Ken Ham Rebuts Lutheran Leader Who Says Noah’s Flood ‘Not History’: If It’s Not, Jesus Lied

Ark-compressedWILLIAMSTOWN, Ky. — Apologist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis recently rebutted a liberal ELCA Lutheran minister who asserted in a published column that the biblical account of the global flood is “not history,” noting that the man is also calling Jesus a liar, for He spoke of Noah and the Flood.

Steve Hammer is leads Esperanza Lutheran Church in Phoenix, Arizona and writes an opinion column for the Ahwatukee Foothills News. In an article dated Aug. 21, which now brings up a 404 error code but can be viewed via cache, Hammer criticizes Ham’s newly-opened Ark Encounter as peddling myth.

“There are a lot of reasons why I ask the questions. For one, according to the Bible, Noah was 600 years old when he built the ark without all the cranes and trucks and construction workers in Kentucky. He lived another 350 years after the flood,” Hammer wrote.

“For another, there are flood stories in diverse cultures around the world. The one in the Hebrew Bible has its roots in Sumerian and Babylonian culture. On this side of the globe, flood stories abound,” he continued. “This may seem obvious to some, but sacred story is story. It is not science, it is not journalism, it is not history.”

Hammer also noted in his piece that “[s]ome in the science community argue that the harm lies in presenting myth as fact, especially to elementary school children who come on field trips.”

But Ham rebutted Hammer’s comments on social media on Monday, noting that the man must also be calling Jesus and His disciples all liars.

“A Lutheran-ELCA pastor (very liberal) says the account of Noah is not history, but if that’s true then Jesus, Peter, and the author of Hebrews lied,” he wrote.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The pastor says Genesis is myth. Well, then the gospel would also be, as it’s preached in Genesis 3:15, 21,” Ham noted. “If Noah is a myth, then so are all those listed in Hebrews 11, like Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and others.”

Jesus spoke of Noah in Matthew 24:37-39, proclaiming, “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

The apostle Peter also wrote in 2 Peter 2:5, “And [God] spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.”

“Would the pastor rather have children be taught evolution as fact and creation as myth?” Ham asked in his post. “Millstone warning in Mark 9:42! Genesis is history.”

As previously reported, Ham has similarly addressed the matter in the past, noting, “If we can’t trust God’s word in Genesis, then why are we to trust His word in the gospels, particularly when Jesus affirmed Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood?”


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
  • Amos Moses

    The ELCA is a lost “church” ………. thanx Mr. Ham ……….

    • axelbeingcivil

      Hey, Amos, this is just a question for you: Did you receive my reply on the other article, providing you sources about spontaneous polymerization?

      • Amos Moses

        i have not had a chance to look at it yet ………

        • axelbeingcivil

          Alright, no worries. It was just being really silly with my posts, so I wasn’t sure if it got through. Stay well!

    • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

      aye

    • Tangent002

      You have no tolerance for any version of Christianity other than your own.

      Thanks. Got it.

      • Amos Moses

        Still trying to buy a Whopper at McDonalds i see ……..

        • Tangent002

          You have no particular authority as the arbiter of what constitutes ‘Christianity’ any more than I do.

          • Amos Moses

            Did not claim any …. you did ….. with your “feelings” ……….. Christ and scripture are the arbiter ………….

          • Tangent002

            When did I claim any ‘feelings’?

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Tangent002

            Tangent002 said: “You have no particular authority as the arbiter of what constitutes ‘Christianity’ any more than I do.”

            Ah, so, here, you are setting down the rule that nobody has a right to be the arbiter of what Christianity truly is.

            Who are you to make up such a rule? And where did you get this rule from?

      • PK Hodges

        Hi Tangent002,
        There are two kinds of wisdom these days. One is the world’s wisdom. The other is God’s wisdom. Adam and Eve were the first to defect to man’s earthy intellectual wisdom. The Bible calls it crafty, clever, and lying–contradicting the Word of God. This is the kind of wisdom the world follows now. It is science. It is even the science of God–THEO (God) logical. Sounds good to our minds, feels good, and looks good, and oh how it seems to makes sense, just like that way which seemeth good to man, but leads to destruction, the road Adam and Eve took, and most are taking today.
        The Word of God seems like foolishness to anyone who is hearing the world’s wisdom and seeing it as wise and wonderful. The Bible says, “For the Word of the cross is foolishness to the one who is perishing but the power of God unto those (ones) who are being saved.”
        The world speaks the opposite, even many of the ones who call themselves Shepherds because they have theology degrees lining their walls and PhDs stuck in frames, but these ones are as senseless in Godly knowledge as the leaders in Jesus day. They were smart in book learning too, but far away from the truth of God.
        Jesus came to lead anyone who would hear the foolishness of
        the gospel preached–true wisdom– and come back to the truth. In order to do that we must acknowledge before the Living God that the wisdom man teaches that we thought was so very wise is a lie, and His wisdom is the only wisdom that can save.
        The leaders of His day refused to humble themselves. They were proud of their knowledge. They were proud of SELFIE, and they thought they had all the answers. They believed just like many of the ones who call themselves Christians today that they can outsmart God Himself.
        I was saved and am kept saved through the Lord Jesus Christ because I came to Him after centreing on the living Word–saying it, praying it–for a long while–until it humbled me and all that knowledge I thought I had. My opinions and traditions and denominational teachings and fables that had taken the power of God right out of the gospel all crumbled away. I saw the one truth that Jesus taught as it was. Truth. He is the Way, the Truth and the life. There are not many ways. The world teaches many ways and that they all lead the same way. They are right, but it is not the way they thought. They are on the path to the same place the proud leaders of Jesus’ day are: Hell.
        The world teaches: Many ways, many opinions. The world teaches “Go your
        own way.” They are being led by many demonic spirits.
        The Word of God teaches there is only one way to the Father through one wisdom: the Godly, humbling kind. One Holy Spirit leading us (back because we have strayed so far away as a Church and body of Christ)– through the foolishness of the gospel preached we are brought back to the one truth that Jesus came and retaught us. This is the Wisdom that is not “feel good”, it is saving power when we believe.
        Jesus is not many ways, many truths, many lives all leading to salvation. Jesus is THE way, THE truth, THE life, and no man comes to the Father except through Him.
        We have a choice. Life or death. Blessing or curse. The way and guesses of man or the facts of God. You choose. I choose. It’s a choice I make daily like Jesus said I would, “If a man is to come after me, he must deny him-SELF, and pick up his cross and follow me.”
        Every day I say, “I don’t care how I feel, or what I see or what I hear, I choose to follow you today no matter what the cost, just like I chose yesterday and the day before. You are the leader, Jesus, I am the led. You are God. I am not. You are the head, I am in your body. I go where you lead by faith not feeling (the five senses). I do what you say–your will and not my own.”
        That’s what I say. That’s my choice in a day when the true Church is being sorted out and many of the worldly wise are jumping off the ark of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ just like Paul warned they would. This is the great falling away time, sorting of the churcified from true followers of Jesus. Jesus is almost here. He’s on His way back.
        May I ask you: What is your choice: the worldly wise upside down gospel of SELF or the gospel of Christ crucified? Only one is able to save your soul and deliver you before the Father without spot or blemish or wrinkle. Only one. I urge you:Get into the Word of God and you will see the wordly wisdom and God’s wisdom are not both the same kind. You will see and be set free.

    • Herb Planter

      Glad to see you still setting ppl straight, god bless you brother.

      • Amos Moses

        😉

    • Ax2root

      Let God be true and every man a liar

      Who disagrees with The Word of God

    • Robert

      Yet A elca member like this one would still have a much better chance at taking the Lords supper with ken hamn at his church than taking it with Lutheran synods that subscribe to the bible and lutheran confessions drawn from the bible..

    • Heddrick Steel

      The ELCA doesn’t provide light. No point in having a candlestick.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

    Scoffers gotta scoff.

  • axelbeingcivil

    That’s not a rebuttal; that’s an argument to consequences. A rebuttal requires you to refute the central point of an argument. This is just “If he’s right, then all this other stuff is wrong. Therefore, he must be wrong.” That’s a logical fallacy. The correctness or incorrectness of a supposition is not based upon whatever uncomfortable consequences may arise from its truth or falsity.

    • cadcoke5

      His rebutal was quoting Jesus and others in the New Testament.

      • axelbeingcivil

        He’s quoting Jesus and using it as a part of an argument to consequences. If he’s doing so to try and use Jesus’s reference for support that is, at best, an argument to authority. The central argument proposed by the Lutheran minister is that physical reality disagrees with these claims, and Ham can’t respond to that by saying “But Jesus said otherwise!” because that’s irrelevant to what the minister is putting forth.

        • Amos Moses

          No …. what the “minister” is putting forth is irrelevant ………. and a lie ……

          • Tangent002

            It’s a ‘lie’ in your theology, not his. You fundamentalist people need to stop thinking you own all of Christianity. You don’t. You are the minority and the rest of the faith community will gladly leave you radicals behind. All you are doing is forcing people away from faith.

          • Herb Planter

            road to hell is paved far and wide beware

          • Tangent002

            I don’t need the promise of threats or rewards to treat others with respect. It’s sad some people do.

          • Gwen

            Praytell, who is he ministering to? Why honor him with the title minister unless he is a minister of deceit and lies? Hence, a minister of Satan.

        • cadcoke5

          Yes, this the highest possible level of an appeal to authority. God is as high an authority as you can get. He really knows it all.

          Then, there is the act of speculating about how historical events happened, but not basing it on evidence. E.g. the Sumerian flood story. How can it be asserted that the Bible’s account is based on it? What is the evidence. The pastor in his posting simply asserts that this is what happened.

          Might the Sumerian version was a corrupted version of the Biblical account? Might the Sumerian account have simply developed independently?

          What evidence is cited by that pastor, which that the Bible’s account is fictional, and was borrowed from the Sumerians? There is none in his posting.

          • Mike

            Maybe ancient civilizations were built close to water. Without sophisticated dams and levees, nearly every body of water floods catastrophically at least once in a given century.

            Even if the Babylonian and Biblical floods were historically different events, it sure can seem like the world has flooded if your knowledge of the world extends a few dozen or hundred miles in each direction.

          • Gwen

            Lol! That’s the truth!

          • Herb Planter

            Excatly what i was thinking as i read it. What evidence is there that the bible is based off it none and none of it pre-dates noah and they tell vastly different stories, there’s like over 2k flood stories and none of it right. Only the bible is right and can be easily proven. So for this smuck to come along and say the bible ripped off other stuff and have no proof or evidence or not even a decent argument is just fail.

          • Tangent002

            Do you require the story of Noah to be true in order to accept the message of Jesus?

          • hytre64

            Even if the Bible account was not written until after the Sumerian version, GOD is the one who gave Moses the account to write down. Who would I trust more – God, or the Sumerian version which was passed down orally for how long?

          • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Exactly. It’s honestly odd to see all these people disregard the Bible because there was a different account of the same event. It would be like historians finding a fictionalized Hollywood movie based on Islamic terrorism and concluding that Islamic terrorism never happened. Those movies and other fictional accounts were based on reality.

