Donald Trump Failed to Prepare for Alien Attack. (Miley Cyrus Makes Species Argument)

ANNOUNCEMENT: We invite all comments from everyone, positive or negative. Unlike most origins ministry websites, we do not censor. (We also don’t put posters on moderation unless replacing their vulgarities with asterisks takes the admin took much time. WordPress sometimes puts comments on moderation, even ours! So don’t be insulted if your comment is delayed. We will only delete obvious spam. In rare cases we may ask a commenter to resubmit their comments after vulgar language is removed. We don’t censor content.)

Get it? Clever, huh? Right? Remember, a while back?

This blog got huge traffic because I mentioned Ken Ham talking about Miley Cyrus. So combining Donald Trump with Miley Cyrus should do even better. And “alien attack” is a sure fire classic! Every tabloid publisher knows that “alien” is a magic word. Even antiquarian professors know that.

Ken Ham said that Miley’s choice of only having sexual relations with members of her own species made no sense at all under The Theory of Evolution. I kid you not, folks. If you didn’t read the Answers in Genesis webpage where The Ham Man made that Dunning-Kruger worthy challenge nor the BSF blog about that blooper, I will tell you everything that you need to know about that in order to understand this blog’s headline. You see, Miley’s sexual preference for her own species makes for a “species argument”. Get it?! Pretty good?! Huh? Right? Ya know, like a “specious argument”? OK. I suppose you’d have to be there. Or here. I happened to like it. (I love it when Ham opens his mouth and makes it soooo easy. Next thing you know, Ham will ask why evolutionists would logically choose to have sex.)

Fortunately for Ham, we’ve found a group working hard to topple Ham and his origins industry empire from the leading loon top spot. The Sensuous Curmudgeon blogged about the story and the late night comedians will soon be joining the laughter:

Yes, they want governments on planet earth to build embassies and grand residential facilities for greeting and housing aliens from outer space.

Now, do be careful what you say about aliens. Look what happened to Donald Trump.

If I were Donald Trump about now, I would be watching for aliens very very carefully! I wonder if Trump thinks aliens from outer space would look green, as in those old sci-fi movies. Hey, do you think Trump would get on his bully pulpit again and demand that those outer space aliens all get green cards? [LOL! Right? Get it? LOL? Oh, come on now!] I can just imagine Trump standing at the landing field next to the alien embassy. The alien ship opens up and Trump is standing there with a bullhorn saying, “If you don’t have a green card, go back to where you came from! I’m going to put up a force field around the earth and make you aliens’ government pay for it!”

Ok…back to my story. I crawled into bed last night and got to thinking about this embassy plan. I imagined that we decided to build that welcome center. The first alien visitors from outer space land and are welcomed with great fanfare. But they want nothing but to check-in to their hotel rooms and get some rest. After all, they’ve had a very very very very [add exponent to the Nth power of “very”] long trip.

So, as I pondered these things, I found myself nodding off…. zzzz…. dreaming about such a place and event…. zzzz… and what it would be like… ZZZZZzzzzz…… zzzz. ….dreamed about aliens checking in at the hotel…

…I dreamed…alien check-in…would go … like this…ZZZZzzzzzzzz..

The front desk’s staff has trained intensively for this historic day but the Residence Center manager decides to step up and handle the first check-in himself. He says to the leader of the group, the very first outer-space alien in line for check-in, “Welcome, sir. So pleased to have you stay with us! I will process your registration. First, may I see some identification, please?”

The alien looks a bit perplexed–which is very hard to do with just tentacles and a bunch of unidentified orifices and/or sensory origins–and it asks, “What do you mean?”

The desk manager says, “Any kind of official identification card will do. If you don’t have a driver’s license….er…pilot’s license, perhaps you’ve got an ID card issued by your employer?”

The alien looks up hopefully, “How about my union card? After all, I’m here on business.” [How did it manage to “look up”? I don’t know. It’s an alien! Just shut up and read the damned story. It will go faster that way for both of us.]

The desk manager says, “Sure! That will do just fine, Sir.”

It is clearly evident from the resumption of the flow of green drool from the elephant-trunk-like excretory tube (which the alien drags behind him) that the first-time guest feels relieved by the desk manager’s answer. [Relieved, get it?? Pretty clever, huh?]

While the alien is lost to his thoughts, all while flexing his antennae to absorb the delightfully new flavors of the earth’s quaint and exotic mixture of gases, the desk manager punches up the intercom mode of the PA system and announces so all could here: “Clean-up at front desk. Clean-up at front desk. Be sure to bring the Wet-Vac. Er… Make that three Wet-Vacs…Hell, just bring all of ’em!”

Just as the manager restores reciprocal optical-sense-organ contact with his guest, the alien resumes the conversation. “I really love the atmosphere of this place.”

The manager smiled proudly and said, “Thank you, Sir! We try our best. And our florist daily brings…” as the alien resumed its praise and interrupted him in mid-sentence:

“It’s quite wonderful! Your atmosphere has the delightfully subtle essence of those oxidation wisps…ya know…those wisps you get near a freshly fallen meteorite on most any moon of Uranus? Oh my…the mix so punctually graces those earthy, full-bodied undertones you can only get from a very high-nitrogen air mixture. Yet all blended so splendidly and playfully with hardly a hint of those pretentious, low atomic-number gases ya always find on Jupiter. No thank you! I’ve never liked that place. Not one bit. I just can’t quite put my tentacle on it, but something really bugs me about Jupiter. [Get it? You know, like “Can’t put a finger on it?” Jupiter has no solid surface? Just gases? Get it now? Oh well…] On earth here I was expecting the argon but was very surprised by the low altitude hints of ozone and ….don’t tell me…. let me guess…. ..uhhhhh… halogen gases … and a very rich mix of partly oxygenated hydrocarbons and… and… yes! There’s even a few organometallics! Is that it? Gastro? Where is Gastro? He’s my assistant. Oh, there he is. Right behind me! Gastro, didn’t I say the moment we opened the hatch that that just had to be argon, sulphur, and a few organometallics?”

Another bundle of tentacles sprawled out in all directions just behind the alien seemed to tense up slightly and somehow expelled the words, “Yes sir. That is what you said.” as one of the creature’s sensory organs seemed to do a full revolution of rotation within its socket, as if to ask a question which the manager may have heard only by telepathy: “Why I did I volunteer for this mission? I actually endured 200 parsecs of this blowhard?”

Realizing that the top alien was begging for a compliment, the manager smiled widely and said, “Very good, sir! You must be something of a connoisseur of fine atmospheres! A trained gaseous sommelier perhaps?” The manager bit his tongue as he remembered one of the cardinal rules of his training, regularly voiced by his instructor: “Stay away from puns, turns of phrase, and unintended jokes. Too risky!” Yet, before he could worry too much, the alien replied:

“Oh, thank you, but it’s nothing! I tended air-bar at my uncle’s country club during summers, all through college. Great tips. … Oh! Excuse me. You had asked me a question. What was it?”

The manager politely reminded him: “I had asked you for an ID and you said: ‘How about my union card? After all, I’m here on business.’ ”

“Yes! Yes! The card…” The happy alien laughed so heartily, although it was difficult to determine exactly where the voice was coming from, and how does he speak without lungs to propel the air? The desk manager didn’t know, but he was starting to wonder why the noxious pulses of pungent odor seemed to correspond in sync with each new belly laugh. Is it actually possible that the alien had a club sandwich with extra garlic and onion on his last in-flight meal in the space ship? Or perhaps 10 to 30 hours ago? He didn’t know. Indeed, no one on planet earth could know. Whatever the case, any unfortunate earthlings living downwind were about to learn what the embassy staff already knew. Well.

