. I’ve asked you previously what evidence would convince you and you refused to answer. If you won’t tell me what evidence would satisfy you, how can I present you with it?

      • Amos Moses

        Ultimate truth is not proven ……….. it is accepted ……… there is no level of testing to prove it …. it is ultimate truth…….. if you do not accept it ………. then you are the loser ….. not those that do accept it ……

    • Chet

      Amen. Meanwhile, the wicked do not just get by, they’re prospering in their ways deceiving and being deceived…

  • TheBottomline4This

    Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.

    • Reason2012

      But beware: God makes it clear all over the OT and NT that He did not use fish to mankind evolution.
      The real issue is fish to mankind evolution is anti-science. Science itself continues to show that what God said He did is true.

      • Jalapeno

        So..at what point do you start believing the science instead of the Bible?

        You seem to think the two aren’t compatible..would you believe in evolution if we invented a time machine to go back and view it? Would you believe in evolution if we found more fossils to see more in-between forms?

        • Reason2012

          // So..at what point do you start believing the science instead of the Bible?

          You answered your own question. Science is not something that needs to be believed in – fish to mankind evolution is something that can only be believed in and they can only give reasons to believe in it.

          The real issue is fish to mankind evolution is anti-science.

          No, science is perfectly compatible with belief in God.

          Are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus rose back to life after being dead for three days? Do you believe He raised up others from being dead even for days?

          If so, how you reconcile throwing out the observable, repeatable, scientific fact that when a person dies, their body grows cold, they start to decay, they are NOT coming back – yet we DO believe God did what He said He did.

          But then we try to throw out other things God says for what is NOT science and can only be believed in!

          How is it you reconcile this contradiction of behaviors, assuming you’re a Christian?

          • Jalapeno

            No, it doesn’t need to be believed in. That doesn’t mean some people choose to reject it.

            At what point do you say “hey, evolution makes sense”?

    • axelbeingcivil

      It’s true: Evolutionary theory does not in any way disprove religion, spirituality, or claims of any god(s) in general. People can still make any of those claims as they wish.

      It does, however, speak strongly against certain specific claims of certain religious beliefs or spiritual traditions. If, for example, you believe that all life was created in its present form ~6,000 years ago, it speaks strongly against your beliefs. If, though, you believe in a more deist conception of the Divine Watchmaker, who created the universe and watched it run, that’s not spoken against by evolution in the least.

  • Gena B

    Any rain coming soon? Would love to take it out for a spin…

    • JoAnn Graham

      That would take a LOT of rain, Gena B. About “40 days and 40 nights?”

  • Nidalap

    “Is that the old ship of Zion I see?” 🙂

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    How glorious! Thank God for these hard-working Christians! It is really neat the replica of Noah’s Ark is located in the heart of America.

  • Stephen W.

    I’m assuming this representation is pre-flood, since the area surrounding the structure is not littered with representations of carcasses of men, women, infants, and other animals.

    • Amos Moses

      After it landed and all the evil were washed away ………… By God ……..

      • wandakate

        The purpose of the flood was to rid the world at that time of EVIL. SIN is the transgression of the law. There was much sin in that day and age. They were warned b/c GOD send Noah to warn them of their sins and to confess, repent and forsake them, but they didn’t listen. Today GOD sends messengers too but people are stubborn and don’t listen now either. That will be their downfall, unbelief, disobedience and sin.

        • This style ten and six

          All those babes at the breast were steeped in sin, not to mention the unborn who you claim to care so much about.

          • Amos Moses

            Deleted …….

          • Jalapeno

            Quite a telling response.

          • Amos Moses

            Well it was a response to another post …………… misplaced by my error …….. so i deleted it …… in the only way available to do so ………

  • Amos Moses

    SciFriday: On the Road at the Ark Encounter – SkyWatch TV
    youtube;com/watch?v=pxx1Cx07wqM – replace the ; with a .

  • Michael A. Todd

    Dr. Collins may be passionate, but, he would not be in power in the NIH if he was a simple, Bible-believing Christian and only espousing Creationism. Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive. Either God did it or He didn’t, you can’t successfully mix the two views.

    • HeathTierney

      Hi Michael. My original answer is in the “pending” mode because I included a couple of links. Here it is without the links:

      —————————

      Dr Collins can, and does, mix his faith and science but no, he does not espouse creationism.

      Only a very small subset of scientists do espouse creationism. The most honest one I know of, Dr Kurt Wise, is quite unequivocal in his belief system.