    • Amos Moses

      If there is even one lie in scripture ….. it is all wrong ….. it is all a lie …… even in court …. if a juror hears some testimony ….. and they believe it to be a lie ……. they can disregard the testimony in whole or in part ……. God/Christ is not a liar …… if They are …….. then all of our worship is in vain …. many outside the church would like to prove that …. they have failed for thousands of years …… does not stop them from trying …… but if you reject any part of scripture ……. then it is as if you have called God/Christ a liar ……. and the ELCA has …..

      • axelbeingcivil

        Why do you assume that it’s all wrong? Scripture was written by human pens with human hands. There could be truth or true accounts in it or even true revelations without it all being accurate. Human unwillingness to trust without some guarantee of certainty doesn’t mean everything is absolutely true or absolutely false.

        As for God not being a liar, doesn’t God put a “lying spirit” in the mouths of prophets in 1st Kings 22? That, to me, sounds like an entity with a capacity for deception.

        You talk about your worship being in vain, but why? Why can a deity that is not perfectly revealed offer you love, salvation, and eternal life?

        • Amos Moses

          It is not an assumption …….. God does not lie …. if there is a lie in it …. it is all a lie ……….. in 1 Kings false prophets are being led be a lying spirit ….. they were lying in any event ….. they are not Gods prophets and Gods prophets were not lying …. scripture has a structure just as a wall has a structure ….. remove the structure and it all falls ……….

          • axelbeingcivil

            The Bible doesn’t have to be flawlessly perfect for God to not have lied. It could simply be a mortal record and, created by mortals, is not perfect. God need not have lied; only the people who recorded it. It certainly makes the Bible uncertain in its authenticity, but not necessarily invalid for it. It merely means other means of discernment become necessary.

            As for 1st Kings, that’s not what the section says. The lying spirit is sent by God. God chooses to deceive by sending this deceptive spirit to these people. Whether or not they were otherwise lying is irrelevant; God sent a spirit to lie. That’s what the text says.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sending a lying spirit is not the same thing as God lying.

          • axelbeingcivil

            How is it not? If you tell someone to lie, how are you not spreading misinformation (i.e. lying)?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sending a lying spirit is sending a lying spirit. It’s not lying.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Call it what you want; it’s still deception. If I send someone to lie in my stead, I have still deceived.

          • Gwen

            Remember the spirit offered. As stated before God is God, He can do whatever He wants to do. You need to take this argument directly to the source. I’d like to hear His answer to you.

          • axelbeingcivil

            See, when you say God can do whatever it wants, other people here would ostensibly disagree; saying that God does not lie or deceive. You should take that up with them.

            As far as taking it to the source, I think that, if we could take any of these questions to the nominal source, it’d solve a lot of theological debates.

          • Bob Johnson

            Apologetics at its finest – you will never win.

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah ……. when you are in the wrong ….. you dont win ….. DUH! ……

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            axelbeingcivil is a Muslim woman who’s come here to disrupt the board. Just thought you’d like to know.

          • Gwen

            Yes, I read your comment earlier, but she’s entitled to her opinion. It is actually educational and a means for Believers to defend our faith against the naysayers, scoffers and those who believe their intelligence superceded the wisdom of God. By their willful ignorance they refuse to acknowledge the one who gave them their intelligence! God could have made them like the ostrich He speaks of in Job. Job 39:13-17. It is fascinating to study the Word of God because we know every word is true. God bless you, fear not, because God doesn’t need our defense, but we are to give unbelievers a reason for our hope because truly they have none! They are the most miserable of all mankind.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Opinion is one thing. Propaganda is another.

          • Gwen

            She’s an intellectual and has an opinion on just about every post, if not every post. But she’s also one who has heard the truth and is without excuse. Who knows maybe she will become like Paul, C. S. Lewis who all came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            She’s actually telling falsehoods in almost every post. For example, she made a common anti-Semitic slur that most Muslims make about Torah. She also misrepresented what Jews believe. She is a nominal biologist yet she dares to lecture other posters here about topics she knows nothing about, even to the point of demeaning them while putting on that phony nice act. It’s manipulative.

          • Gwen

            Well, in that case she needs to be exposed for what she is. I had no idea the extent she’s gone to destroy the beliefs of others. Also demeaning others is an indication of her own

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s exactly why I’m exposing her.

          • Gwen

            I understand and pray for her to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.

          • Gwen

            She’s showing herself to be superior than others. By demeaning others gives her self worth, but true self worth is found in serving others, helping those who cannot help themselves and lifting up those who are hurting with a word of encouragement. The Lord will deal with her and hopefully she will change rather than be broken and that without remedy! Be blessed and pray for her, I intend to.

          • serloren

            Pseudo-intellectual wanna-be at best. Do continue to pray for her though.

          • Gwen

            I believe we all should pray for her. Especially for those seeking to do the will of God.

          • Amos Moses

            Sent by God to the false prophets …………. and they were false already ……

          • axelbeingcivil

            Why does who it was sent to matter? You said God does not lie or deceive. This is an example of God using deception and lies. The target is irrelevant; it merely shows simultaneous capacity and willingness.

          • Amos Moses

            Why does McDonalds not sell Whoppers …………. God uses sin sinlessly … and God did not tell them which lies to speak …. they were lying about what God said ……… so God allowed them to continue in their lies to Gods desired end …. not the desired end of the liars and false prophets …..

          • axelbeingcivil

            That seems contradictory. How can something use sin sinlessly? How is telling someone to deceive not being deceptive? It doesn’t matter if God wasn’t specific; the action was commanded.

          • Amos Moses

            They were not told to deceive ……. they were already deceiving ….. in fact what they were saying as false prophets was blaspheme …….. saying things that God never said and saying God said them ….. that is blaspheme …………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            That’s basically blasphemy, yes. Not really relevant to what I’m saying, though.

            1st Kings 22 has God ask its hosts specifically who will do the task, and the spirit that steps forward is merely volunteering for the duty, though.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re Muslim. Why are you here pretending you know more about Christianity than Christians do?

          • Amos Moses

            “The Bible doesn’t have to be flawlessly perfect for God”

            Yes ……… it is ….. it is His perfect word …….

            “It could simply be a mortal record and, created by mortals, is not perfect”

            No ….. then it would not be Gods word ………

          • axelbeingcivil

            It not being God’s word wouldn’t mean God had lied, is the thing. That’s my point.

          • Gwen

            Did you know God is also going to send strong delusion so that people like you will believe a lie? He’s God, He can do whatever He wants but chooses to limit Himself. God cannot lie, but if a lying spirit offers, I would accept too.

          • axelbeingcivil

            The spirit offered because God asked for one to do it. That doesn’t sound like an out-of-the-blue offer. I’d also say that it’s an academic difference. If a mobster sends his goons to kill someone, the mobster is still responsible; just as if you send someone to deceive, you are the one responsible for the deception.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re Muslim. Why are you obsessing about a lying spirit when you uphold taqiyya?

          • Amos Moses

            But it is Gods word …… and it would ……… that is the point ……….

          • axelbeingcivil

            How would it mean God had lied if it were mere mortals who diluted or polluted the message?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Just so you know, axelbeingcivil is a Muslim woman who likes to troll Christian forums. She also likes to harass Jewish posters online. I hope they ban her and her various alts.

          • uninvitedguest

            those differences in opinion are just too much to deal with. sad

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Difference in opinion is one thing, but propaganda and trolling are quite another.

          • 777TRUTH

            2 Timothy 3:16-17
            16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’m aware of the source of the idea. I’m not commenting on its correctness or incorrectness; merely that it is not necessary for it to be correct for God not to have lied.

            If a divine being sends commandments to mortals truthfully but then mortals claim additional revelations – either deceptively or from misunderstanding – it is not the fault of the divine being for the subsequent mortal misunderstanding. Get what I’m saying?

          • RWH

            And what Scripture was Paul thinking of? The Bible as we know it was not formally recognized until the Council of Nicea.

          • Limit

            The council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture but addressed Arianism. I am amazed that people keep propagating this error.
            The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) finalised the canon of the New Testament. Paul would have been referring to the Tanakh/Old Testament.

          • Herb Planter

            Ya I was about to say the same thing, Since I’ve learned about Nicea and stuff, I’ve started to see ppl make that mistake from time to time.

        • michael louwe

          The Word of God at JOB.1 says that God had also permitted Satan to afflict Job n his family bc of his ignorant sin/evil-deed.
          …….That does not mean that God is evil like Satan or like the lying spirit/demon.

  • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Love Ken Ham!

    • sangrita

      He is about the most anti-science person living today.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Ha ha ha! It’s funny that the non-scientists are the ones criticizing actual science here.! 🙂

        • sangrita

          “The story of Noah’s Flood, more so than any other major story in the
          Bible, has been known for centuries to be impossible. Many lines of
          evidence make this clear. As far back as the 17th century, questions
          were being raised in the great age of exploration about how all the
          newly discovered animals could possibly have gotten to their existing
          locations if they were once on a boat that that docked in the Middle
          East. In Ham’s retelling, there were once just two kangaroos and both
          were located in Turkey. How did they hop across the ocean to Australia?
          As the catalog of animals grew it became clear they could not have
          even fit in the ark. When the poles were explored it was discovered
          that they could not have been under water just 4000 years ago. There
          isn’t enough water to cover the mountains. Many plants could not have
          survived being submerged in salt water. The list goes on. The story of
          Noah’s Flood is simply not possible.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What does you cut-and-paste job do? Ken Ham’s museum addresses all these concerns and easily proves that the Ark was easily built and that the account of Noah’s Flood is feasible, credible, and scientifically backed.

          • sangrita

            LOL
            Do you know what science is?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I dunno- they just keep handing me these degrees and stuff. I dunno what for. :):):)

            You don’t have a high school diploma, do you? 🙂

          • sangrita

            Oh, all your degrees, eh? That’s interesting, what did they write on your diploma when you told them you were an evolution denier?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m also an Easter bunny denier and a moon-in-made-of-cheese denier. In other words, I’m respected. 🙂

            Funny that you defend a Muslim here, someone who’s book tells her that the earth is flat.

            So how many places have you and ambulance chaser been banned from?

          • sangrita

            That’s all you’ve got, eh? Let’s play it your way. Say I have been banned 50 times (I haven’t). But you’re still wrong.
            See? You’re an atheist about most things too. I just disbelieve in one more than you do.
            If I defended a Muslim for any reason I assure you it had nothing to do with their belief system which I reject just as strongly as yours.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You gave credibility to a Muslim poster here who thinks the earth is flat. How stupid is that?

            And you don’t have the education that Ken Ham does (he’s a real scientist, unlike you), or the other scientists who refute evolution and who have made real life-changing scientific discoveries. Better not use antibiotics – they were discovered by a Christian. And stay away from MRI’s – a Christian discovered them. Can’t read any news from NASA since there’s a huge Christian movement going on there.

            You don’t even know the definition of atheist, so your first point is completely worthless.

            When you harass people who are smarter than you are (and all Christians are wiser, God says, than atheists whom He calls fools), you just look even more stupid. Seriously.