The alien reaches into his pocket in the back of his fourth tentacle and pulls out his wallet faster than you could say “Take me to your leader.” He grabs the union card inside it with a single, dexterous motion of the first suction-cup of his ninth tentacle and deftly hands it to the desk manager. He thanks him and scans it into the Universal Reader-Translator. [Why does the alien speak English but didn’t plan and bring a legible ID card in the local language? Do you really think I wanna make this any longer by adding a backstory for every gap in the plot points? Just sit still and read the nice story. Slow down your thinking. You know. Like a young earth creationist conference speaker.]

The machine spits out its translation. The manager reads it aloud:
“Galactic Brotherhood of Intelligent Designers, Local #351”

He pauses and says, “Apparently the machine couldn’t figure out your name. It says ‘Boundary error. Char strings exceed limit.’ What is your name, Sir?”

The alien smiled [Don’t ask!] and said, “That last name is DodFaasuznmxzyuaaqqnmadlkjadsaf. Yes, I’ll save you asking: my grandfather was indeed a Faasuznmxzy immigrant, came over on the Sarminian xenocrafts of the Second Therminian Dynasty. It was just after the Splantaric Rebellion and his was one of the first incubation vats to be reactivated with full power by the Darmifian mercenaries, because they thought they could hold the ovapods inside for ransom. They had no idea that he was just one more metamorphosis away from growing up to be their master. So, yes. Everybody always asks me when they hear the name!” as it laughed and smiled even more widely, a feat made all the more remarkable because of the fact that it didn’t seem to have anything resembling a face. “So telepathy might be communicating the alien’s emotions directly into my brain….” thought the manager as another wave of stench made his eyes begin to water, much like one gets when peeling onions …. and perhaps evolution developed such telepathy to accommodate their consistently maintain a personal space between them of around 50 meters. Or at least that was the suggestion of the panel of scientists which kept up a steady stream of color commentary and speculations appearing on the text crawl at the bottom of the large CNN TV screen the manager couldn’t help but see hanging high on the opposite walls.

He realized that his extensive training on reading body language provided little help when one isn’t even sure what body parts to read. So he resorted to the fallback rule for intergalactic culture shock: gush and fawn. Well… …that’s…that’s very impressive, Sir!” gushed the desk manager as he struggled for words while collecting his composure, “And a celebrity deserves special accommodations so I’m going to give you an upgrade to the VIP suite.” (Of course, at intergalactic embassies, everyone gets a VIP suite–and all UFOs get free valet parking.)

“Thank you. Thank you. But no, I prefer to be treated just like everyone else. And I’ve never felt like a celebrity, despite the famous surname. To everybody else, my grandfather was Seventh Supreme Overlord of the Xzyl-Razmoid Empire, Merciless Slaughterer of the Klyqedfjdiiel Resistance, and Grand Puba of the Galactic Council. But to me and my brothers…he was just Pops.”

Getting better at handling the unexpected, the manager asked, “By the way, speaking of VIPs did any of our staff outfront tell you that we have valet parking? It’s free to our VIP guests.” The manager chuckled to himself and thought about being remembered as the first human to make a joke to an alien. He could take the chance because he learned in his training that the aliens had been monitoring earth’s TV broadcasts for years and the scientists who had communicated with the aliens in the months leading up to the landing said that the aliens not only understood the English language quite well, they had an excellent sense of humor. For them, the 1950’s TV shows premiered just 15 years ago and they loved the sitcoms. So despite his training to avoid humor, he had gone ahead and asked if the alien wanted valet parking for his space ship.

The alien replied without any indication of mirth, “Yes, somebody among your staff out front asked me if I wanted that kind of parking service you say you have, so I said yes to take advantage of it. After all, my vehicle–I heard you earth people call it a UFO–is quite large. I was afraid you wouldn’t have enough space to accommodate it. So I was very happy to bring the guy on board to help out and we found just the right place to park.”

“Sir, it sounds like one of our staff was just making a friendly joke by offering you valet parking, a service where our people out front can park the guest’s vehicle in a special place. But, back to reality, with your… uh… vehicle. It will be quite safe because our military will be guarding it no matter where you parked.

“Yes, I do understand what you mean! I never saw so many soldiers and military vehicles surrounding us. And they welcomed us with so many sirens and lots of people running and screaming and shrieking. It was much like Elvis in the building as you say.”, it explained. “We felt so very welcomed. I really do appreciate the parking service. We were lucky. My spacecraft just barely fit in the parking space. Very beautiful hills on both sides.”

The desk manager tried to hide his confusion, and asked the alien: “Barely fit? Hills on both sides? Where exactly did you park? Did our employee actually direct you to the spacious valet parking area? Did he say if it was a specific valet parking area? We have an east and a west valet parking lots. Did he say which valet parking lot?”

“Hmmm….Oh! Yes he did!”, exclaimed the alien, “I remember now. The young man happened to mention it was San Fernando Valley parking. I’m not sure that they were expecting us but it will do just fine.”

The manager froze for a minute but realized this was the very type of situation he was trained to handle. “Keep your composure throughout” was the rule of operation at all times. But before he could think for very long, the alien continued:

“Oh! I should get back to your question that I never fully answered: The first name is Ieiwzmoiqewmmiuasdfuiqwemmskfjaskdf. Ieiw for short, pronounced like ‘Iiieeeiooooew” but remember that the second ‘e’ and the third ‘o’ are silent except when used in the vocative case. So the full name is Ieiwzmoiqewmmiuasdfuiqwemmskfjaskdf Adsoiuxy Dodfaasuznmxzyuaaqqnmad. You can feel free to save space and use a middle initial instead of Adsoiuxy. That’s fine.”

The alien could tell that the desk manager was overwhelmed by the name and it surmised that the manager was going to have difficulty with the spelling. So after a brief silence, the alien said, “I am Ieiwzmoiqewmmiuasdfuiqwemmskfjaskdf Dodfaasuznmxzyuaaqqnmad. But why don’t you just call me ‘I.D.’ for short.”

Obviously relieved, the desk manager exclaimed, “Excellent! Now I’m sure I have heard of you.”

The manager asked the alien, “Sir, I mean, Mr. I.D., would you like a smoking or non-smoking room?” As soon as he speaks the words, he realizes again that the alien has no lungs–because it absorbs gases directly through its slime-covered, yet reptilian-like skin. “I beg your pardon for my not thinking that through, sir. You see, we’ve never checked anybody into the Embassy Conference & Living Center Annex before. You are our first guest alien. I’ll just go-ahead and give you a non-smoking room. … Let’s see…what else…uhhhh…. Oh! Would you like a bellboy, or perhaps even two?”

The alien replied, “No. No thank you. I had a really big lunch on the flight.”

It paused a moment and resumed: “And then they always hand out those endless bags of nuts. Insufferable nuts. We beamed them up from Seattle and Kentucky before we knew what we were getting ourselves into.”

The desk manager remembered his training and tried really hard not to react as the alien continues.

“Plus, I really need to lose a few pounds and work on my cardio. My wife hassles me about it. Keeps reminding me that my father died of congestive hearts disease. All five of them. It got to where his hearts wouldn’t even grow back anymore. What a sad and slow way to die. So I’m trying to do a better job of taking care of myself. After all, ya only live thrice. Maybe four times, tops.”

“Always good advice, Sir.” The desk manager replied while still trying hard to react as little as possible. After all, he was specially trained for this. He recalled countless hours of extensive study and practice, all in preparation for this historic event, and that schooling included a thorough practicum in intergalactic cross-cultural interactions. The manager regained his composure and continued:

“Oh! Almost forgot… Sir. Do you have any pets that will be rooming with you?”

The alien answers, “As a matter of fact I do. Just one.”

The desk manager smiles and nods affirmatively, “Very good, sir. And what type of pet would that be?”

The alien replies, “I don’t know what you earthlings call them but on my planet we call it a luskin.”

(c) 2015. Professor Tertius & the Bible.and.Science.Forum at
All rights reserved.

