Creationist Criticizes Atheists for Assuming Something is Wrong ‘No Matter What Evidence is Before Them’

I know the Creation Museum’s Ken Ham is an easy punching bag for reality-based websites, but this is just pure gold.

Look at how he criticizes atheists for offering an opinion on an upcoming 3-D movie about the Book of Genesis before they’ve seen it:

As we have come to expect from most atheists, they are already against a message before they even see and hear it! That’s because they have decided that no matter what evidence is before them and no matter what someone argues, if it has its basis in the Bible, it’s wrong regardless!

They’re ignoring the evidence no matter what it says!… says the man who doesn’t give a single damn about the mountains of data supporting evolution.

He whines on:

… if Christians use the latest technology to produce first-class museum exhibits and a startling movie to teach people the truth of God’s Word, well, that’s not OK for atheists because they have already decided Christianity is false.

“That’s not OK”? I don’t recall a single atheist — including the one he cited in his piece — saying they were boycotting or trying to put a stop to the movie. He quoted American Atheists’ Dave Silverman saying that Christians do flashy things like this to imply validity to their beliefs. That’s it.

But if Ham wants to cast a light on those who criticize something before ever seeing it, he might want to check out his own archives. Here’s Ham just last week criticizing those who join “atheist churches” — which he knows nothing about:

… why would atheists do such a thing? If there’s no God, what’s the point? If when you die that’s the end of you and you won’t ever know you even existed, then why bother with starting a church? Why would atheists like these be so active in such a meaningless project?

He then said atheists were joining the Sunday Assembly because they secretly believed in God.

Look, I don’t have a problem with criticizing bad ideas. You don’t need to see a movie promoting Creationism before saying Creationism is false. You only need to see it if you want to say the movie itself was bad.

All of that escaped Ham. Not that you’re surprised. He added, though, that Silverman’s critique didn’t really even matter:

… why should an atheist like Silverman even care anyway? After all, within 100 years, according to Silverman’s atheist religion he will cease to exist when he dies! If that’s so, he will never know he did exist — so why care? As I’ve said many times, atheists do care because their heart is crying out that there is a God!

So atheists should not care about anything ever because we’re mortal.

Logic 101 coming from the man who thinks the only implausible thing about Jurassic Park is the actual idea of the Jurassic.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • David

    Out of curiosity has there ever been a good movie based on a bad book.

    • Bdole

      I actually liked the “Dreamcatcher” movie more than the book.

      • Heidi McClure

        I’d like watching my shoes more than that book. And I usually enjoy King.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Hey, there’s a good one. The movie ending actually made more sense IIRC. Plus, y’know, Jason Lee.

    • Spuddie

      The Godfather
      Ordinary People
      The Graduate
      Anything based on a Mickey Spillane novel
      Jaws
      Any version of Dracula

      • aurorahigh303

        I loved Jaws! It was my summer beach book before the cover fell apart ;)

        • Spuddie

          The whole Ms. Brody and Hooper affair thing killed it for me.

          IMO Richard Dreyfus’s take on Hooper was so much better than the book.

          • aurorahigh303

            I will agree with you about Dreyfus’s Hooper, I think he really brought the character to life. And the sex scenes were terribly written, but since it’s not central to the story, it was easy to put aside and focus on other things. The affair didn’t bother me that much.

            • Spuddie

              Fair enough.

      • Eliot Parulidae

        Dr. Strangelove and Psycho were both based on forgettable thrillers.

        I would also add The Ice Storm. The movie was an eerie work of art, while the book was tawdry and pointless.

        • Spuddie

          The only time the book Psycho is ever mentioned is when Robert Bloch writes anything else. He always puts (author of Psycho) after his name on the cover of a book.

    • Bitter Lizard

      The Ten Cummandments 8: Christ Will Cum Again wasn’t bad, but the book was terrible.

      • Spuddie

        There were so many unanswered questions from the first 7 installments.

        • Bitter Lizard

          Don’t get me started on the prequels. So much unnecessary CGI.

    • Brian Westley

      A friend of mine read “Being There” after we saw the Peter Sellers movie. The movie was great, he thought the book was awful.

      • Bitter Lizard

        I’ve read the book and your friend is right.

    • islandbrewer

      Last of the Mohicans.