          • sangrita

            Oh wow, so much fail. Where to start.
            Ken Ham is not a scientist, first of all, did you not tune in to the debate a couple years back where he got his butt handed to him by Bill Nye the Science Guy? Is this the reason you also call yourself a scientist – because you think a scientist is actually a fundamentalist Christian?
            I think you’re lying about the Muslim poster. And if he thought the earth was flat, then I am certain you’re lying. I would never support such a thing.
            I don’t know why you think that I would say a Christian can’t invent or discover things. I said nothing of the kind.
            I know what atheist means. You don’t.
            In fact you are an embarrassing combination of clueless and arrogant. There are nice doctors who can look after your condition though.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Ken Ham has a Bachelor of Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology at Queensland Institute of Technology and a diploma in education from the University of Queensland.

            The Muslim poster who thinks the earth is flat was just called out the other day about it. You follow her. She follows you. Funny how you missed that fact.

            You and your alts are terrible at lying.

          • sangrita

            I have no alts, and I don’t follow anyone. Lie on.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t lie well. Your profile is public.

            Before you make your profile private, here you go:

            Meepestos

            Traveler, artist, and artisan.

            TheKingOfRhye

            Ambulance Chaser

            TreeParty

            axelbeingcivil

            You follow 11 – 5 posters, and 6 communities.

            You’re a terrible liar.

          • sangrita

            Just because they are on my list doesn’t mean I actually follow them, silly man. And none of these is a flat-earth Muslim. Your lies are downright hilarious.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s why it says “Follows” right above the list, right? LOL axelbeingcivil is a Muslim.

          • sangrita

            I didn’t know he was a Muslim, but even if he is, I never read a statement of his stating the earth was flat and I suspect you’re lying about that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            She is a Muslim. What do you think Islam upholds?

          • sangrita

            Not flat earthism. You are thinking of fundamentalist Christians 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Bible says the earth is round. The Qur’an says it’s flat. You once again prove you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • sangrita

            Oh, I know precisely what I’m talking about. The Bible refers to “the four corners of the earth.” How can a spherical Earth have corners, Mr. Science?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What does a compass measure? 🙂 (So now you not only don’t know science, but you don’t know geometry either. 🙂 )

          • Gwen

            Sort of brings to mind that proverb about a fool seeming wise because he kept silent. Proverbs 17:28.

  • Amos Moses

    The Top 6 Gospel Themes In ‘Stranger Things’
    August 25, 2016

  • uninvitedguest

    no proof at all of a global flood. isnt this the guy who has a model of a dinosaur with a saddle on it?

  • michael louwe

    Fyi, Martin Luther was the Father of the Hyper-Grace or license-to-sin/-or-do-evil doctrine.
    …….He n his state-sanctioned Lutheran Church even executed Anabaptists, behaving just like the oppressive Pope n Roman Catholic Church, whom he had protested against.
    …….He was also a German partying-drunkard.

    • Amos Moses

      “Fyi, Martin Luther was the Father of the Hyper-Grace or license-to-sin/-or-do-evil doctrine.”

      Bullroar ………………

  • Surf East

    I say it a little different, Jesus indeed validated Noah by name in the Gospels. So either Jesus is a Liar, Lunatic or Lord? Like the old book title, I try not to attack the questioning person but pose the question who is Jesus to you?

  • ter ber

    This is the kind of thinking the major seminaries taken over by wolves, is turning out.
    God’s Word is allegory, myths, legends, incorrectly translated, blah…blah…blah.
    That The Creator of The Universe was not able to Preserve His Word for us in our own languages.
    And that He lied. This can only come directly from the father of lies.

  • Gena B

    People love to keeps saying how Noah was fake and parting the red sea didn’t really happen and so forth… It does not matter because Christians know what seems impossible to man all things are possible for God. If God asked Noah to build an ark, you can be sure He was there supporting and helping Noah get that job done.

    • hytre64

      They also deny that Christ was raised from the Dead. Paul had to deal with that –

      Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. – 1 Cor 15:12-17

  • Tangent002

    “Don’t be overconfident, as the hare was with the tortoise, or you might lose everything.”

    Did I just lie?

    • Amos Moses

      No …… but that is not part of scripture ………..

      • Tangent002

        In Hammer’s view, the story of Noah is allegorical and intended to teach about man’s relationship with God. From that point of view, Hammer is not calling Jesus a liar.

        • Amos Moses

          It is not allegorical ………. the story is a typology of the coming Messiah ……. and to say it is only allegorical is a lie …….. in fact the narrative is true and played out the way God intended it to play out …… to point to the Messiah … to Christ …

          • Tangent002

            If that’s your theology, fine. Calling someone else a liar because they do not believe in exactly the same manner you do is folly and is why more and more people will eschew your faith.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            But if something is untrue, then it’s factual to call it a lie.

          • Tangent002

            The story of Noah may be historically untrue, that does not make the lessons of the allegory necessarily false.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If Noah is historically untrue, then the entire Word of God is untrue. Noah’s ark, however, is a real account.

          • Tangent002

            If your faith informs you that the entire Bible must be literally true in order for the message of Jesus to be valid, so be it. Hammer does not agree.

            There is ample evidence that the story of Noah was ‘borrowed’ from the earlier Sumerian tale of Utnapishtim. There is zero scientific evidence that supports a global flood event.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You try to over-analyze everything, and thus, you err.

            Ham never says the Bible doesn’t have to be entirely true. In fact, he says the opposite.

          • Tangent002

            Ham has built a museum and a theme park based on the notion that the Bible it literally true. Answers In Genesis, Ken Ham’s organization, has it in their Statement of Faith that no scientific evidence can be accepted if it contradicts scripture.

            When has Ham ever said that the Bible is not literally true?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You seem to be confused about what both Ham is saying, and you are saying. 🙂

            Ham and I both agree that the Bible is literally true. We also both believe that science supports the Bible.

          • Tangent002

            This is what you wrote:

            Ham never says the Bible doesn’t have to be entirely true. In fact, he says the opposite.

            Can you provide an example?

          • Gwen

            Excuse me? Have you not researched the Grand Canyon and how it became the Grand Canyon? There is plenty of evidence of a world wide flood, ranging from fossil evidence of animals in locations that they never would have inhabited. It is about being willfully ignorant or actually seeking the truth.

          • Tangent002

            The Grand Canyon was carved from multiple layers of strata that could never have been laid down by a global flood.

            Find me a mammal fossil in Cambrian strata and I’ll believe you. Heck, find me a hominid fossil in Jurassic strata.

          • Amos Moses

            No …….. they are calling Christ a liar …………

          • This style ten and six

            Jesus was a Jew who accepted the OT. That does not make such myths as the flood story reality

          • Amos Moses

            Really ….. so when He refers to it in Matthew 24 …… what ….. He was just yakking it up …….. you do not accept scripture …… does not make anything you have to say about it relevant ……

          • Tangent002

            An allegory is a story that illustrates complex ideas in a form easily understandable to the recipient. It is not a lie.

          • Amos Moses

            The story is not allegory ………..

          • Tangent002

            According to your particular faith. Hammer does not agree.

          • Amos Moses

            Hammer does not agree with Christ and so is wrong ….. whether he and i agree is not relevant ……..

          • Tangent002

            Which is why your fundamentalist faith will lose. You are not the arbiter of God, you are a man with a keyboard.

          • Amos Moses

            “You are not the arbiter of God, you are a man with a keyboard.”

            Back at cha sport …………. your “feelings” are not the truth of anything …..

          • Tangent002

            I am not the one asserting absolute truth, you are. I’m fully okay with you believing as you do.

          • Tangent002

            BTW, when did I say anything about my ‘feelings’?

          • SDA

            Of course it is.

          • Amos Moses

            Evidence …………… where is the evidence ……….

          • SDA

            What evidence? That the flood happened? There is none.

          • Amos Moses

            that it did not happen ……….. your contention ….. if it is a lie …… PROVE IT …

          • SDA

            Is there any evidence to suggest that it did?

          • Amos Moses

            Scripture ………. and if you think scripture is a lie ………. PROVE IT ….. lies are disproved everyday in court ……….. put up or shut up ……….

          • SDA

            So, no actual evidence?

          • Amos Moses

            Apparently you have no evidence ….. thanks for pointing out your own error …..

          • SDA

            The evidence for evolution is readily available for everyone to see for themselves. That’s the point. You, however, can not provide any evidence that disconfirms the theory of evolution. And, of course, the burden of proof is on you, and only your side, to disprove. As this is the scientific method. Someone makes a hypothesis and provides their arguments. The burden then shifts to the opposing side. 150 years, and no one has done it yet.

            And it’s pretty obvious at this point that you don’t know enough about the topic to argue against it. And everyone can see this.

          • Amos Moses

            Nope …… your original claim is scripture is a lie ….. the default position here, the A Priori position is that scripture is true ……….. if you disagree ….. fine … bring forth your evidence that it is a lie ………… but you cant ….. you have no evidence ……….. many have tried to do this to scripture ….. they died trying …… i have nothing to defend ….. you do ……… prove it is a lie ………… or shut up ……….

          • Gwen

            Plenty of proof but if you don’t believe, you won’t search and if you find it you wouldn’t know it because you don’t believe.

          • Tangent002

            There is none, and if there were, you would demand your opponent to search for it.

          • Gwen

            The only real opponent we believers have is Satan. You nor anyone else is an enemy. We are to embrace you with love so that you know we belong to the Lord Jesus Christ.

          • SDA

            Sounds flimsy.

          • Gwen

            No, this is the stubbornness of man. If you truly wanted the truth, you would seek it no matter what the outcome , but because you are determined to prove otherwise, you won’t accept the truth. Think about how the Pharisees knew Jesus was the Messiah, but it didn’t matter to them. They were determined to kill Him anyway because it is what they wanted.

          • SDA

            It’s stubborn to ask for proof when someone who can barely string together a sentence says that a particular story (the flood) in a book of allegories is actually a literal?

          • Gwen

            That’s why Jesus told parables. The truth He spoke otherwise He would have been a sinner and not a sinless sacrifice. When they came to arrest Jesus, He said he’d fallen into the hands of sinners. If all the evil and wickedness was unleashed on this world, unbelievers, atheists and a host of others would be seeking a true Believer for the answers to their fears. Instead you will find philosophical dribble that will convince you of the grave mistake of not believing the overwhelming evidence that God is real and reality is now more frightening than any horror movie or nightmare you might have had Before evil was released fully upon this world.

          • Tangent002

            If I live by the tenets of Jesus, but do not accept Him as my personal savior, am I evil?

          • Gwen

            You are lost. Those that reject Jesus are already condemned. Jesus said if you don’t believe in him because of what He says, at least believe because of all the miracles He performed. God testified of Jesus, the Angels, the shepherds, Simeon, an old man was told he wouldn’t die until he saw the Messiah, and prophesied about Jesus and her great grief when Jesus was crucified. So many prophecy fulfilled by one man and yet the world still WON’T believe!! Jesus said no sign would be given except that of Jonah and the whale. We are all evil, there is none good. Man couldn’t keep ten commandments, do you think you can live by the tenets of Jesus without the power of the Holy Spirit?? Surely you jest!!