If you like Professor Tertius’ brand of humor, or you simply like to see YECist “creation science” shredded while the science-denialists cringe, or you just love to see reminders that a theologian-linguist-Bible-translator-professor-minister sage-wannabe doesn’t have to agree with Ken Ham’s wacky pseudo-science and Bible-illiterate shenanigans to be a “genuine Christian”, than we’ve got a Professor Tertius classic for you: The April Fools Day Massacre & the Seven Deadly Questions YECists Dread.



Filed under Uncategorized

40 responses to “Donald Trump Failed to Prepare for Alien Attack. (Miley Cyrus Makes Species Argument)

  1. A more concise version of the short story above can be found in the comment section under one of today’s Sensuous Curmudgeon blog at

    I’ve considered doing a collection of short-stories to produce a Prelude & Fugue style book like Doug Hofstadter used in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. This short story would Prelude a more serious Fugue (prose) chapter about IDism. After all, who wouldn’t want to read: Achilles & the Tortoise Visit the Creation Museum?

    The mind boggles.

  2. peg

    Rolled on the floor and laughed uncontrollably. Such fun! Thanks!

  3. Remo Wilson

    Good job at advancing the cause of Christ! I’m truly inspired to treat Christians the same way you treat them.

    • Welcome, Remo. The Raelians behind the proposal have never identified as Christians and the Encyclopedia of American Loons is not affiliated with the Bible.and.Science.Forum in any way. Nevertheless, your comments are welcomed. I’ve forwarded your comment to Professor Tertius, though I’m not sure he will have online access during his travels this week overseas.

      I’d be curious to know if you have posted a similar comment on Ken Ham’s webpages. (Such a comment would not survive more than 20 minutes there, but even so, I’m just curious.) Ken Ham has been quite merciless with Christians who dare to disagree with him. Obviously, you don’t have to answer in order to be welcomed to comment here, but I think our readers would be curious to know if you apply your comments equally to the various parties who comment on other origins organizations and individuals.

      If you are wondering whether we and other critics of Ken Ham & AIG have applied Matthew 18:15 in terms of Mr. Ham, the answer is yes. How did he respond? Let’s just say he and AIG were not responsive in an encouraging manner. Perhaps you might be more successful? If enough Christ-followers rebuke those who bring shame upon the teachings of Jesus, perhaps our efforts at BSF will be unnecessary.

      Again, thank you for your comment.

      • Remo Wilson

        You didn’t get my sarcasm so I’ll spell it out that you treat Christians like crap. Guess you don’t understand sarcasm if you’re not doing it. That’s the biz, sweetheart.

        • You didn’t get my sarcasm…

          If fantasizing helps you deal with reality, go with what works.

          so I’ll spell it out that you treat Christians like crap.

          If treating Ken Ham like the dishonest false teacher he is and calling him out on it is what you are talking about, you might want to check out the phrase “white-washed sepulchre” and how it was used. Considering the fact that it represented one of the most outrageous and vile descriptions one could possibly heap on another, I would call it quite comparable to “like crap”, don’t you think?

          You see, false teachers and pathological liars do not get a free pass simply by declaring themselves “Christian”. And we generally focus on those leaders who deceive others and often remind readers that we consider the rank-and-file followers of the Ham et al to be largely victims, whose only failure is being overly trusting of the wrong people.

          Many of us on the Bible.and.Science.Forum are former Young Earth Creationists and all but one considered himself a “creation science” activist as a speaker/writer/debater, etc. As we shared our stories, we noticed an interesting commonality as we discussed what helped us most to stop and re-evaluate what we were doing and teaching. In every single case God used the proverbial “two by four over the head”, not the light tap on the shoulder. Yet, as we read the Proverbs, that truism is not hard to find. Proverbs 19:29 also tells us that “Condemnation is ready for scoffers, and beating for the backs of fools.” The false teachers we talk about are definitely scoffers, and “they mock those who would instruct them.” So by scriptural standards, we are quite gentle. We don’t do any beating but we do condemn the behaviors of those who refuse instructions.

          Guess you don’t understand sarcasm if you’re not doing it.
          The satire of this edition and most other blog articles on the Bible.and.Science.Forum generally aim for something much more direct than mere sarcasm. But I’m sure that some articles enter that territory now and then, quite intentionally.

          ***** ******** *** * ***********.
          Is it,*********? No doubt you know what you are talking about. The Proverbs also include observations about mockers who refuse instruction. We find a lot of mockers among “creation science” leaders. They have been told individually on many occasions about fundamentals of science and various evidence supporting that science. Yet they not only choose to ignore it but they mock those who have taken the time to help them.

          Perhaps you have some recommendations. Tell us how you would deal with the problem?

          We also have a saying that we repeat often around here: “Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” If you have any facts you would like to share here, you are welcomed to do so. All we ask is that it be topical to one of the blog articles. If you have a topic of your own that you would like to discuss, you can send it to us via email and we may schedule it as it own article or otherwise incorporate it so that it can receive a fair hearing.

          We regularly invite those who post a complaint to have an open discussion with us. We want to hear what you have to say that identifies something wrong with our position.

        • That’s ***** ****** *********.
          This is actually the fourth time someone angry at our positions against false teachers has posted or emailed an inappropriate male-on-male “endearment term” of this sort, apparently thinking that the shock value of feigning a homosexual gesture is some sort of ultimate insult. It is not the type of behavior one expects of adults. The other three “twists” on endearments were all by email so this was the first time one of these was posted for the public (though the other three did not exploit this time of insinuation.) I hesitated and considered replacing it here with just *********. But we’ve always prided ourselves in not censoring like so many YEC websites do. And there is probably value in letting the public see this behavior.

          I’m not angry at all. Just very very saddened by it.

          I used to think the phrase was just a meaningless movie catchphrase that teenagers used until a friend who works with inner city young people community explained its meaning when used as an insult. I guess I should have realized that it would only be used for denigration if it had some sort of knife edge to it. It seems like everything carries a double meaning nowadays. Yet it saddens me that people resort to associating what should be positive and sacred to something else entirely. It still catches me off guard. I had forgotten about the phrase until I saw the You didn’t get my sarcasm. Yes, Remo. I got it now. I hadn’t heard it for a while.

          • Remo Wilson

            Inappropriate male on male comment? You’re full of crap. Must be why you treat Christians like crap. More crap is how you justify your actions by comparing yourself to Jesus. I’m not the most religious guy but I know the people he let have it were unbelievers, not just people with a different opinion. Sorry sweetheart, you’re not Jesus with perfect knowledge, you’re a jerk that treats people who don’t believe your opinions about evolution like crap. Christians shouldn’t do each other like that so I don’t believe you’re really a Christian in the first place, your god is evolution. And I don’t care if you’re ******** and going to lie some more about everything. By the way, I’m equal, I’ll say ******** to men or women alike when I feel like it.

            • It appears Remo likes to use the word “crap”.

              By the way, Jesus used his strongest language on the religious leaders who expressed outrage and presumed to “police” everyone else who disagreed with the Pharisees’ interpretations of the scriptures. (Anyone who did not agree with them was the target of their anger. It didn’t take much to send them into a rage when their absolute authority was questioned.)

            • Dr. Barnabas

              Remo, have you rebuked Ken Ham for his denouncing all Christians who disagree with him as “Compromising Christians”? Or do you only throw “crap” at those who understand science and try to explain it to you?

              For a great history of the pathological lying which didn’t start with Ken Ham but goes back to a book in 1962 which became the worship altar of the young earth creationists who push “flood geology” (like Ham and AIG), you will find this history fascinating:

              Remo, if Ken Ham and young earthers know the best science, why don’t oil exploration companies hiring young earth creationists for their expertise with “flood geology”?

              I know. You refuse to debate substance and actual science. You prefer to throw a tantrum about the big bad meanie professor.

              [Crap alert! Remo is here.]

    • We thank you for participating, Remo. However, we hope you will consider posting something more substantive which will contribute to the discussion of origins topics. (So far, you appear to be fixated on using the word “crap.”)