      He said, “… if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.”

      In other words, the evidence and facts don’t matter to creationists. All that matters is the bible, regardless of how wrong it is. And in the story of the creation of the human race, it is, quite simply, wrong. A nice set of (conflicting) stories and allegories, but nothing to do with reality. Much like Aesop’s Fables, with morals to illuminate and stories to tell, but nobody rational thinks that, for instance, a crow can have a conversation with a fox.

      I know I’m not going to change your mind here. But that’s ok. Just know that there are passionate, committed Christians who accept the fact of evolution.

      ———————-

      The links I included were the creation . com bio for Dr Wise and a link to The Fox and the Crow story. I’m sure a quick google search will come up with them, if you’re so inclined.

      Cheers!
      HT

  • http://uncontrolledopposition.com/ Keith Kampschaefer

    Ham also plans to build a replica of the Tower of Babel in the next few
    years to speak against prejudice and racism, as well as an ancient
    walled city like those mentioned in the Bible.

    A replica of the Tower of Babel to speak against prejudice and racism? !

    … OR TO PROMOTE GLOBAL UNITY, the very thing Nimrod and the Tower is all about!

    • axelbeingcivil

      Isn’t global unity a natural consequence of speaking out against prejudice? Everyone being able to work together a bit more by acknowledging our common humanity?

  • axelbeingcivil

    Those articles don’t say what you think they do; they’re about hydrous melt layer being sustained in the Earth’s mantle; that is, minerals like ringwoodite that have a hydrous component release that hydrous component into a melt in a transition state to some degree, where it is sustained temporarily before being integrated into new rock.

    Those water molecules are bound into minerals tightly. To release them would take an unfathomable amount of energy, yet alone spreading the crust open ito the mantle region to release it. It would evaporate life on the surface and leave scars that would be visible to this day, presuming any life survived the titanic earthquakes and heat release that followed. My bet is “probably not”.

    This is without even addressing issues of volume or that these results are derived from data gathered using modal assumptions derived from plate tectonic theory; a theory that’s only trustworthy if you accept an ancient Earth.

    So, yeah. Please actually read the papers you reference in future.

    • MarcP

      Scientists are discovering (not “betting”) that huge quantities of water are present in the mantle. It is a powerful answer to the skeptics who asked: where is all the water gone? And the discoveries are not finished. The flood has been the theatre of a fantastic dissipation of energy and very little is known about it. See Walt Brown on the flood (“Compelling Evidence”), The Flood Science Review (1645 pages, creationist, 2011). There is to date no complete creationist explanation of the whole phenomenon.

      • axelbeingcivil

        Yes, there are huge quantities of water… As a part of hygroscopic mineral formations. This is released in a limited fashion (but still confined to the region) by melts. It’s not liquid water as you’re thinking of it.

        This is even before going into how the rates of mineral formation, subduction, and melt do not even approach remotely sufficient to adjust the surface water levels on that sort of time scale.

        • MarcP

          The question is not so much how the water is stored as the very recently discovered fact that huge quantities of water are stored so deep in the mantle and under very high temperatures, as inclusions and not as part of the crystal structures, which was unthinkable. And as the mountains before the flood were not high as they are now (Ps. 104:8), the flood waters begin to become a little more scientifically understandable.

          • axelbeingcivil

            It wasn’t really unthinkable; the water cycle including the transfer of water stored in hygroscopic materials down to the mantle is sort of self-evident once you accept plate tectonics. That water being stored there isn’t exactly accessible for being a part of a flood, though, nor could it be resequestered afterwards by any natural means.

            This isn’t like uncorking a bottle to release the water inside. This water is a part of rocks 400 km deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The laws of nature mean that removing the water from them requires a lot of energy. In the Earth’s mantle, that’s in the form of heat energy that liberates a fraction of it that causes a measurable effect. To liberate the quantities of water sequestered there from the rock, to create passages for it through 400 km of rock that would not instantaneously seal… To put it mildly, you’d see the effects. Provided anyone or anything was left to see it. Afterwards, the water wouldn’t just flow back down into the mantle.

            There’s no element of this that makes the Noahic flood more feasible.

  • Barb Kazor Sherry

    These protesters are afraid of speech that advocates faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his word as truth, yet they are not afraid of speeches by so many who are inciting violence against cops, or that preacher who the “O” sat under who with hostile words advocated the destruction of America. A bunch of cowards they are.