          • Tangent002

            If Jesus came down today, I would remain a secular Humanist and not change one whit of my opinions or actions. If your God condemns me as a compassionate atheist, so be it. I would not bow to a God that condemns such as me.

          • Gwen

            Dear heart, Jesus loves you more than anyone on earth! God said He didn’t send Jesus to condemn us, but to save us. Can’t you see if you reject Jesus, you reject His teachings as well. Have you ever tried talking to the Lord? His ears are open to those who seek to do His will, but don’t realize they need power from Him to do His will. God loves us individually and collectively. We stand equal before the Lord. He doesn’t elevate me above you. If you were to see Jesus both you and I would be kneeling before Him. That’s how glorious He is. I believe we would both be in tears if He came down.

          • Amos Moses

            Do you go to McDonalds to buy a Whopper ………….

          • sangrita

            If you’re going to continue to ask this question you should explain what point you are trying to make. I get it, Whoppers are from Burger King and Big Macs are from McDonald’s. So what?

          • Amos Moses

            Christians come from christian churchs and christian beliefs ……… and others do not …. McDonalds came make a burger and call it a Whopper ….. but it aint ….. people can say they are christians …. maybe even look like christians …. but they aint …… Burger King can say to McDonalds and its customer “THAT AINT NO WHOPPER” ……… and so can christians …..

          • sangrita

            Oh, I see. You’re talking about the No True Scotsman fallacy, where your opinion alone dictates whether someone is a Christian.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not what the true Scotsman fallacy means. 🙂 It’s hilarious to see a non-scientist, non-logician like you and your pals, try to throw around terminology of which you’re clueless! 🙂

          • sangrita

            Yes, that is precisely what the No Yrue Scotsman fallacy is. When your brand of something is the true and correct one and everyone else is false. But you are a science denier so I’ll excuse your inability to understand reason.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It doesn’t work if you change the definition. 🙂 Your misuse of the term is as funny and obvious as when someone uses Babel to pretend they know a foreign language. 🙂

          • sangrita

            I didn’t change it. That’s EXACTLY what Amos was doing all along. Try to keep up. Dust off all those medals and honours of yours from the scientific community and remind yourself evolution doesn’t exist even though all your contemporaries disagree with you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are incorrect. Amos is smarter than you are. That’s what burns you. You like to despise Christians, but God Himself calls you a fool, and calls children of the light wise.

            The majority holding an opinion doesn’t make it right. It just makes it non-special. There are modern scientists today who are doing great science, and who are Creationists. They’ll just keep on being their bad selves and doing real science while the rest of them play with their toes and think they came from apes per a racist failed academic like Darwin.

          • sangrita

            Considering everything you say is nonsense, I’ll just take this huge load of it as a big compliment.

            It’s an interesting world you live in where scientists are about blind faith, where Ken Ham is a scientist, where black is white, where up is down, etc. You have it bad, in other words.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Nonsense? You don’t know one thing about science. Ken Ham has a science degree from a respected university. Harvard Press wrote a book and acknowledged that. No one with sense disputes that he is a scientist. And yes, truth is clear, it’s not some murky kind of thing to those who know the facts.

          • sangrita

            He’s got a biology degree, and everything he says completely goes against everything he learned, which is why he is such a joke to everyone who knows who he is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How would you know? You have no science degree!:)

          • sangrita

            And that is something you don’t know, can’t guess, and gave no proof of. :). Terrible form for someone pretending to be a scientist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Of course I know it. You didn’t even know what first year terminology is! 🙂

          • sangrita

            You also think that evolution is a hoax.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So do most intelligent people. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Science deniers are not intelligent people.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Exactly! 🙂 But don’t be so hard on yourself – there’s hope for you! 🙂

          • sangrita

            I was referring to you, the evolution hating science denier who thinks Ken Ham is a scientist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Except that neither Ken nor I am science deniers. Logic isn’t your strong suit, just like science isn’t. 🙂

          • Amos Moses

            Nope ……….. Christ says who is part of His church and has given us authority to determine that …… just as Burger King has EVERY RIGHT to say what is a Whopper ….. and what is not …… and the thing is …. christianity is not Burger King …… you dont get to have it your way ….. you can go to McDonalds and have McChristianity …….. but that makes you NOT a christian ………

          • sangrita

            You are judging other Christians by your own opinions. No True Scotsman.

          • Amos Moses

            You are judging Christians by your own opinions ……. and the truth is you have no basis to even know if they are true christians or not …………… just your uninformed opinion ……

          • sangrita

            My opinion hasn’t been a factor yet. Not even once.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            All you have is opinion. Ill informed opinion at that!

          • Amos Moses

            Poor sangrita ……….

          • Amos Moses

            ROTFL and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L and L …… etc.

          • sangrita

            Now that you’ve had your laugh, you’re welcome to tell me where I’ve stated something that was my opinion and not fact.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here you are, misusing the true Scotsman fallacy again. 🙂 You like embarrassing yourself, huh? 🙂 Amos Moses is smarter than you are. That much is obvious.

          • sangrita

            Nope. I have it exactly right. You are wrong again, Mr. Science.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t have an intelligent rebuttal. You’re childishly going back and forth repeating the same lines because you don’t have an education. Amos Moses is smarter than you are.

          • sangrita

            You are a fundamentalist, Mr. Science. You’re not qualified to speak on the subject of intelligence because you do not possess any, and you think Catholics are not Christians, and that evolution is a lie.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Wow, here you go again, so wrong on so many angles. I pity you.

          • sangrita

            Don’t pity me, just be honest for a change. Lying for Jesus is still lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You aren’t even good at this. 🙂 Which must be why you still live in Mom’s basement. 🙂

    • hytre64

      If you had referred to it as an historical event, that would be different.

      “Just as in the day when the tortoise beat the hare…”, then you are referring to a literal time, rather than an allegory.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Ken Ham is a great man.

  • Tangent002

    I have great respect for people of faith. However, the more literal you become in your interpretation of the Old Testament, the more followers you will lose.

    If your faith relies entirely on the flood of Noah being actually true, you will lose.

    • Gwen

      No one that is truly a Believer is trying to gain followers. As a matter of fact, we are told to tell others about salvation, It is the Holy Spirit that draws them and keeps them. Everyone has freewill, therefore, they can believe whatever they choose. It is God who saves, not us, but you will have no excuse when you stand before God.

      • Tangent002

        So the words of Jesus depend on the truth of the Noachian deluge? They don’t for me, but then, I’m an atheist.

        • Gwen

          The words of Jesus do not depend on Noah’s flood. Jesus is the only one that really matters. You either believe Him or not. Everything in the Bible points to Jesus. He said blessed are those who have not seen me but believe. I’d rather have hope than be hopeless. Robin Williams was loved by millions, his children and his wife; rich, influential and with a great sense of humor. We all enjoyed him. He was talented beyond belief, yet he lost hope and killed himself. Jesus offers more than hope. He offers comfort, joy, power over our enemies, love that is pure constant

    • Amos Moses

      Yep ……. and that is the way Christ wants it ….. He is not here to save everyone ….. there is no universal salvation …. there is no glory in that for Christ …… He will save whom He will save …. those who belong to Him ….. if you reject part of Him …. then you were never part of Him ………

      “If your faith relies entirely on the flood of Noah being actually true, you will lose.”

      11:1 In the LORD put I my trust: how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain?
      11:2 For, lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart.
      11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

      You seek to destroy the foundation ….. hope that works out for you ……….

  • Tangent002

    For me, the message of Jesus’ love and sacrifice is something I accepted early on as rational. Why do you need the flood of Noah to be true to treat others as you would expect to be treated? I just don’t get it.

    • Gwen

      Because God’s ways are higher than man’s, who is self seeking, gluttonous, unforgiving and any negative trait you can name. Man doesn’t need to be taught how to lie, steal, kill, ect., because he was born with an innate nature of evil. It takes God to teach man how to love others even as he loves himself.

      • Tangent002

        Hmm, whenever presented with the opportunity to kill or steal, I have never done so, however I have lied about the particular quality of a gift.

        Is it your position that without a God, you would lie, kill, cheat, and steal? I find that morality lacking.

        ,

        • Gwen

          My contention is that we are born with a wicked nature. Proverbs is indeed full of wise words and how life should be lived. There is a passage that speaks of being a companion of fools leads to foolish actions. I do not call God an “it” because He is more intelligent than any one or thing. Even you, atheists agree that an intelligent entity designed the world based on the distance of earth from the sun, our cells that has orders for each one and there are billions or trillions of them. This is just a few things that atheists grudgingly admit that there is an intelligence behind these facts. We don’t need a God to punish us, we do a good job of that ourselves! Proverbs also speaks about how we are not to show respect of persons because it says how a man will fall for a piece of bread. The heart is desperately wicked, you just haven’t been in a situation that brings out your wickedness to the fullest and pray you never are, Oh, I’m sorry (not being sarcastic), you don’t believe in God. Well we can go to some depths of wickedness that would blow most people away. Many of us couldn’t handle it and to think God observes the good and bad, just and very wicked and He’s Holy! I wouldn’t want to see what He sees! How do you know what is moral or immoral?

          • Tangent002

            That is a lot of words. Do you require a God to tell you murder is bad?

            My heart is not inherently wicked, why is yours?

          • Gwen

            Because if you say we should live by the teachings of Jesus Christ, then you already know, in your heart, that we are inherently wicked! You can’t live by what Jesus taught without Jesus. It’s like cereal without milk. You know, I believe, that we fall far short of Jesus’ teachings and attempting to live by those tenets takes more than the desire or determination. It takes someone infinitely more powerful than we are to help us in our daily walk to endeavor to accomplish loving our enemies!

          • Amos Moses

            You require God to tell you it is bad ….. He wrote it into all hearts so that all would know ……….. and have no excuse ….. that you do not recognize that He did that ….. that is what is at issue …… you deny His part in what you do …..

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Even you, atheists agree that an intelligent entity designed the world based on the distance of earth from the sun, our cells that has orders for each one and there are billions or trillions of them. This is just a few things that atheists grudgingly admit that there is an intelligence behind these facts.

            I think it is time to wake up because you are obviously dreaming or misconstruing something you read. You are certainly not reading this from atheists’ web sites.

            Christian sites are quote deceptive on this issue. It is their bread and butter.

            For example, Dr. Alastair Noble, director of the Centre for Intelligent Design, wrote of an interview by Ben Stein in which he asked Richard Dawkins, “What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or in evolution?

            Dawkins gave a very true, logical argument. He said that such a thing is a possibility, but then gave two very strong caveats: The origin of the designers would have to be explicable [within the laws of physics], and that the designers would have had to evolve through some sort of evolutionary process.

            Yet Noble entitles his article “Richard Dawkins Endorses Intelligent Design.” This is clearly what Dawkins did not do and it is highly misleading. Noble knows full well that many (most?) believers do not read past headlines and it sends the false message that Dawkins is endorsing the latest form of Christian creationism, Intelligent Design.