  4. Remo, Curtis, and various others (including those who send emails instead of posting comments) disagree on BSF’s tactics in dealing with the folly of Young Earth Creationism. Yet rarely do the critics stay around to explain how they would address the problem.

    So we solicit your ideas. How would you like for BSF to approach the problem? Let us know! How should false teachers best be answered?

  5. ANNOUNCEMENT: Ratings and votes/likes have now been enabled retroactively for all articles and comments on this site. So you can now let us know which types of articles and comments you prefer.

  6. peg

    Well crap Ramo, not sure where you get the crap idea that pointing out the crap that the likes of Ken Ham dishes out is crap or that is in any way treating christians like crap? Crap, I am a atheist/agnostic, so crap what do I know.
    I don’t have a problem with the feelings of god did it, but to feel that is the only reason for everything is to stagnate your intelligence. The science of evolution is a real valid explanation of how stuff works. Humankind has a need to know, we have and continue to find answers for our survival through science.
    I am impressed by this Bible and Science Forum. It keeps me from generalizing christians. Treating them like crap. Smile!

  7. Dr. Barnabas

    Great story! I saw one of Prof Tertius’ satirical stories on the Curmudgeon blog and just had to visit here.

    I too am a young earth creationist refugee. It had become too cult-like and Remo’s behavior here is a reminder of what has become the norm. No dialogue. Just anger and spewing condemnation on anyone who dares disagree with the Great Ham. This brings back memories for me.

    Do you guys still hear from Steve Poole? I’ve not seen him on any of the Facebook pages in a long time.

  8. Dr. Barnabas

    As far “full of crap” goes, in looking through Remo’s comments here, I’d have to say that it is Remo whose writings are “full of crap.” Literally and substantively. He seems to have scatological obsessions.

    Remo, you resorted to the silly “Your god is evolution.” Does that mean that because I passed my physics courses in college “My god is physics?” How about mitosis?. I fully accept the theory of mitosis. Does believing in scientific theories mean that I worship a pantheon of gods?

    I fully expect Remo to make himself scarce once actual science is discussed here.

  9. Dr. Barnabas

    Remo, if there was no death prior to Adam’s sin, as Ken Ham claims, why have a Tree of Life which produces fruit to prevent death? Why have a solution for death when death does not exist?

    Watch him go silent.

  10. Dr. Barnabas,

    Yes, that entire website is outstanding and yet another reply which Ken Ham will forever ignore:

    I’ll mention it to Professor Tertius when he returns from his travels. Perhaps he will want to do a blog on it. — Saito S., BSF blog admin

  11. Remo Wilson

    Sorry, scat for brains, not going to let you handcuff and beat me by talking about other stuff. Like the fake professor here, Barn Bus is probably a fake too and probably the owner of this failed blog in another name. I made my point not going to let you claim a win over an argument from silence.

    • Dr. Barnabas

      Like the fake professor here, Barn Bus is probably a fake too and probably the owner of this failed blog in another name.

      Imagine that! Nah, real professors would never oppose evolution-deniers. Would they?

      Is it really that hard to imagine that real science professors find “creation science” laughably foolish?

      Mr. Haworth-Roberts, doesn’t Cowboy Bob always do that kind of games with names, like “Barn Bus”? I remember seeing you somewhere and he twisted your name.

      I do think Remo Wilson is CowBoy Bob worried about this “failed website”. He’s obsessed.

    • Remo whined:
      I made my point not going to let you claim a win over an argument from silence.

      Sounds like you are confusing this forum with a young earther forum where they are always bragging about “wins”, but only after deleting the opponent’s posts so that the reader can’t see for themselves.

      Remo, there is no “win” for you to worry about because the science has already stood the test of time. What test? Falsification testing. That’s why we know that The Theory of Evolution is fact. As Francis Collins has said and as the Biologos website explains, the science is certain. We see evolution all around us and we know it has been in operation for many millions of years. Sure, there are plenty of details to be worked out. More each year are published. Yet the science is certain: evolution happened. That’s how we got here. (Perhaps you think God was wrong to use evolutionary processes to build a biosphere. Then complain to God about it. However, I wouldn’t recommend the name-calling. Besides, it destroys your credibility. It makes you sound like a five-year-old.)

      Seeing how Remo likes to hang around here, we might as well teach him a few things about science. And how to behave like adults.

      • Remo Wilson

        //Seeing how Remo likes to hang around here, we might as well teach him a few things about science. And how to behave like adults.//

        You first 😛

    • Dr. Barnabas

      “Sorry, scat for brains,…”

      I don’t think your brain is the problem. You simply refuse to believe the answers in God’s creation and God’s scriptures. Yes, sometimes individuals may lack the brains that would allow them to make sense of what God has revealed to them. But in your case it appears to be a sin problem. You are angry at God and angry at his creation and what it tells you about reality. Your anger at others is a reflection of your anger towards your Creator.

      I pray that the love of God would soften your hardened heart so that you may see the glory of God as revealed in his creation so that you won’t refuse the answers so readily available in that creation.

  12. Remo complained:
    …not going to let you handcuff and beat me by talking about other stuff.

    Far be it from you to actually defend any of the pseudo-science of your boasts. As to “claim a win over an argument from silence”, you’ve confused us with the Young Earth Creationist website that Cowboy Bob Sorenson operates,

    Personally speaking, I enjoyed your play-the-victim tactic where you fantasized about being handcuffed and beaten. Always the martyr. You make it easy for readers to understand where you’re coming from. Ashley Hayworth-Roberts has a large collection of such rants which he has collected from various YEC forums, so he can probably identify the taxonomy.

    Yet, we do congratulate you for an unexpected accomplishment: you managed to post a comment without using the word “crap”. Perhaps you will be able to sustain that record just as you’ve managed to repeatedly post without providing a single substantive argument or evidence for the “creation science” you endorse.

    As to Dr. Barnabas’ question to you about your claim that nothing on earth was subject to death prior to Adam’s sin, why bother to complain about it? Remo, we know and you know that you will never answer it–because it underscores the absurdity of all of your claims.

    P.S. Ashley, is Remo Wilson an alias for Cowboy Bob? I’m seeing a lot of similarities. But you have much more experience in dealing with him, so I defer to your judgment. (Was it Cowboy Bob who accused you of being Professor Tertius?)

    • Remo Wilson

      //P.S. Ashley, is Remo Wilson an alias for Cowboy Bob? I’m seeing a lot of similarities. But you have much more experience in dealing with him, so I defer to your judgment. (Was it Cowboy Bob who accused you of being Professor Tertius?)//

      Keep making up your own facts and believing them, “DOCTOR”. LOL!

      • Dr. Barnabas

        There are over 1.5 million professors currently employed in the USA. How many of them consider “creation scientists” to be “fake scientists”?

        How many of those “creation scientists” are respected in an academic field relevant to the origins debate?

        Meanwhile, none of the young earth, evolution deniers can answer my question:
        If there was no death prior to Adam’s sin, as Ken Ham claims, why have a Tree of Life which produces fruit to prevent death? Why have a solution for death when death does not exist?

        They all remain silent. YECism is all about adolescent games and whining. Never answers. Thus, the irony of Ken Ham’s quack-fest. There’s plenty of answers in the Book of Genesis, but Ken Ham refuses to listen to any of them.

  13. peg

    @ Dr. Barnabas

    “Yes, sometimes individuals may lack the brains that would allow them to make sense of what God has revealed to them.”

    As an atheist/agnostic I could get angry at that opinion. I won’t. I will attempt to explain how i arrived at my label. (I hate labels). 41 years ago after many attempts to read the bible, I quit. It never made any sense and was full of contradictions. I sought after other spiritual ideologies, I found a book called Seven Arrows. Great book, it was about the plains indians beliefs, it made a lot of sense to me. Realizing that there are many religions and beliefs I have never settled on one being, The One. I am unconcerned with The One, except that we are all human beings, we share the same emotions and flaws. Some of us are more educated and rational. Which is why I am attracted to this blog.

