In my final post of this week dedicated to Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, I want to focus, not on science or Ken Ham’s Twitter trolls, but specifically on the truly muddled and confusing way Answers in Genesis even presents the Bible itself. The Evangelical Dilemma with Genesis 1-11 and the Book of Revelation…
As we continue in our Answers in Genesis Week on my blog this week, in anticipation to the appearance of Ken Ham at the up and coming AiG conference in my town this weekend, I want to share a short article by Dr. Andrew Snelling, a contributor to the AiG enterprise. The February 2, 2016…
In my last post, I discussed Ken Ham’s recent comment regarding Neanderthals. Contrary to every single bit of scientific, genetic evidence, Ken Ham claimed—without any evidence whatsoever—that Neanderthals were simply human beings who dispersed after the Tower of Babel (circa 2250 BC according to AiG), whose genetic make-up mutated enough to give them a unique…
In the countdown to Ken Ham’s visit to my town next week, I am making a concentrated effort to write a few more posts on the claims that the folks at Answers in Genesis routinely make. Today, I want to comment on Ken Ham’s February 19th post about Neanderthals, entitled, “Neanderthals—Descendants of Adam.” Genomes and…
I’m not a fan of Jay-Z, but I feel the title just fit. (If you don’t know to what I’m referring, don’t worry. If you do, you owe to me to share this post on your Facebook and Twitter). In any case, next week, Ken Ham is going to be speaking at an Answers in…
In the past two posts, we’ve looked at Richard Dawkins’ attempt to discredit the five “proofs” for God’s existence that medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas came up with. We saw that instead of trying to even understand the actual arguments Aquinas was making, Dawkins chose to simply scoff and dismiss them. This tactic is actually surprisingly…
Yesterday, we looked at how Richard Dawkins failed to understand Thomas Aquinas’ first three “proofs” for the existence of God. Instead of even attempting to understand them, Dawkins simply dismissed them as “vacuous.” As we continue on with Aquinas’ final two “proofs,” we will see Dawkins’ dismissive reaction and inability to understand are on display…
“Proving” the existence of God in any rationalistic, scientific sense is going to be a futile endeavor. The reason why is, not because God doesn’t exist, but rather because He is ultimately beyond our limited rational capabilities, and is ultimately beyond nature. “Evidences” for God’s existence taken from the natural world, therefore, are always going…
Dawkins is Blinded by Science? Near the end of Dawkins’ second chapter in The God Delusion, he reveals what I believe to be a fundamental problem with his entire book: his inability to see the difference between science and religion. He states: “Why shouldn’t we comment on God, as scientists? Any why isn’t Russell’s teapot,…
In addition to criticizing both Judaism and Christianity, Richard Dawkins also takes the time to criticize Islam. Dawkins first correctly points out that Islam was spread by the sword from the very beginning. One may quibble about to what extent, and whether or not Islam is a religion of peace—that is not what I want…