            As well, Noble made a very subtle edit of one of Dawkins comments.

            What Dawkins said:

            But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, it couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.

            (bold mine)

            What Noble wrote “quoting” Dawkins:

            But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.

            (bold mine)

            By changing “it” to “he” the quote sends the message that the design agency was a single being, when Dawkins was saying that it is conceivable that a highly advanced civilization (perhaps a billions of years more advanced compared to humans), could possibly “seed” a planet with genetically altered organisms.

            Lastly, Dawkins said twice that the origin of the designing aliens would have to be explicable. No where was he emplying that such a designer would be some god that popped out from nothing, into nothing, thought about it, and made it something.

          • Gwen

            There is a site called unashamed of Jesus, Peter Guirguis, is the owner. This site has more documentation than I can place in this post. It also has a video recording of Richard Dawkins explaining how nothing came from nothing. The audience laughs at how ludicrous his many protestations are regarding his hypothesis! He protests too much and it makes him look foolish and desperate. Please peruse the site. Ms. Adamson (Marilyn) was also a very vocal and intelligent atheist, who also received salvation just by rationally and logically thinking and researching the pros and cons of atheism and Jesus. She chose Jesus.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Lots of stuff you mention, Gwen. Please bear with me and I will unpack your statement one assertion at a time. (Have a cup of coffee or glass of wine, it is rather lengthy but informative.)
            ——————–
            You claimed that “atheists agree that an intelligent entity designed the world based on the distance of earth from the sun, our cells that has orders for each one and there are billions or trillions of the unashamed of Jesus,” you will have to point out the specific post on “Unashamed of Jesus.” All I found was a short discussion in the Comments section on FORMER atheists.

            I checked into the link given for reference and it was on Wikipedia. I checked, as well, on former Christians converting to Islam. The list is far longer. You might check the Pew Research Center dot org. I would find it more objective.

            By definition, atheists do not believe gods exist. Richard Dawkins gives a 7 point Spectrum of Theistic Probability:

            1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”

            2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”

            3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”

            4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

            5. Leaning towards Atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”

            6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

            7. Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

            For reason of strict logic, I am (6), a de facto atheist, as is Dawkins. This would say that I believe that there is a god as surely as there is there are horned elephants in the woods behind my house or that Russell’s teapot is orbiting the sun. Same probability and just as unprovable.
            ———————————

            video recording of Richard Dawkins explaining how nothing came from nothing.

            Are you sure you have that sentence correct? Of course an atheist would think that nothing comes from nothing. In my own novel, one of my characters make the following statement:

            “In my humble opinion, it is more reasonable to accept the possibility of the eternal existence of energy, manifesting in one form or another, or even to believe in energy as self-causing, than to suggest that a thinking mind, consisting of nothing, coming from nothing, popped out of nowhere, into nowhere, thought about it, then made it somewhere.

            “For there to be a thought, or even a popping into existence, logic would say there must first be motion, and that which is in motion would have to become organized. There must be a causal link from movement to organization before a thought can organize.

            “And, for there to be motion, of course, there must be something that moves, which would necessarily be something energetic. There is an energetic precondition, Reverend, for every thought and memory in your head.

            “So, to boil all this down to its base element, even though I believe both propositions—existence caused by a god, and existence caused by no god—are irrational, I think the existence of an eternal energy field is less so because we know the energy field exists. We are a part of it. We have the observable evidence of its existence.”–The Empathy Imperative, by Max T. Furr, pp 193-194

            I think most atheists would agree with me. “The audience laughed,” of course, because they have little or no formal education in logic. It is no more logical to say that I am absolutely certain of a god’s existence than it is to say that I am absolutely certain that no god exists (anymore than I cannot say with absolute certainty that horned elephants are not in the woods behind my house). The general public hasn’t an understanding of strong logic.

            That is not a condescension, but just a statement of fact.
            ——————————–

            I really do appreciate your civility in this discussion. I don’t get it often, but I’ve found a bit more on this site than other articles on this network. 😀

          • Gwen

            I believe that we should all be civil. How else can we find common ground to stand on if we bite and tear at one another? We can agree to disagree without hostility. Your book sounds hilarious 😂, however, I must disagree with you regarding the audience’s laughter. It was definitely because of his ludicrous explanations about his beliefs. Your comment does sound very condescending even if you say it is based on fact. Look up Peter Guirgis. I’ll look into the site you told me about because I’d like to know just what it is you truly believe in.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Your book sounds hilarious

            So much for believing in civility. That is the only thing you can offer to my character’s comment? You have no counter debate?

            If you think the comment silly or “hilarious,” and that points of view about evolution are “ludicrous, then why not have the integrity to do the intellectually honest thing and say exactly WHY you think so. Exactly what is funny about the comment? What is the part with which you disagree?

            If you want an honest, sober, civil debate, then don’t be condescending. It always causes your interlocular to circle his wagons.

            Before I “look up Peter Guirgis,” why not just give me YOUR opinion as I gave you mine? I can suggest a few people you should “look up,” but I prefer that you use your own brain. I’ve done much research in both camps. To be so confident, you must have as well.

            In no way have I been condescending to you (although I confess to being so at times). I am trying to establish my position and to draw you out to stand on your own intellectual feet–which you must have to find points about evolution go be “hilarious” and “ludicrous.”

            Please educate me with the scientific facts on the Genesis creation story–in your own words–and inform me why evolution is laughable.

          • Gwen

            I wasn’t saying evolution is laughable, but the way your character spoke. No offense intended. Not endeavoring to be condescending regarding your non belief, however, I’d rather have hope than none at all.
            The Genesis account makes more sense than evolution based on the fact that science depends on being able to see 👀 and measure results. Evolution doesn’t provide this because of the billions of years it takes just to see anything! Also, evolution is based on the thing evolved being evolved into something new not the same species but a different species completely and this hasn’t been proven by anyone. To believe we spontaneously became or were suddenly some thing from a spark, is a long stretch of the intellect! There are too many mysteries in the world 🌏 that have no logical or rational basis, yet exist, to accept evolution which has a basis only by one man’s reasoning. Man is too fallible for me to place my trust in his word, because that’s what all evolutionists are doing: trusting in Darwin’s Word. I don’t know if I answered all your questions, however, I reiterate, it is better to have hope than none at all. It is obvious from the number of suicides across all economic strata, that hope, rather no hope, is the reason most people commit suicide because of their miserable existence. Whereas, my hope is in Jesus Christ, who promises me much in this life and ask the life to come. Thank you for being honest about your condescension.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Thank you for the quick response and clarification.

            Evolution doesn’t provide this because of the billions of years it takes just to see anything!</blockquote?

            Actually, this isn't quite correct. Those billions of years have provided volumes of evidence from the fossil record, the geological record and laboratory experiments, physics and astronomy.

            Only recently has technology advanced to the point that it can confirm most evidence of evolution and debunk others (which it has). It is not based upon, nor does it take into account, stories written in ancient and/or prescience times. Nor does science form conclusions about those fossils from measurements alone, but by the full, rigorous application of the scientific method.

            The scientific method:

            A scientist begins with a question about some natural phenomenon that isn't well understood. She then formulates a hypothesis to explain this phenomenon based on a wealth of accumulated knowledge of past research done on similar phenomena and known, objective facts.

            She then thinks of ways to test her hypothesis, predicting a certain outcome if her hypothesis is correct. If the tests fail to support her hypothesis, then she throws out the hypothesis in favor of one that better fits the evidence.

            If her tests tend to confirm her hypothesis, and she has exhausted all testing of which she can think, then she publishes her findings and the details of her experiments. Note that it is not yet an accepted scientific theory—it is still a hypothesis.

            Then comes the most critical part of the scientific method: independent verification. Scientists in the same field of study recreate her experiment to confirm her results and then think of their own experiments to either confirm or refute the hypothesis.

            Only after years of independent confirmation and further conclusive evidence does the hypothesis become a valid scientific theory.

            And it is called a “theory” because, ideally, it is always open to objective, independently verifiable evidence that might render the theory invalid.

            Creation “scientists” begin with a concrete conclusion—God created everything very much as we see it today, based on an ancient, prescience story written mostly be unknown authors.

            This fact, alone, renders creation “science,” not a science and why I put “scientist” in quotes.

            The biblical creation story, by the way, is among thousands of other creation stories from different cultures/religions told or written about through the centuries. None, including the one in Genesis, is independently verifiable.

            Thus, since the creationist cannot get independent verification for to his conclusion based on faith, he turns to attempting to refute verious claims in evolutionary science. That’s fair, if he happens to come up with a good question, it would give scientists a reason for more research. Most often however, their claims have already been refuted.
            —————————–
            See the video recreation, or trial transcripts, of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on PBS and, if you go for the transcripts, see creationist Dr. Michael Behe’s claims of irreducible complexity in which he presents the locomotion mechanism in a bacterial flagellum as a prime example.
            —————————–
            The creation “scientist” then finds phenomena in nature that he believes supports his conclusion. If evidence is found that tends to support evolution, then he throws out the evidence in favor of his conclusion, or simply reinterprets the evidence to fit.

            At no time and under no circumstances will the conclusion that the Genesis story of creation be suspect.

            The logical fallacy here should be quite evident to anyone. Real science does not make concrete conclusions based on belief. In fact, real science makes no concrete conclusions at all.

            This is exactly why creation science is not science.

            To believe we spontaneously became or were suddenly some thing from a spark, is a long stretch of the intellect!

            Well, I defer back to my character concerning the “popping out” of a god who instantly has the knowledge (from where?) to create everything in a virtual flash. And actually, that goes for a god existing into eternity past, but then, that presents a real dilemma if one believes as well, that the god is omniscient–knows what it will do before it does it and knows all outcomes.

            BTW, did you know that amino acids, the building blocks of life, are found among the stars? That water molecules are as well? That these can easily be present on any planet within the “goldilocks” zone of any star, such as our own?

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Hmm, that very odd. I know that I posted my reply, but I can’t find it here. Did you get it?

          • Gwen

            No, sorry I didn’t.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Read my response just below (posted an hour ago). This Disque is screwed up big time.

            I finally found my responses to you by going to your profile and clicking on your last post to me.

          • Gwen

            I found your response finally! I sent you mine and hopefully it won’t get lost 🌀😻😅.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Okay, I’ve no idea what is going on, but here is my post again unless you haven’t gotten it yet.
            ———————————-
            Thank you for the quick response and clarification.

            Evolution doesn’t provide this because of the billions of years it takes just to see anything!

            Actually, this isn’t quite correct. Those billions of years have provided volumes of evidence from the fossil record, the geological record and laboratory experiments, physics and astronomy.
            Only recently has technology advanced to the point that it can confirm most evidence of evolution and debunk others (which it has).

            Science is not based upon, nor does it take into account, stories written in ancient and/or prescience times. Nor does science form conclusions about those fossils from measurements alone, but by the full, rigorous application of the scientific method.

            The scientific method:

            A scientist begins with a question about some natural phenomenon that isn’t well understood. She then formulates a hypothesis to explain this phenomenon based on a wealth of accumulated knowledge of past research done on similar phenomena and known, objective facts.