    I don’t think it is necessary to make sense of what you think A god is. Science will continue on, without inserting religion into it.

    • Thank you, Peg, for such a very courteous, interesting, and personal response to Barnabas. It goes a long way towards encouraging better understanding of one another. Of course, for me, with my religious studies background, whenever someone shares their “life journey”, personal philosophy, loss of beliefs, or whatever circumstance(s) they may describe, I’m fascinated and eager to know what they’ve learned along the way.

      And I’m also interested in observing and understanding how we human beings communicate in such topics. This website and any other dealing with origins is a ripe environment for conflict and clashes. I always try to be very careful when I dare speak on someone else’s behalf, but I think I know enough about Dr. Barnabas [from his posts under that username on other forums and I may even recognize him as a former student of mine] to explain where he was most likely coming from when he wrote the sentence in question:

      Yes, sometimes individuals may lack the brains that would allow them to make sense of what God has revealed to them.

      I don’t know if you have read much of the “debate” between Dr. Barnabas and Remo Williams but when I look at the context, Dr. Barnabas was replying to Remo’s insult that Professor Tertius and/or Dr. Barnabas had scat for brains. Because Remo has been angrily defending an infamous Young Earth Creationism activist (Cowboy Bob Sorensen) and the origins ministries which I’ve deplored and rebuked, Dr. Barnabas made the rational assumption, based on Remo’s posts here and on other forums, that Remo holds to fundamentalist doctrines common among Young Earth Creationists (even if he happens to be an Old Earth Creationist, Gapper, or whatever.) Thus, I read and understood Dr. Barnabas’ very blunt statement (quoted above) as a very specific rebuke for a specific person that was meant to expose the irony of Remo’s position. Yes, he did generalize it to others, but he’s generalize it to “clueless creationists” and the irony of their own inconsistencies.

      After all, fundamentalist creationists so often tell us that their position is superior because (1) they are the privileged children of God, the Creator, (2) therefore, they have an inside track on all truth. (3) God promised them wisdom if they simply ask their father for it; (4) And sometimes they tell me that they have a built-in “falsehood detector” because the Holy Spirit lives in them, and even when I explain the real science to them that they don’t understand, their “detection system” gives them binary answers which trump all others: “wise” versus “foolish” or “of God” or “of Satan” and thereby dismiss me as “foolish” and “of Satan”.

      They have lots of Bible proof-texts that they rely upon for these debate-ending advantages but here’s a typical one:

      Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth… — John 16:13

      Of course, if they read their Bibles carefully they would discover that the contexts are not speaking of “truth in general”, as in quantum physics, genomics, and cell physiology, but refer to particular kinds of theological insight which Jesus said would be available to his followers once the Holy Spirit had come into the world. Creationists often have to be reminded that no matter how well they know God and no matter how much wisdom they may ask for and get, none of those advantages of their knowing the Bible and knowing God and asking for wisdom necessarily puts them in a knowledgeable position as an instant five Ph.D. scientist whereby they can tell paleontologists, comparative anatomists, biochemists, geologist, and physicists of the international academy what they got wrong!

      With all this in mind, it provides a backdrop to the immediate context of Dr. Barnabas’ statement, both before and after. The prior sentence exhorts Remo to SEE the answers in God’s creation and God’s scriptures. Because fundamentalist Christians believe God is the “author” of both the Bible and the Universe (i.e., Creation), Barnabas is chiding Remo for ignoring the answers so easily seen in the universe and the fact that they also fit into what the Bible says. (Of course, for the Bible’s harmony with that science, I can help them out.)

      Barnabas is saying to Remo & creationists much like him that the origins issues they are debating/fighting about are easy to resolve if one looks to the evidence all around us. Everywhere we look we see evolutionary processes at work and The Theory of Evolution so marvelously explains them. And anyone wondering about the age of the universe can get an answer just as easily. The evidence all around us answers that question.

      Therefore, Dr. Barnabas, in my opinion–and I’m very confident in that opinion because his viewpoint sounds similar to mine–is saying that the answers about the realities of evolution and billions of years of the history of the universe is clearly a matter of simply being willing to “see” those answers in creation. [I realize that the word-choices can be irritating and off putting to non-Christians but when one Christian is talking to another Christian as in this case, the word “creation” is often used instead of “universe”. If you substitute “universe” for “creation” in such sentences, they take on a different tone.]

      I can certainly see how Christian to Christian dialogues that depends upon “in house” presuppositions and the classic characteristics of the often stereotypical conversations becomes very irritating and even offensive when brought to the general public. So I’m going to take the original offensive statement here:

      Yes, sometimes individuals may lack the brains that would allow them to make sense of what God has revealed to them.

      ….and expand it to fit the specific context of a debate between two Christians earlier on this thread: one who appears to be defending Young Earth Creationists [even if he is an OEC, Gapper, or some other creationist position] and the other being an evangelical Christian who accepts and affirms evolutionary science and billions of years. Here is the expanded, clarifying version of the controversial statement:

      “Yes, Remo, sometimes creationists like you, despite their much touted inside track with the Creator and inflated claims about being able to ask for wisdom from the Creator at any time and getting all of the answers, they lack the common sense to get the answers from what God created that is right in front of their noses: the universe. Thus, to see the fact of evolutionary processes, they only need to LOOK at the evidence around us. To see the billions of years of earth history, just LOOK at the evidence around us.”

      Notice that the statement was NOT about chiding non-Christians for failing to see the evidence for God. It was a typical case of conflict between two kinds of Christians:

      1) One who sees God as the Author/Creator of both the Universe and the Bible and therefore sees the Creation (the Universe) as a wondrous treasury of answers about biological life and the history of the world and the things in it….. versus…….

      2) One who sees God as the author of both but doesn’t think the universe is a trustworthy source of answers because fallible humans err in interpreting it–but somehow those same fallible humans can interpret the scriptures inherently and inerrantly! This also means that this kind of Christian thinks he can confidently rebuke and correct the “materialist” scientists [such a silly goose bungling of the history of science] because the science he imagines he’s found in the Bible always trumps the data right in front of our eyes as we look at the universe.

      Peg, Remo and the description in #2 above represents the kind of person the Bible.and.Science.Forum wants to correct and educate before Remo et al do any more damage to public policy and science education in this country–and before they destroy any more of the credibility of Christ-followers in general and the Bible in particular. Indeed, the “creation science” movement has done tremendous damage to the public’s understanding of the Bible and what Christians stand for. So-called “militant Young Earth Creationism” has produced obstacles and obfuscations which simply didn’t exist six+ decades ago.

      {This topic is continued on the next comment.}

    • I can speak from experience about the negative changes “creation science” has brought . Back in 1960, I could describe myself as a born-again, Protestant, Bible-affirming Christ-follower and the conversation could continue from there. Yet today, thanks to the clown car of millionaire, origins mega-ministry entrepreneurs (Ken “Were you there?” Ham, Ray “Banana Man” Comfort, Kirk “I’m with Banana-Man” Cameron, Chuck “Peanut Butter Jar Debunks Evolution” Missler, Eric “I Debunk All 7 Kinds of Evolution” Hovind, Kent “Out on Parole” Hovind, and so many more), I have to explain what I’m not.

      I have to explain that even though I’m a devout born-again, Protestant, Bible-affirming Christ-follower:

      1) I’m not a raving idiot when it comes to science–and I don’t fabricate nonsense like the pretending that “observational science” is reliable and “historical science” isn’t because I know that only Young Earth Creationist ministries push that nonsense, not actual science textbooks used in universities.

      2) I’m not a denier of the FACT that The Theory of Evolution is so well supported by so many quantities and kinds of overwhelming evidence such that it is among the very best supported theories in all of science!

