This kind of smarmy, ignorant, childish appeal to what science-ignorant donors want to hear…

…hardly needs extensive commentary. So I will simply provide the link along with the final sentence from Dr. Danny Faulkner at Answers in Genesis:

“The continued hype about water and possible life on Mars is all wishful thinking of evolutionists desperate for some evidence that the evolution of life has occurred somewhere.”

The title of this article is Mars Water: Much Ado About Very Little.

Yes, what AIG calls “hype” and “wishful thinking” is just “desperation.” The rest of us call it science. Perhaps if Dr. Faulkner could beg his boss, Ken Ham, to spare a few bucks headed for building a Noah’s Ark which will never float and will never be like the floating warehouse described in Genesis. Just think: If he could get a few bucks diverted into scientific research, he might begin to understand what real scientists do. They observe the universe, collect evidence, and try to understand how things work.

No, Danny, it’s not all about “desperation” and “wishful thinking”. That’s what you fellows at AIG are doing. In fact, you can do that all you want.

Just don’t blame it on the Bible.

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “This kind of smarmy, ignorant, childish appeal to what science-ignorant donors want to hear…

  1. I guess posting such pathetic tosh (this and the even worse comment on Ken Ham’s Facebook page flagging Faulkner’s drivel and NOT flagging the actual NASA research) must make Ham and co feel better. Bashing scientists with false scepticism or with Bible verses – their almost full-time occupation.

  2. DIDN’T Ham also say that Dinosaurs can’t have Feathers since they were Dragons? I always did ee this as silly. Dinosaurs could have Feathers and still Evolution could be false, but they love the Dragon argument. The rela laugh is that Dragons in ancient ore sometimes had Feathers but Ham and crew seem to think “Dragon” means “SCaley skinned reptile”.

    At least Ham is better than Hovind. That, however, is damning with faint praise.

  3. Yes, Young Earth Creationists do love their dragons. That’s why I love to throw them off by saying: “Don’t you think it is more likely than the ancients saw the fossilized skeletons of ancient dinosaurs and, from their own experience with the animals they used for food, realized that they were looking at the remains of animals which had once lived and died in that area? Isn’t that a much more logical conclusion then defying all of the evidence and assuming that dinosaurs lived alongside humans?” I have explained to them that the griffin is yet another “artists reconstruction” based on the fossilized bones. You should see the fear in their eyes. They won’t admit it, but they realize that that makes so much sense.

    • The biggest problem is that, if you don’t use the KJV, or maybe some older Bibles people tend not to use anyway like the Geneva or Coverdale, then the Dragons dissapear from the Bible anyway. The RSV, ASV, ESV, and pretty well all modern Bibles talk about the even more elusive Animals like Hyenas, Jackels, and WIld Oxen. Like Unicorns, Satyrs, and COckatrices, the KJV, produced in the 17th Century, by ENglishmen who, no matter how Brilliant had no way of knowing what words would mean 200 Years later and in some cases no idea what African and Near Eastern animals actually were.

      The pountis, Dragons, like Unicorns, aren’t in modern Bible Translatons and dn’t really feature in the Hebrew originals. Creationists have to effectively become KJVOnlyists. SOme. like Hovind, are admittedly KJV Only, but others aren’t yet still use Arguments that only work if you use the KJV, at least in terms of readily available Translations, and ignore the fact that words have changed meaning or that sometiems the KJVTranslators didn’t know what a speciifc word meant due to simple Ignorance.

      I grew up on, and still use the KJV myself, but I am not going to kid myself about its limitations. I don’t think its littered with errors as some of its critics do, but its not written in Modern English and its Translators were still unaware of some things. In fact, even some Modern Versions ar eunaware of some things.

  4. Remo

    // Creationists have to effectively become KJVOnlyists. //

    Go to the big name creation sites like CMI, AIG, Piltdown Superman, NW Creation, others. Show me where they rely on KJV. ICR had old Henry Morris into KJVO but they use NKVJ themselves mostly, now. Eric Hovind says he prefers KVJ but doesn’t insist that its the one true bible

    • I thinlk you missed my point. Ken Ham says he is not a KJV Only Advocate, but he does say that when you see Dragons mentioned in the Bible, it’s really a reference to Dinosaurs.

      The problwm with this is, the Passages don’t actually say Dragons on modern Versions.

      Look at Isaiah 34:13. First in the KJV.

      And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.

      Now in the NRSV.

      Thorns shall grow over its strongholds,
      nettles and thistles in its fortresses.
      It shall be the haunt of jackals,
      an abode for ostriches.

      You can’t mak the arument about Dragons without thw KJV.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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