            She then thinks of ways to test her hypothesis, predicting a certain outcome if her hypothesis is correct. If the tests fail to support her hypothesis, then she throws out the hypothesis in favor of one that better fits the evidence.

            If her tests tend to confirm her hypothesis, and she has exhausted all testing of which she can think, then she publishes her findings and the details of her experiments. Note that it is not yet an accepted scientific theory—it is still a hypothesis.

            Then comes the most critical part of the scientific method: independent verification. Scientists in the same field of study recreate her experiment to confirm her results and then think of their own experiments to either confirm or refute the hypothesis.

            Only after years of independent confirmation and further conclusive evidence does the hypothesis become a valid scientific theory.

            And it is called a “theory” because, ideally, it is always open to objective, independently verifiable evidence that might render the theory invalid.

            Creation “scientists” begin with a concrete conclusion—God created everything very much as we see it today, based on an ancient, prescience story written mostly be unknown authors.
            This fact, alone, renders creation “science,” not a science and why I put “scientist” in quotes.

            The biblical creation story, by the way, is among thousands of other creation stories from different cultures/religions told or written about through the centuries. None, including the one in Genesis, is independently verifiable.

            Thus, since the creationist cannot get independent verification for to his conclusion based on faith, he turns to attempting to refute verious claims in evolutionary science. That’s fair, if he happens to come up with a good question, it would give scientists a reason for more research. Most often however, their claims have already been refuted.
            —————————–
            See the video recreation, or trial transcripts, of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on PBS and, if you go for the transcripts, see creationist Dr. Michael Behe’s claims of irreducible complexity in which he presents the locomotion mechanism in a bacterial flagellum as a prime example.
            —————————–
            The creation “scientist” then finds phenomena in nature that he believes supports his conclusion. If evidence is found that tends to support evolution, then he either throws out the evidence in favor of his conclusion or simply reinterprets the evidence to fit.

            At no time and under no circumstances will the conclusion, that the Genesis story of creation is true, be suspect.

            The logical fallacy here should be quite evident to anyone. Real science does not make concrete conclusions based on belief. In fact, real science makes no concrete conclusions at all.

            This is exactly why creation science is not science. This discription is not a condescension because science simply cannot begin its investigations with a conclusion.

            To believe we spontaneously became or were suddenly some thing from a spark, is a long stretch of the intellect!

            Well, I defer back to my character concerning the “popping out” of a god who instantly has the knowledge (from where?) to create everything in a virtual flash. And actually, that goes for a god existing into eternity past, but then, that presents a real dilemma if one believes as well, that the god is omniscient–knows what it will do before it does it and knows all outcomes.

            BTW, did you know that amino acids, the building blocks of life, are found among the stars? That water molecules are as well? That these can easily be present on any planet within the “goldilocks” zone of any star, such as our own?

          • Gwen

            Okay, there’s obviously something wrong with this site! My response to you is listed several times!! I’ll endeavor to answer you in my usually disjointed, unorganized way 😅! You totally ignored what I said about hope and went straight for the jugular regarding fossil evidence, however, as you explained the scientist has to come up with a hypothesis and over the course of years and rigorous experimentation provide evidence of that hypothesis being true through trial and error. I propose that due to man’s fallibility, his conclusions are tainted from the beginning. If the original scientist dies then his work will be carried over by the next scientist who might not be diligent in seeking an answer as was his predecessor. But so as not to lose face, this scientist provides further evidence of the former scientist’s work. Now I’ve said all of this to prove a point: your faith is in what man has told you and not in your own work that you have done and applied all five senses.
            I believe water molecules are found among the stars based on what the Bible says about water above and below. I’m not surprised at all. Further more, the Bible speaks of billions of stars that God has named them all! Now answer this can you explain the eye and how it could have evolved, randomly of course, with all it’s complexities? Have you ever studied the eye and placed it in the realm of evolution without losing your mind trying to explain how it could have possibly come about through evolution?

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            You totally ignored what I said about hope and went straight for the jugular regarding fossil evidence . . . I don’t know if I answered all your questions, however, I reiterate, it is better to have hope than none at all.

            Actually I did not mention your hope comments because I did not want to get into the weeds of biblical errors/misinterpretations/logical fallacies, much of which involves the Gospels and the divinity of Jesus.

            As for faith and knowing, if you want to get down into the guts of philosophy, humans cannot actually know anything to be real, even what they think. Even Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” (“I think therefore I am”) can be refuted. I never did like going down that avenue of philosophy but I did find it mildly interesting.

            What I wanted to do was to show that evolutionary scientists (as well as scientists in other fields) come to definitive, albeit tentative, conclusions based on objective research, not subjective views about religion, which many have about different religions–you should be able to see the conflict that would pose. So, each year goes by, more and more substantiating evidence of evolution continues to mount because of objectivity. Advances in medicine is caused as well by that same objectivity.

            However, the main reason I didn’t want discuss hope is because I cannot toss out objectivity for hope, especially knowing that the “hope” I would have is what I was taught to have from tot-hood. So, any hope I would place in the Gospels and the Judeo/Christian god cannot be shown to be true anymore that the hope a terrorist has when he blows himself and others to pieces in the belief it will put him on a non-stop trip to heaven (but you and I would believe the same if we happened to be raised as he).

            That, of course, is a rather harsh comparison, but it is logically and irrefutably true. So, for me, faith cannot prevail over reason. If you read my preface, then you will understand what I am saying.

            Your eye challenge has be thoroughly refuted long ago. It is the argument from irreducible complexity, the same argument that creation “scientist” Dr Michael Behe made in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

            Evolutionary biology has shown conclusively the evolutionary development of the eye, which, BTW, is not as well designed as that of an octopus. We have a blind spot in the center. The octopus does not and its sight is more keen.

            And there are other species having optics progressively less sophisticated all the way back to creatures with only light-detecting membranes. If you understand natural selection, then you can easily see that the eye is certainly not irreducibly complex in terms of natural selection.

            As for hope, my hope is that the molecule of effort I’ve made in the world for tolerance, civility and empathy will add to the efforts of millions of others, like a grain of sand on a beach, such that someday, perhaps in another millennium, the human race will be motivated by empathy rather than self interest (which is the overall thrust of my novel).

          • Gwen

            I hope for the same as you, unfortunately, I know (tongue in cheek ) that man will always be motivated by self interest, just from observing his behavior over the decades I’ve lived! Man grows more self absorbed as time 🕒 continues. You’re an intelligent man, I’m sure you have observed the lack of empathy, sympathy and concern man has for his fellowman. For example, at one time a woman could 😱🔪 and a man or others would come to her rescue. Not anymore? A woman 🚺 can be raped or stabbed to death and people will watch behind closed doors! Not even dialing 911 for help. This society has gotten more amoral, not empathetic.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Aren’t you contradicting everything you said by saying man can’t really know anything?

            Not at all. I was referring to a hard, philosophical argument. As I said, I do not like that area of philosophy because it is, to me, pointless in the scheme of things. I do tend to accept hard determinism, however. Of course, hard determinism would render my arguments and yours, mute as well, but then, we are determined to debate. But whatever philosophy we assess to be true, we have no choice to accept the reality in which we live and endeavor to make it just a little bit better.

            “Wake up without hope in anything or any one?” My word! What a blank and miserable person that would be. I spend my life living life, not preparing for death. I am comfortable in my skin and relish my free mind.

            I wake up excited about writing my new novel, about going on a trip to the mountains with my relatives from Florida, about my plan to one day cycle across the U.S. and hunting fossils on that trip, about learning new things such as the article I came across yesterday (“The 44 Chromosome Man”) as I was researching genetic anomalies.

            Did you know that there is a person (and very likely more) who has only 22 pair of chromosomes? He is missing two genes that normally occur in humans, but he is perfectly healthy. It isn’t likely, however, that he can produce a viable baby with a woman who has 23 pair, but not impossible, and he could certainly have viable offspring with a 22 pair woman. Virtually all humans have 23 pair and apes have 24.

            These things excite me. I love learning. I love civil debate as well because it keeps my mind active and often impels me to do more research in order to either bolster my argument or confirm/refute my opponent’s argument. Either way, I always learn something, even if it’s only the psychological profile of my interlocutor.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Something is up. Perhaps the moderator simply does not like civil free speech. My posts keep disappearing.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Moderator, is it just a glitch, or is civil debate not allowed?

          • Gwen

            What happened? You responded but I didn’t receive it?

          • Gwen

            You know intellect isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. I use this cliché to make another point.Man worships intelligence; but you can have all the intelligence in the world and it won’t help you without wisdom. Wisdom comes only from God. I don’t mind having an intellectual debate, I actually enjoy it, but I don’t forget that God has given me my intelligence in order for me to rationally and logically have a discussion that makes sense! I can’t stand at all without Him.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            But wisdom requires intelligence and the more knowledge one has, the intelligent one becomes and the more likely she will be to make correct decisions.

            That wisdom “comes only from God,” is merely a religious belief. Other religions believe the same–but with different gods. You can say they have false gods, but then, they can say the same about yours.

            I appreciate your debate style. You are civil and do not, as most Christian interlocutors, keep tossing me biblical quotes of damnation and eternal Hell for believing differently. No ethical/moral god would punish for eternity. For that matter no ethical/moral god would ever punish anyone for having been taught to believe a different religion or god. It would understand that they had no choice but to believe the religion of their family and culture.

          • Gwen

            I’m really sorry that you have been bombarded with threats of going to hell to the point you are cautious about talking to a Believer. God wants you to know He loves you more than anyone on earth 🌏, it’s not all about hell. In fact, hell wasn’t created for man 👨, but the devil and his angels.
            Dear heart, I must disagree with you regarding calling God an “it”! He will judge you but we are to show you love 💗. Even non believers are told to exhibit love toward one another. Love for each other is what it is all about
            Did you know Jesus is an alien? He didn’t come from this world and He stated this is not His kingdom. Now an alien as you know is anything or one not from this planet, however, a lot of people will take what I just said and turn it totally against what I’m trying to convey. I do apologize for those who have caused you to turn against my Lord and Saviour in their zeal to “save ” your soul.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Gwen, did you read my preface? It lays out exactly why I left Faith for Reason. It’s a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity.

            Again, if any god were to exist, and that god is omnibenevolent, then “He” would not condemn those who believe the religion they were taught to believe. It is a complete contradiction of justice and mercy. I find that the very height of absurdity.

            One does not truly love for fear of severe punishment because love cannot flourish where fear abides. Would the children of a father who threatens to beat them mercilessly for daring to think differently and not love him, love him? I certainly would not.

            I am of the firm belief that organized religion is the greatest deterrent to world peace and brotherhood. Most religions and ethical, social philosophies espouse the Golden Rule, but then religion builds thick and high walls of exclusive dogma that crush that single greatest tenet beneath. Organized religion, to me, is high grade fuel for xenophobia.

            So I appreciate and understand your enthusiasm for wanting others to believe as you, but for me, it is not possible. I’ve been there before. So, telling me that your deity loves me, moves me not one jot. I simply do not believe such a god exists.