      3) I’m not at all upset about the total lack of geologic evidence for a global flood because the Hebrew Bible says that the ERETZ (“land”, “country”, “region) would be flooded and the Psalmist says that God promised to not repeat the flooding of the ERETZ which had occurred earlier in geohistory. Thus, the Bible itself makes clear that Noah’s flood was NOT global. (Yes, that’s why those who insist there was a global flood can’t find any evidence for it, can’t identity which layers contain the flood’s debris, and cannot explain the beautifully consistent ordering of the fossil remains in the geological column.

      4) I’m not at all unhappy about the geologic column because it is such a useful guide to “reading” the earth’s history and the history of life–and the Bible says nothing to contradict it.

      5) I’m not silly enough to think that fallible man’s interpretation of of the scientific evidence all around us is hopelessly flawed and unreliable while thinking that fallible man’s interpretation of the Bible is perfectly inerrant. And if the scientific evidence I see in God’s Creation (i.e., the universe) doesn’t harmonize with the scriptural evidence I see in the Bible, I assume that my interpretation/understanding of one or the other or BOTH is flawed.
      Many Young Earth Creationists think themselves the only perfect interpreters of the scriptures. I’m an Ex-YEC and I know better than that.

      6) If I want to know HOW and WHEN God created the universe and everything within it, I consult the science textbooks and the peer-reviewed papers of the academy. They study the evidence and can tell me what they’ve figured out and explained so far. It doesn’t bother me that many scientists believe in God and many scientists do not because both follow the evidence where it leads. Many Young Earth Creationists today are certain that scientists wake up every morning, bow to Satan three times, and chant: “What can I do to today to use science to make more atheists and to torment Young Earth Creationists.” (Brethren, it’s time to get over yourself! Most scientists know very little of your protests and your bombastic claims and the simply never give you any thought. No, the academy is not some world-wide conspiracy of atheism. Again, get over yourselves.)

      7) I get lots of emails and comments on various forums where I’m called what they consider the ultimate insult: “You are a friends with atheists.” I take that as a compliment. I have no doubt that Jesus were online today, he’d be a friend of atheists. Jesus applied his condemnations and greatest anger for one group: the Pharisees. I believe that Pharisees still exist today. And theists and atheists can differ about theology while also looking at the same universe and agreeing: “All of this is quite interesting!” That’s what science encourages.

      8) Because I’m a Christ-follower, I believe truth is important. That means I follow the evidence where it leads. The Statements of Faith of all of the major Young Earth Creationist ministries specifically state that they will not necessarily follow the evidence where it leads. They state that all that evidence must be trumped by anything they recorded in their founding documents when their ministries began–and therefore must reflect the thoughts and positions of their founder(s) at the time they started. (AIG staff had better hope that Ken Ham was inerrant at the time of its founding. Unfortunately, the Creation Museum–which even conflicts with their own webpage entitled “Young Earth Evidence One Should Not Use”–demonstrates that Ken Ham wasn’t inerrant at the time, so pseudo-science and nonsense abounds. My favorite is the hyper-speed evolution which produced every species of cats, horses, antelope, monkey, and finch in a 200 year period. Where is that in the Bible? No worries, it came from Ken Ham’s brain–as did the single Ice Age that was associated with the flood. And he says the BEHEMOTH in Job 40 was a sauropod dinosaur living contemporaneously with people even though the Hebrew text easily debunks his silly claim.

      9) The Bible says that “the waters” and “the land” will BRING FORTH “living creatures”. Scientists call that abiogenesis: biological life from non-living ingredients. Again in Genesis 2:7: humans come from the dust of the ground. That’s abiogenesis: biological life from non-living ingredients. Genesis 2:7 leaves out all of the steps between the dust and the people but anyway you look at it, that’s abiogenesis: life from the non-living ingredients of the earth’s crust, the chemical elements. No conflict there between the Bible and Science. Abiogenesis also explains what we eat. Every day we eat food a product, ultimately, of dirt. And thus says the scriptures of humans and all other life: from the dust we came and to the dust we shall return. No need for conflict. The Bible and Science agree: abiogenesis got us here. Whether or not God was involved need not lessen our interest in the science. So, take a chill pill, Young Earth Creationists!

      10) Nothing in the Bible conflicts or contradicts The Theory of Evolution. And the evidence in the biosphere tells us the story of millions of years of evolution. Whether or not someone thinks that God was involved, we can all look at the piles and piles of evidence for evolution–including the newest evidence coming from genome mapping–and we see our evolutionary history written out in every cell of our bodies! Whether or not someone thinks that God was involved, both theists and atheists and everybody in between can agree on this: evolutionary processes are downright amazing! There’s nothing to fight about! Evolution is incredibly powerful when it comes to diversifying life on earth.

      The compelling explanatory powers of the evidence is something we can all agree on! I happen to think that evolutionary processes are the most stupendous wonders of God’s creation. Lots of atheists think that evolutionary processes are the most stupendous wonders of the universe. What’s so bad about that? Yes, the fields of philosophy and theology inevitably produce disagreement and conflict. But anyone who understands how the scientific method works should be willing to say, “Science is one area in which we should all agree.” Unfortunately, some people can’t seem to figure out what science is–and some knowingly try to force their theology and philosophy into science in hope that thereby they might gain prestige for their philosophical propaganda and pseudo-science. (Yes, I’m talking about you, Stephen Meyer and the entire Dishonesty Institute.)

      That’s what I have to explain nowadays when someone hears that I’m a Christian. Young Earth Creationism has become the crazy-uncle who-lives-in-the-attic but keeps getting loose and convincing many that Christians are illogical, science-ignorant loons.
      To the Young Earth Creationists reading this comment, I leave this important assignment: Investigate the meaning of consilience in science.

      Once you understand consilience, remove all of the dishonest claims of “circular reasoning” you wrongly think supports radiometric dating and the geologic column. Biologos has an excellent chart showing the other dating methods used to confirm the accuracy of such dating.

    • Dr. Barnabas

      My sincere apologies, Peg. Professor Tertius explained my context right on. I was continuing a discussion with Remo. He and creationists like Ken Ham pretend they have all of the “Answers in Genesis” figured out even when totally IGNORING the answers right in front of their faces in this world we live in. That’s what I meant. If they weren’t so blind they would see evolutionary processes at work. They would see the evidence for billions of years. They would see quite clearly the history of the earth and life on earth right in front of their two eyes. They so often speak of God showing them things but fail to see the universe itself as the ultimate showing of things.

      They also get backwards what is easy to see (scientific evidence) and difficult to interpret (the many views Christians have about Genesis 1 & 2.)

      • As far as it looks to me, it seems that those who claim to follow the Bible literally despite the scientific evidence are not unvarying in that. My example is geocentrism.

        Yes indeed.

        And as you know from reading my posts for a long time (on the SC blog and here) that I don’t even like the term “literal” all that much because there are not only multiple, hard-to-pin-down meanings but YEC denialists tend to pick and choose when and how to read/interpret literally, as TomS points out with the geocentrism example. (For any new readers who are not so familiar with this “selective literalism”, Young Earth Creationists often rebuke other Christians for not interpreting the Bible as literally as they do, yet when people point out examples of their non-literalism, YECs usually respond with “Of course we interpret that passage non-literally because it is obvious to the honest reader that it that passage is meant to be taken non-literally.” Then they point to a parable of Jesus where the text includes an introduction that identifies the passage as a parable.)