      There, I said it. While I appreciate the value of 18th century American literature, I find it nearly all unreadable. I appreciate the stories and all, and the historical context, but the writing at that time would today put them in the trash pile in an editor’s office.

      • Pofarmer

        Reading Last of the Mohicans was WORK, but I thought it was worth it. Actually read it twice. Once in high school and once before seeing the movie.

        • islandbrewer

          The stories James Fenimore Cooper created were great. I know why so many people like him. He’s just a bad writer. Today, in the 21st century, we’ve become used to really good writing. Good writers are, frankly, pretty common, now.

          • Pofarmer

            Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on now. Are you implying that things are better now than in the distant past? That we might be more literate and actually read and write more than our ancestors did? MIght we even have slightly better moral standards and a better standard of life? Heresy!!!

      • Mogg

        Last of the Mohicans holds the unique title of being the only book I have ever given up on by the second page. The Scarlet Letter I quit halfway through and just skimmed to make sure the crashingly obvious conclusion was what I thought it was.

    • Nancy Shrew

      Stand by Me. It’s not that the novella was bad, per se, the movie was just better by miles.

    • raerants

      I’m not saying it was good, but on a relative scale, Twilight the movie was better than Twilight the book.

  • baal

    Changing the medium doesn’t change the validity of the content.

    If I serve you rotted food, it hardly matters if it’s on a plate, in a doggy bag (to go), or delivered by a scantily Chantilly clad waitperson. Ken’s somewhat implying that the plain text content of the bible is inferior to the 3D movie version of the same.

    • alconnolly

      I think the Chantilly clad waitperson might make the rotten food better.

    • Spuddie

      Its virtually impossible to make a bad film based on an Elmore Leonard novel or Tennessee Williams play.

      It can be done, but it usually requires extra effort.

    • islandbrewer

      Hey, folks totally pay for ambiance in restaurants.

  • Heidi McClure

    There goes Hammy again, polishing turds.

    • chickentikka25

      I think, it’s more that he’s sprinkling this one with glitter ;)

  • Frazzah

    “The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge” – Answers In Genesis

    Yes please tell me more about how I’m the one not willing to change according to evidence…

    • Derrik Pates

      But see, his evidence is really better than yours!

      For reasons. That he’s not going to get into. But it’s still way better.

  • Michaela Samuels

    Already decided Christianity is false? Is that wrong? Like, your opinion is only valid if you’re inconclusive or agree with it.

  • rustygh

    Well you guys can be all nice if you want to but I agree with him and he got this correct. “if it has its basis in the Bible, it’s wrong regardless!”

    • Warren Senders

      Plenty of literary allusions have their basis in the bible, and I’m cool with that.

  • Marisa Totten

    If cognitive dissonance caused physical pain, I bet fewer people would suffer from it and we’d have a mountain of drugs to treat it.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Hahaha!

      Or if it caused blemishes or impotence. There’d be even more drugs with that last one than with pain.

      • Marisa Totten

        Oh, you are so right!

  • Claire

    I love the bizarre logic of that last quote. He’s basically saying we shouldn’t care about what happens in our lifetimes because we won’t live to see the consequences. That’s some selfish thinking right there, Ken.

    • Andrew Bufalo

      I was thinking the very same thing.

  • Spuddie

    The “best” movie about the Creation story
    http://www.1000misspenthours.com/reviews/…/adamandevevsthecannibals.htm‎
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF49SctSfLs‎

    Best meaning, its an overripe piece of streaming crap. But it at least it has low budget Italian rip-off factory lack of pretension.

    • islandbrewer

      Holy crap! That was awesome! (…ly bad!)

      • Spuddie

        I owe Santo of 1000misspenthours.com for calling my attention to that film.

        Shameless plug. But there are some B-movie review websites I absolutely adore.

  • Fentwin

    I once read some books by a fellow who goes by the name of Tolkein. Many years later these books were used as the basis for a flashy, special effects laden movie;
    TLOTR trilogy must be true! You can not argue the facts! Stop persecuting me!

    • http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/ Christian Kemp

      Some people actually genuinely do believe the TLOTR is some kind of spiritual guide book. Its mental but true.

      • Fentwin

        hehe
        For spiritual guidance I look to Yosemite Sam or on certian days Early Cuyler.