            This is the quote I placed at the very first page of my novel:

            Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blindfolded fear. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, 10 Aug. 1787, Lower case “g” in “god” retained)

          • Gwen

            God does understand you believing differently. He even winked at man’s disbelief at one time, which means He allowed it, however, after Jesus Christ came, He now requires all to repent. You are absolutely right, based on what your family and culture taught, that is what you believed, even today. But God always makes a way to reach those who don’t know Him. Many are seeking why they are here and if there is anything after death. So He reaches those seeking answers through different means. I must admit, we have done more to alienate others than we have to bring them into the kingdom?😞

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            You are absolutely right, based on what your family and culture taught, that is what you believed, even today.

            Not quite. I do not believe it now, at all. I don’t know how I could be more clear. You seem to be unable to understand that a person who believed as a child, now does not believe at all. Most of us were taught that Santa claus existed (as a real person). Yet we no longer believe that absurdity. So, I believe in the existence of gods as surely as I believe Santa Claus exists as a living being and brings gifts to all children in a single night via 8 flying reindeer–oh, and one with a shiny red nose.

            I must admit, we have done more to alienate others than we have to bring them into the kingdom?

            But that is what those of other religions want, to bring you into their fold. I’ve heard the argument that if all believed in Christianity, it would be a wonderful, peaceful world. Well, the same goes for other religions and/or factions of all other religions.

            The only way to get around this impenetrable wall is to drop all exclusive beliefs and adopt the Golden Rule. That is the only path to peace.

          • Gwen

            Did you receive my reply?

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Have you gotten mine yet?

          • Gwen

            I haven’t received your most recent reply to my response regarding why I believe in the Genesis explanation. Maybe they are backed up? I’d like to read your comment.

        • hytre64

          You have but cherry-picked a couple of couple of sins. It is the Christian position that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God..

          By your admission of being an atheist, you have broken the commandment, “You shall have no other God’s before me”. What about the sin of coveting your neighbors possessions (common in America – it’s called keeping up with the Joneses)? What about the sin of coveting your neighbor’s wife?

          I would say, without Jesus, we are slaves to a sinful nature. Different people may show that sinful nature in different ways, but it is still there.

    • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

      Good point, good answer.

    • Amos Moses

      Because the story is about Christ ….. the one you say is loving and sacrificial ……… but i guess not ………… it is rational to destroy the foundation of that toooo ….. how does that go again ………..

  • Thomas

    How about the fact that Bible says Noahs children and grandchildren settled the region of Sumeria and founded Babylon? This was the birthplace of heathen religion and tradition. The Sumerians were thought to be some of the earliest people because they were, after the flood. The Bible mimics Sumerians because the Sumerians descended from the only
    people who still believed in God at the time of the flood. And when those people rebelled God called Abraham out of that nation and thus ensued Judaism etc.

    • Tangent002

      The Sumerians long preceded the story of Noah.

      • hytre64

        Did God have Noah record His story? No. God had Moses record the story of Creation, the Flood, etc. It doesn’t matter when God had him write it down.

    • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

      As I recall, the story of Utnapishtim (found in the Gilgamesh Epics) preceded the biblical flood story by some 800 years.

  • Tangent002

    Ken Ham is a child and is actively working against Christianity. If the only way to accept the teachings of Jesus is to accept the historicity of the Noachian deluge, then that version of Christianity is doomed to fail. Ham is giving up the teachings of the Christ in favor of some archaic notion that the Old Testament is an historical account.

    This is me, as an atheist, saying this: The teachings of Jesus are a good way to lead your life.

    • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

      I’d qualify that with “most” of the teachings of Jesus. But then, most Christians pick and choose and redefine what they will follow.

    • hytre64

      You must be leaving out a lot of His teachings, such as:

      “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

      “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ”

      “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God. ”

      “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

      “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

      “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Jesus taught the flood as literal and real. If you like the teachings of Jesus, then take ALL of them. Don’t pick and choose.

  • George Varughese

    The original “fossilized” Noah’s Ark can be clearly seen on Google Earth, at the Durupinar site (39.4430 N & 44.2276 E) near the town of Uzengili, Agri, Eastern Turkey. God bless.

  • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

    LOL! This is supposed to be a close replica of Noah’s Ark that contained every species of animal on earth? Anyone care to explain why the replica has a bulbous bow, which is a modern design innovation for large ships to move more smoothly through the water when under power, and thereby saving fuel?

  • Robert

    Ken Hamns is setting up a straw man here.because the liberal view which realy is the higher critical view of the bible could easly take the posistion ..Jesus never lied because ,Jesus never said what ken hamn said he said. That was just said by one of the many writers of the bible .who used Jesus name to say it. it really makes little sence to argue with pastors who have been trained in the higher critic view .because it is their reason that decides what truly was said by God. And if their reason does not want God saying something .Than it was only that writer saying it. confessional lutherans reject all higher critical views.and hold to the historical gramatical method .elca pastors can use higher critical biblical views ..

    • Amos Moses

      “That was just said by one of the many writers of the bible ”

      There was only one author of scripture and He did not contradict Himself ………. so false start ….. go back and start over ……… you are jumping the gun ……

  • Robert

    Ken Hams rebuff would propably include taking the lorfs suppet with this guy if he showed up at kens church. In simple words ham or some of what he believes does not impress real lutherans .

  • Robert

    And real Luthetans who believe all the bible rebuff ken Ham by close communion .. so Take that to Your baptisty HEADLINE articles.

  • Heddrick Steel

    Ham is correct. Intelligent design is the only rational view of origins. A flood makes sense given the evidence of cataclysm around the world. The return of Christ makes sense because a once visiting Christ, here because of love, would also return for the same reason. And, of course, the prophets who foretold the Christ also foretell His return and his kingdom.

  • Harry Oh!

    The Lutherans just voted to re-connect to the Catholics 500 years after the reformation. Martin Luther must be doing back flips in his grave. I’m pretty sure that their opinion on what is truth is irrelevant.

    • hytre64

      It wasn’t the whole of the Lutheran church, but just the ELCA. The USA also holds the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).

  • Robert

    First the two pastors here both were only preaching to their own choir s. And the rebuke also was only for the benefit of ones own choir. Only one of the two pastors believed in the inerrancy of the bible the other one was simply a trouble maker and the rebuke if it was meant for the pastor which i doubt was wasted on deaf ears. IT WAS MORE LIKLY MEANT FOR THE AUDIANCE.. the ones not sure about the bible yet became intrested in the two prrachers taking stabs at esch other.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Yes, Jesus, the all-knowing God who came as Man to this world, confirmed everything in the Old Testament Bible and predicted the New Testament Bible. He said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. …But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (Matthew ch.5, John ch.14)

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    It also says “these are the generations of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens,” Genesis 2:4. Ham ignores this and many other verses as well. Both sides of the fence are just as guilty as the other.

  • NathanStarkGD

    The flood didn’t happen on the biblical scale, and if it contradicts Jesus then I guess Jesus was wrong.

    • hytre64

      When you stand before the Judge of the Ages and explain that this is why you didn’t believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you will have a looonnnggg time to ponder on those words, as you hear, “Depart from me…”

      • NathanStarkGD

        If god really did send a flood that killed millions of people, animals, and destroyed the surface of the earth, then I don’t want to be anywhere near god.

        • hytre64

          I am sorry to say, that without something changing, you will get your wish.

        • Gwen

          Your understanding is that of an ant to God. In His mercy, He will continue to try and reach you, but if you continue to stubbornly resist Him, you won’t be near Him at all, but when He enlightens your understanding, you will wish you’d believed as a child.

          • NathanStarkGD

            That’s not an excuse for killing every plant, animal, and human on the surface of the earth.

          • Gwen

            We’re you there to witness the total evil of man? Did you see the violence, sexual perversion, the innocent being abused, murdered, etc? Besides, can someone tell you what to do with your property and/or merchandise? God owns the world and the fullness thereof ( everything in the world). Therefore, if we don’t want anyone to tell us what to do with our things, family, etc., how much more God? But since we couldn’t see the atrocities that were being committed, then we have no right to judge God who is more righteous than any man!!

          • NathanStarkGD

            Yeah, the classic excuse of “the people were evil”, now why did he have to kill all of the animals?

          • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            (A) Not all of the animals died, as God made provision for some of them.
            (B) Cannot a potter say what is done with the pot he has made? How much more so then, can the Creator with His Creation?

          • NathanStarkGD

            (A) Most of them died in terror, as god only made provision for a few of them.
            (B) A pot is not conscious, a pot does not feel pain and terror when faced with impending death.

          • Gwen

            Nathan, these people were preached to for hundreds of years and they laughed him to scorn! They called him everything but a child of God. The wicked have no pity for the innocent when they kill them nor are they moved by their terror, but when they are reaping and in terror, it’s a different story.

          • NathanStarkGD

            I’m talking about the animals, not the people.

          • Gwen

            The evolutionists say the ice age killed the dinosaurs. Wouldn’t they have experienced the same fear and terror but gradually which is more cruel because they died slowly.

          • NathanStarkGD

            Either the ice age or an asteroid killed them, but the asteroid and glaciers didn’t really have a choice as to whether or not they would wipe out the dinosaurs. They couldn’t choose not to. God could.

          • Gwen

            Which goes back to my statement that God is God and can do whatever He chooses. You neglected to answer or acknowledge my statement that if you owned a business, things, etc., you wouldn’t want someone telling you what to do about what is yours. So, you would do whatever you wanted to do with what is yours. Why are you judging God but wouldn’t want to be judged yourself .

          • NathanStarkGD

            If I killed millions of innocent animals I would let people judge me. If god did actually kill millions of innocent animals then he is not moral.

          • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Do we not kill millions of “innocent” animals every day to feed Billions of people?

            Do we not kill/harvest billions of “innocent” plants every day to feed our teeming masses?

          • Gwen

            Let’s not forget the millions of animals experimented on by scientists for the good of mankind! Animals that are tortured so that they can test make up, animals injected with cancer, STD’s, etc., in order to test drugs 💉 for their efficacy in curing the disease, or just to see the reactions to certain drugs. But you say God is not moral. God is merciful, something man knows nothing about!

          • NathanStarkGD

            We eat the animals. There was no point to their death in the flood story.

          • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You judge that there was no point to their death.

          • Gwen

            Yes we do! And what about all the wasted food the restaurants just throw away, citing they can’t give it away because they might be sued! But people go hungry daily because of such foolishness.

          • Gwen

            God is just, righteous and merciful. But I don’t understand your statement about if you killed millions of animals you’d let people judge you. People judge you anyway, so what does it matter?

          • Gwen

            Not just evil, Nathan! They were exponentially wicked and the whole earth was filled with violence. Imagine the suffering of those who had to go through this time of evil. Also, they could have all been infected with some disease(s), that would have led to an unbearable, painful death! Only God knows the extent of man’s wickedness.

          • NathanStarkGD

            Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’ve heard it before, now why did he kill all the animals?

          • Gwen

            Have you ever thought that God destroyed the animals because they too had been infected by man? Or maybe He destroyed them all because they would have outnumbered man if He’d allowed them to live.