        Several thoughts come to mind, TomSk, probably lots of ’em because I’m on new medication. So enjoy the ride! [Don’t know if anybody else will enjoy the ride but when I’m all dosed up, my brain does a direct download to my keyboard. I always have problems with typos when typing fast but various drugs appear to greatly increase the number of homonym substitutions, both the expected ones (there/their, its/it’s, where/wear, etc.) and the unexpected (pace/place, would/world/word, clot/lot, seaside/peptide.) If I had Emeritus status at the university where I had my first appointment, divided between three departments, were I was expected to train the linguistics department doctoral candidates on research tools/methodologies, I’d assign them questions I’ve collected over a lifetime. It was a great experience for this 20-something at the time because even though I was well qualified to do my job with them, almost every single one of them was a far more talented, trained, and experienced linguist than the young Professor Tertius. [Actually, I was still a lowly Lecturer Tertius on a semester-by-semester contract.] Anyway, my reason for yet another tangent is that if I were helping that group of doctoral candidates today, I’d assign them lots of stylometry assignments to pursue my hypotheses about how/whether an analysis of our types of typos can tell us anything about our backgrounds, experiences, HOW WE LEARNED THE LANGUAGE, BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN, and whether such stylometry testing at the elementary school level could diagnose various “learning obstacles/bottlenecks” and change them before they become permanent.

        [[Some students in public schools in the USA learn to read PHONETICALLY, others learn various “whole word at a time” methodologies. My hunch is that the two groups “map” their brains slightly differently with different “routes” of information storage–and these “routes” and “storage schemes” soon become permanent. Each group may be more prone to various types of misspellings (and even misapplication, e.g., its/it’s) which might also affect information recall. Perhaps many “learning disabilities” are due to the brain starting a storage schema that is not the best choice. Perhaps we need to do MRI studies before, during, and after those years of learning to evaluate learning success. ANYWAY, whenever my haste or new medications spawns lots of typos, I think of a missed opportunity. There was an elementary school basically operated by the School of Education of that state-university campus. So grad students had lots of “test subjects” available to them, both at the elementary school level and with typical undergrads. Not only did some grants underwrite $5 payments to undergrad volunteers for outwrite payment, departments like Psychology and Sociology often required students taking Psych 101 & 102 to volunteer at no pay for at least two studies/surveys during those courses. Students were usually quite happy with the requirement because of the educational aspects and because some studies were quite fun or interesting.]]

        Some YECs quite proudly remain literal even with the geocentrism in the Bible by saying that the earth is not the center of our solar system but that the entire universe is in motion in such a way that all of those complex movements (the movement of our solar system within the Milky Way galaxy, the movement of our galaxy among else, etc.) move around a “stationary earth”. I’m probably not describing this well, but imagine building an electric desktop model of our solar system in motion. When that is done, the builder usually makes the sun the stationary, unmoving center of the model and the sun also has little wire “prongs” jutting out from the sun with a little “ball” representing a planet at the end of each wire. And because each planet has its own distance from the sun, orbital speed, and sometimes a deviation from the usual “orbital plane”, the motors and gears moving the planets and somehow hidden (as much as possible) in the big ball representing the son, the son’s “centrality” is undeniably obvious.

        Now, put yourself in the position of pre-Copernican astronomers trying to understand the motions of the heavenly bodies apparently orbiting the earth while being frustrated by the cycles and epicycles that naturally arise when one’s vantage place of observation easily fools the observer. Now also imagine making an electric model of our solar system as observed from earth. So even though the model-builder understands the Copernican heliocentric planetary system, the assignment is to put the earth in the center. Frankly, when I try to imagine the engineering demands of such a model [where one has to simulate the cycles and epicycles the astronomers of centuries past had to include in their mathematical models in order to make their calculations fit future observations], I get a headache! YET, IT GETS WORSE: Some truly geocentric-YECs insist on earth being at the center of the entire universe–so the model-builder’s engineering becomes dreadfully tedious and complex. One must exhibit the movements of individual galaxies and the brightest stores in an expanding universe while preserving the earth-based reference point as fixed.Yet, that is the kind of model which they would demand if they were building a Geocentrist Creation Museum.

        I used to ponder such an “maximally” geocentric universe and wondered: Does “centrism” even make sense in an expanding universe where picking one point of reference over another is a question way beyond my paygrade? Yet, when astronomers view the universe around us from planet earth, we observer the universe from the only point of reference we’ve ever had. (Yes, we have telescopes and “snapshots” from spacecrafts elsewhere in our solar system–and in the process of eventually leaving it–but in the grand perspective of the total cosmos, those points of reference/observation aren’t so radically different than observing the universe from earth.)

        Thus, a model builder could indeed work very hard and build that “ultimate” geocentric universe model where the earth is stationary as the central reference point. Yet, I had wondered if scientists had a way to know if our “observed geocentrality” could be confirmed to be ACTUAL centrality as some creationists claimed.

        As I thought about it (within the limitations of my having very little background in astrophysics and the cosmology demanded by an expanding space-time Big Bang universe), I had only a very basic grasp of the relativity issues. After all, even my relative ignorance [the accidental pun is potentially relevant] includes my telephone ringing. It comes from “an impartial bystander looking at the expanding universe from outside of it” –which obviously makes no sense. To speak of an observer “outside of the universe”, the phrase and the imagined situation makes no sense even allegorically. There are no “places” outside the space-time reality we know as our universe. And even if there were, no photons could leave the universe–such a photon would bring the universe with it?!–so no outside observation of any kind would seem possible. Yet, that surely does not mean that determining the center of our universe–and whether our spot is “it”–would be impossible.

        Thankfully, I didn’t have to ponder “Can physicists debunk Ultimate Geocentrism: Is planet earth at the very center of the entire universe? for too long. I can’t recall the experiment explained in a Youtube video which demolished any hope of salvaging the creationist Ultimate Geocentrism, and I probably couldn’t understand the astrophysics involved without some serious physics review. Yet, the video soundly destroyed the wishful thinking of Young Earth Creationists longing for a “You can’t prove me wrong/You can’t say that it isn’t possible.”

        Frankly, that is a major reason for this tangent (and the BSF blog in general!): Identifying a ubiquitous creationist tactic.

        Most YECist leaders/activists (and fundamentalists in general) hate losing such a handy and powerful [in their minds] Ace card. Denialists love ambiguity and the unknown. So with geocentrism, they lost that centricity on the “local level” of our own heliocentric planetary system due to the work of Copernicus et al. Fortunately for YECists, right as their fundamentalist movement ancestors of the early 20th century were recruiting Bible-troops and preparing their doctrinal marching orders for the theological battles against “liberalism” in the church, scientists were realizing that there is a whole universe out there that’s not a part of our own Milky Way galaxy. With almost every new discovery that answers an important question, new scientific mysteries needing answers come along for the ride. Propagandists of every stripe [e.g., climate change denialists as well as evolution & old earth denialists] exploit newly discovered ambiguities. And some Young Earth Creationists saw an opportunity to revive the universe was created with mankind’s home, planet earth, at its center. In the 1920’s and after, the general public gradually realized that there was a huge and complex universe beyond the Milky Way. So it set the stage for more of this “Ultimate Geocentrism” among second-tier Young Earth Creationist ministries.

        Astronomers discovered hundreds of galaxies, then thousands of galaxies, and then millions! With the Hubble Telescope observing from outside of our annoying atmosphere, it has catalogued [depending on how you define the term] around 100 billion galaxies and scientists anticipate at least 100 billion more from Hubble in the future. I’ve not tried to ascertain an upper limit but apparently over 500 billion are expected by credible sources. [My casual search result is exactly that and shouldn’t be relied upon.] It’s easy to see why some fundamentalists decided it was a good time to revive geocentrism.

        Imagine how enterprising “creation science” speakers trying to make their entrepreneurial way up the ladder in a very competitive origins industry could spin new discoveries by real scientists into one more point in a sermon outline. They realized that to compete with the major corporate players in the denialist business, they had to look for ways to distinguish themselves and not just recycle the original YEC arguments from the Morris, Whitcomb, & Gish in the 1960’s. So, as the 20th century brought breathtaking photographs of galactic wonders, fundamentalist preachers could speak of billions of galaxies and easily convince gullible audiences that the sheer numbers alone made it impossible for puny man to organize them into a final , “grand star map” (galaxie map)– and where planet earth stands out in the very center with its bright blue oceans and bright green vegetation–something seen nowhere else. (The message was “Only earth is suitable as the home of God’s children.”) They could confidently tell their “creation weekend” conference audiences that:

        We who are faithful Bible readers, the children of God, have known all along that planet earth is at the very center of the universe: both geographically/spatially and also safely in the center of God’s loving hand. It took many centuries for the secular world and materialist atheist scientists to catch up to what the Bible said all along. Everything around us was built for us as children of the King. And we will have all eternity with our new bodies to explore its wonders.