          • NathanStarkGD

            By infected do you mean they were evil or they had a disease? Surely an all powerful god could have cured the disease. Also, killing millions of animals so that they wouldn’t outnumber people is ridiculous. What would be the problem with animals outnumbering people anyways?

          • Gwen

            If animals outnumbered people, we would be the hunted. We would be food for them. I mean disease. But why allow the animals to live and not man? That makes no sense, Nathan.

          • NathanStarkGD

            If man is diseased too then an all powerful god could heal them as well. Also, we would only be hunted if the predators were more interested in eating humans who can fight back rather than deer, elk, sheep, or other prey animals. If you make a wolf choose between trying to kill 1 person with a spear to defend themselves and 10 sheep with no defense you can bet it’ll choose the sheep.

          • Gwen

            Why heal man when he will go back to the behavior that caused the disease? God already had Noah, who was disease free and He sent the animals to Noah He intended to start over with. The animals would come after us as well, spear or no spear. Man is the weakest creature on earth! A bee sting can kill him. If the animals outnumbered people, we would become extinct.

          • NathanStarkGD

            What? The disease was caused by bad behavior? Then he can kill the evil people and let the animals live.

    • Gwen

      That is a bold statement coming from a creature that is made of dust! Just as Jesus told Nicodemus, if I have told you of earthly things, that you didn’t know about, what would you say if I told you of heavenly things? Your presumption and arrogance is all from your father!!

      • NathanStarkGD

        When you say I am made of dust what do you mean? Do you mean stardust or are you referring to the absurd idea that humans were originally formed from dust?

        • Gwen

          Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. How many times have we heard these words? Believe me, you are not made of stardust, far from it. Yes, we are formed from the dust, hence, the words spoken at many a funeral.

          • NathanStarkGD

            Dust doesn’t have all the materials needed to create a human body in full. The belief that god just magicked a pile of dust into a human is ridiculous.

          • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Let’s see – Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Calcium, and Phosphorus with a pinch of potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. I guess it depends on where you get your dust… 🙂

          • NathanStarkGD

            Since most of the bible occurred in a desert we can assume it was probably mostly sandy, meaning it would mostly be silicon dioxide. Not much silicon dioxide in the human body.

          • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yet what was Man’s first home? Not the desert, but a lush garden…

          • NathanStarkGD

            If they were in a garden it would be dirt, not dust.

          • Gwen

            You have to read the Bible to understand how God made man, otherwise this discussion is mute. You have no idea what I’m talking about and you will keep asking absurd questions.

          • NathanStarkGD

            I’ve read Genesis.

          • Gwen

            You haven’t read the Bible if you’ve only read Genesis. Nathan, you know absolutely nothing about God! Give God a chance before you deny His existence. I guarantee you will be joyful that you believed. If you do decide to trust Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, you will immediately be attacked by Satan but you will have power and authority over him. Open your mind and your heart, Nathan, to the Lord Jesus. You have nothing to lose, but much to gain.

          • NathanStarkGD

            We were only talking about Genesis, not any other parts of the bible, so I assumed a reading of Genesis would be sufficient for this discussion. I have read more than that, but it’s not relevant to our discussion.

          • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The actual Hebrew word can be translated as loam or dirt.

            BTW – sand is not the same thing as dust…

          • Gwen

            Once again I must agree with hytre64! Man was in a beautiful, lush garden and I’m sure there was no sodium dioxide there at all. I don’t like to assume because it always ends bad . How did you conclude that most of the Bible was desert? Granted some of it was but they needed lush, grass to feed their hundreds of cattle, I’d even say thousands, therefore, it couldn’t have been desert.

          • NathanStarkGD

            If it was a lush desert then man would have been made from dirt, not dust.

          • Gwen

            Lol!

          • Gwen

            Haven’t you read David’s unforgettable statement? We are fearfully and wonderfully made. In that same Psalms, he speaks about our substance which God is aware of although none of our parts had been formed as yet. God made us according to His specifications and man, through science, is still ignorant to this day of the body’s complicated makeup.

          • NathanStarkGD

            A bible verse doesn’t prove anything in this discussion.

          • Gwen

            Maybe the verse doesn’t, but his statement is still relevant to this day. Please try to comment, If possible, on my complete reply to you and not just what you don’t want to acknowledge. To reiterate, science still hasn’t caught up with the complexities of the human body to this day. If man can’t figure out the human body, it leaves much to be desired regarding his limited knowledge and intelligence.

          • NathanStarkGD

            We know enough about the body that unless god rearranged the protons, neutrons, and electrons in the dust, quartz does not have everything we need to make a fully functioning adult body.

          • Gwen

            Are you saying you believe in God, Nathan? All things consist through Jesus. Why do you think those things that are supposed to repel each other actually come together? God, of course. Man (scientists) can’t figure it out. Scientists have taken the place of God in the world, but they still die from disease, see psychiatrists for mental illness, seek solace in alcohol/drugs, etc., yet man places his trust in s man who is just like him. You can say, these men have tested and performed experiments, but whose to say that they didn’t lie about the outcome. Granted not all outcomes, but enough to give themselves viability and prestige. All men lie.

          • NathanStarkGD

            No, I do not believe in god. I believe we evolved to become what we are today.

          • Gwen

            Then, Praytell, why are you acknowledging my Savior? Each time you make a statement it acknowledges that God is!

          • NathanStarkGD

            I’m not acknowledging god, this whole thing is a hypothetical. I’m saying that hypothetically, IF there had been a flood, then hypothetically god COULD have saved the animals. I’m not saying that actually happened.

          • Gwen

            It appears to me you’re only concerned about the animals. And you have made several statements acknowledging God. You know there is a God, Nathan, but you don’t want to admit it.

          • NathanStarkGD

            I’m concerned about the animals because whenever I bring up the people I get some excuse about how they were evil and deserved to die.

    • Gwen

      If you were All knowing, you wouldn’t have to guess.

      • NathanStarkGD

        If god were all knowing he could have prevented evil from ever being formed.

        • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          God created Beings with Free Will, and foreknew that all would choose sin, that is why He had a plan from the foundation of the World to make a remedy for sin. God made flesh – the perfect, sinless sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind.

          • NathanStarkGD

            If he knew we would all choose sin why didn’t he make us so that we were free to choose but not murder people? One man’s free will to murder destroys many other people’s free will to do anything.

          • Gwen

            Nathan, it wouldn’t be free will if it is limited. I wish man could be limited in those areas and others as well,but God isn’t like man. Man blurs the lines of justice, he’s partial to others because of money, prestige, looks, etc. God is truly just, righteous and true, not man.

          • NathanStarkGD

            You don’t have much free will if you’re dead either. Making sure that one person who would kill 50 people has no free will to kill them is mean to that one person but it saves 50 lives. Saving 50 lives but making one person live without free will to do evil things is the moral thing to do.

          • Gwen

            Where does your morality come from? Man has been practicing genocide on oothers for a long time. Some of these diseases that wiped out millions were man made in order to thin out the paopulation. But man won’t tell you this.They experimented on Black men with syphillis to see how the stages of the disease and how the individuals would die, all the time having the cure, but denying these men life. God’s morality is better than man’s any day. I’d rather fall into the hands of God than man! This is only one instance of man’s “tender mercies” and I shudder to think of all the other atrocities he’s committed in his morality.

          • NathanStarkGD

            My morality comes from empathy, what I see as best for the population, and society. Are you disagreeing with the idea that removing one person’s free will to save the lives of 50 is moral?

          • Gwen

            Nathan, you didn’t address the fact that man regularly participates in genocide and it is for the good of the world. Yes, I am disagreeing based on the fact that sometimes people have to die for the rest of mankind to live. I have no idea what would have happened if those 50 people had been allowed to live. Maybe one of them would have been the demise of the entire world. Your empathy would only extend to the point where it doesn’t cause you or those you love harm.

          • NathanStarkGD

            If one of the people would kill the entire world god could smite them or something and let the others live.

          • Gwen

            I agree, however, that takes us back to my answer to you earlier: if God intervenes it isn’t free will.

          • NathanStarkGD

            Which would bring me back to my original answer, pretty much everyone would agree that taking away the free will of one person to save the lives or about 50 is a moral thing to do.

        • Gwen

          I must agree with hytre64; God is all knowing. He is using Satan to weed out the wicked ones from those who love Him and want to be with Him. He allowed evil for the same reason. If we had the wisdom and intelligence of God, this wouldn’t be a discussion.

  • Edward MacGuire

    There is no evidence for a world flood and certainly none for such an event in the near past.
    The Noah story in the bible and other older ones from Sumerian and Babylonian and Assyrian flood myths can be considered evidence for a local flood, but to consider these accounts as anything else is silly. None of these peoples had any idea as to the size of the earth, the number of continents or the number of species of animals on earth.

    Now if Mr. Ham were to have built this ark in the time allotted with tools available in Noah’s time with no help except from his family, collected (I’ll make it easier) 2 members of every taxonomic family and housed them in this ark which was floating in the ocean for months and months, all the while feeding, watering and cleaning up after these lizards, amphibians, insects, mammals, birds, snakes as well as plants, fish etc. he might have some credibility.
    If he really had faith that is what he would have done rather than setting up a theme park with a few animals in Kentucky.

    • Gwen

      Then the miracles of Jesus would not be true as well, if the historical part isn’t true. However, you believe what you want, that’s your prerogative. However, I choose to believe the Word of God because He is and He is able to anything, which is my prerogative!

      • Edward MacGuire

        It is not a question of belief. The scientific method deals with data garnered from observation and experimentation. Belief is acceptance without question and science is questioning everything and requiring evidence.

        There is no evidence for a world-wide flood. There are only legends passed on from the bronze age. There is no evidence for the miracles of Jesus, just some stories written down by people who never met him decades after his death. Stories that were ‘sanctioned’ by various councils of the church hundreds of years after the events took place.

        You should read St. Augustine’s essay on the approach to be taken when faith and reason conflict.

        • Gwen

          Belief in Jesus Christ is not acceptance without question. And if it is as you said ” The scientific method deals with data garnered from observation and experimentation.” How are you able to observe evolution and experiment with data that allegedly occurred over billions of years? It appears you are going by blind faith and taking what the scientists have told you as fact, although it is still called a theory. There is more than enough proof that Jesus Christ lived, performed miracles and was crucified. To a

          • Edward MacGuire

            Every year tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers are published on evolutionary biology. Each one increases the evidence for evolution and presents new data and analysis for review by scientists. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming; thats why I suggested you read St, Augustine’s little homily on conflicts between faith and reason.

          • Gwen

            Your suggestion is duly noted. Just as you say the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, the same can be said about Jesus Christ. Science is even playing a hand in providing proof of the what the Bible teaches and the words of Jesus Christ.

  • hoss6556

    The Gospels are generally accepted to have originated from oral tradition, with several decades passing before they were written down. Since all the quotes we have from Jesus are hearsay, it’s impossible to say whether Jesus lied regardless of the factualness of Noah and the flood. (By the way, there isn’t a single piece of empirical evidence of a world wide flood event, much less in the time period predicted using the Bible.)