        Lofty but erroneous. Sometimes they forget that the present universe and earth will be destroyed by fire. So any exploring will have to be in the New Heaven and the New Earth. Oh, well. It sounds great either way.


        • Remo Wilson

          // I was continuing a discussion with Remo. He and creationists like Ken Ham pretend they have all of the “Answers in Genesis” figured out even when totally IGNORING the answers right in front of their faces in this world we live in. //

          Liar. You weren’t continuing a discussion with me, you were talking about everything that I WASN’T talking about. There’s a fancy word for putting words in people’s mouths, but anyway, I know you’re just being a jerk and looking for excuses to whine.

          • Remo, have you ever considered posting something substantive here? How about addressing the question of why there would be a Tree of Life with fruits that serve as an antidote for death when the world at that time allegedly had no biological death at all?

            Or you could simply address the blog article on any give page.

            Saito has added a General Discussion/Comment/Questions page as well. So anything not related to a blog essay may be posted there instead.

  14. TomS

    As far as it looks to me, it seems that those who claim to follow the Bible literally despite the scientific evidence are not unvarying in that. My example is geocentrism. The Bible has been read as saying that the Sun moves around a fixed Earth, without exception, up until the rise of modern science. Yet the great majority of today’s YECs do not follow the plain reading of the Bible, but accept what today’s scientists tell them about the Earth’s motion in the Solar System. (I dare to suggest that few can claim to have examined the evidence for the heliocentrism for themselves: How do they know? Have they been there?) This contrasts with the insistence on a particular interpretation of the Bible, one which has not been universally followed over the history of the church. The proof texts for fixity of species (or “kinds”) are quite sparse, and the chronology of creation is ambiguous. (And, I dare to suggest, the scientific evidence to the contrary is quite accessible to the general public. It is much more than fossils.)

    • So ends my stream-of-consciousness response to Tom’s excellent comments. Apparently I took a few rides around the block just to go next door in response to Tom’s comments but I enjoyed the pharmaceutical support.

      [All legally by the doctor’s prescription, mind you, but I’m told that my boost of energy and racing mind is a verified side-effect in large studies but quantifying at only 0.63 of 1% of the subjects. In actual fact, perhaps it is 100% among aged dinosaurs who procrastinate finishing a tedious reference book project and who are baffled and fascinated by the antics of denialist Young Earth Creationists ]

      Meanwhile, it’s……..Better living through chemistry!
      [Please: by prescription only]

      I post this advice to any newcomer to our BSF reader community: Some posts merit careful reading, some invite skimming until you find a topic of interest, but all are dedicated to these observations and worthy goals:

      1) You don’t have to be a science-illiterate, pharisaical, man-made traditions-bound, illogical and pathological liar to become a millionaire, mega-ministry, origins industry entrepreneur. (But it sure helps. A lot.)

      2) You don’t have to manufacture deceptive, misleading, dishonest quote-mines to be a “creation science” denialist of the massive piles of evidence for The Theory of Evolution and billions of years of earth’s history.

      (No, you can simply copy-and-paste it as is from other creationist websites. That’s what everybody else does.)

      Besides, you don’t have to manufacture that stuff because Ken Ham has “creation scientists” on his payroll to do exactly that. That’s why his “creation scientists” rarely have time to do any real scientific research that produces actual scientific discoveries. Next time you are at a “creation conference”, ask them what was the most significant scientific discovery of 2014 published by their “scientists”>

      3) We believe both atheists and theists–along with everybody else–can appreciate the wonders of the universe and have a good time learning more about it. Science isn’t theology and isn’t philosophy (at least, not since the 1700’s or so.) So there’s nothing to fight about. Therefore, there is no reason why Christians and non-Christians can’t look at evolutionary processes and the histories stored in the genomes and the fossil record and agree: Evolution is absolutely amazing!

      Professor Tertius gets lots of hate-email which calls him “A friend to atheists.” Thank you. I appreciate the compliment–but I try my best to be a friend to everybody. So welcome to the BSF blog. If you would like to discuss your theological or scientific arguments against The Theory of Evolution, you are welcomed to do so.

  15. TomS

    I chose the example of geocentrism for several reasons.
    1. The fact is that before the rise of modern science it was generally accepted that the geocentric passages in the Bible were meant to say that the Sun made a daily circuit of the Earth and the Earth did not move. One cannot claim that those passages were obviously meant figuratively. Galileo did not have an authority to cite in his defense – if only he had one! No, it is not obvious that Biblical geocentrism is only a figure of speech.
    One can argue, after the science of heliocentrism, that one ought to read the geocentic passages figuratively only, but without the hard work of Copernicus and others, one would never come to that understanding of the Bible. It isn’t obvious.
    2. The best argument for the heliocentric model of the Solar System is this:
    Nothing in astronomy makes sense except in the light of heliocentrism. It is really beyond the means of anyone who is not at least a dedicated amateur astronomer to see evidence for the orbital motion of the Earth. A persistent geocentrist can make the argument: “How do you know? Were you there?” It is not only events which are remote in time which are not accessible to “direct observation and repetition”, but also those remote in space.

    • Excellent point. When I was in grad school, a professor known for being a leader scholar on Biblical inerrancy doctrine used to say with a special smile: “Inerrancy doesn’t have to mean what fundamentalists assume. It can also–and indeed has, in the course of Christian history–mean that the Bible is without error in communicating what it was meant to communicate. Thus, the culture from which it comes held particular beliefs, and those are “inerrantly” recorded so that we today can know what they believed, even when those things were scientifically wrong. So he would accommodate what you said about geocentrism just fine. In other words, the Bible accurately records the erroneous geocentrism of that culture.

      Of course, to see it as “erroneous” in a scientific sense is anachronistic (an error fundamentalist are quite addicted to.) But this also helps make sense out of Genesis 1 and 2. They weren’t scientific or detailed histories. There were two oral stories, probably a “poetic hymn” in the case of Genesis 1, complete with choruses (“and the evening and the morning…..”) Those types of oral stories focused on one purpose, just like most others from the ancient world no matter what the culture. And in the case of Genesis 1, the sole purpose was emphasizing their monotheism and national devotion to YHWH ELOHIM.

      And because that’s the purpose of Genesis 1, I’d say that it is inerrantly recorded and communicates its message just fine. (Those who aren’t accustomed to these topics will probably assume that’s all tongue in cheek—but it’s really not. The ancients had agendas quite different from ours.)

      Likewise, Ken Ham obsesses on isolated verses and passages like his BEHEMOTH is a sauropod claims on Job 40. But if he actually paid attention to the structure of the book, it is a very philosophical discourse where much of the book is indicting man’s speculations about the purpose of life and it is not until the last chapters where God speaks that the book communicates its primary purposes. So a reader can’t assume that everything stated by every character in the book is a scientific or historical truism.

      I think if the ancients could watch a Kent Hovind or Ken Ham video explaining various scriptures, they laugh their heads off and ask how the intelligence of civilization could collapse so drastically.

  16. Too bad the fundamentalists et al can’t see the beauty of “YHWH is powerful enough to create an entire world in a single work-week.” That’s really what Genesis 1 is about. And the author made a 3+3 chiasmic structure to arrange the days according to his purposes, not according to some historical order of creation. Numbering the days doesn’t even make them chronological, any more than chapters in some books don’t have to be chronological. (e.g., The novel EXODUS. Many of the chapters gives a flashback history of a character while other push the story forward. The chapters are numbered but they don’t communicate a strict chronology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s