        • TashaG

          I follow the one true god. Taz! LOL

      • Vee

        And probably more moral.

    • Zac Main

      Trilogy?
      You poor poor peasant.
      Our Lord Tolkien wrote far more than a trilogy!

      • Fentwin

        hehe :)

        A peasant perhaps, yet how many of Tolkien’s other works have been made into a movie (counting the Hobbit)?

        • Zac Main

          4…although the Hobbit film is incomplete.
          And due to the fact that his other works aren’t really capable of being made into films…although they hold promise: Case in point: Children of Hurin (which I own).
          Peasant.

          • chickentikka25

            Oh no. You two are actually arguing over who is the saddest. Zac Main, you win. Have 5 internets. Moving on.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              Actually, going out of one’s way to deride other peoples’ geek interests and lacking the self-awareness to see the silliness of your own interests is DEFINITELY the saddest. It’s meta-sad.

            • Fentwin

              lol
              Its a one sided “argument” then as I will bow out in the face of non-sequitur nerd rage. :)

          • Fentwin

            If I were to ever wonder what a hybrid between Data, Spock and Sheldon would be like I will now have a baseline from which to start, thank you.

            • Spuddie

              The question is not whether such a hybrid would be possible. the real question is why someone would want to do it in the first place?

            • Zac Main

              You sir, are most welcome.

          • Spuddie

            “4…although the Hobbit film is incomplete.”

            Unless you want to count the made for TV one in the 70′s by Rankin-Bass.

            • Zac Main

              Very true sir. Thank you for correcting me.

        • Clan:Rewired_CCW

          The Tolkien estate holds the copyrights to the other works and they guard them with their lives. Tolkien the elder sold the rights to tLotR and the Hobbit for cheaps in the ’70′s or thereabout. The movies that were produced since then have been hated deeply by the estate, and primarily his son Christopher Tolkien. This is the main reason that only tLotR and The Hobbit have been brought into production. But a case could be made that the other works are too unfinished and not self-contained enough to be made into (successful) films.

          • Zac Main

            “But a case could be made that the other works are too unfinished and not self-contained enough to be made into (successful) films.”
            Very true.
            Although the others are essentially Tolkien’s unfinished notes.

  • the moother

    Love the way they had to put the glasses under the “3D” logo just to make sure their hick audience knew it was one of those newfangled shows where the pictures come out at you…

    • trj

      Either that or they wanted to impress upon us how intellectual the movie is.

    • allein

      Am I the only one who has no desire to see every movie in 3D? I already wear glasses…I don’t need another pair.

      • storm

        Nope. I don’t care about this 3D crap at all. It makes me feel nauseous when I try to watch it. Plus, those glasses are uncomfortable as hell.

      • Peter K

        Yeah, I agree. Can’t see the point in 3D, even if they get rid of the sodding glasses (so I don’t have to wear an extremely uncomfortable 2nd pair). I will wait for totally immersive holographic TV before I bite…

      • ZeldasCrown

        I can’t even see 3-D because there’s a large difference in my vision between my two eyes. Depending upon the quality of the picture, I either see a crappy looking 2-D film or a double image the entire time. There seems to be significantly fewer 3-D movies coming out compared to a few years ago (although that could just seem to be because I haven’t been to the theater in a while, and there’s actually the same amount), which I’m glad. There are too many people who can’t see 3D or who get headaches or nausea while trying to watch it.

        • RawrIHavePi

          The popularity of 3D correlates with the reduction of movie goers. In other words, when sales are down, more 3D movies come out.

        • Neartmhor

          Yep- I have the same problem. My right eye never quite focused properly, something barely noticeable to me when looking with both eyes (although peripheral vision on my right side certainly isn’t great). I can’t do 3d though

  • Acleron

    Believers have a totally different dictionary than the rest of us. To people like Ham evidence is not something that is verifiable or reproducible. His definition is that just believing is evidence if not proof in itself. By completely avoiding the correct meaning, his statements make sense to him and his followers. But it just goes to show that when the translation mechanism is faulty, gobbledygook results.

    • TCC

      No. It’s not “faith” to have concluded something based on evidence. Even if that’s what you think your faith is, that’s simply not how the word is used.

      • baal

        I think your playing word games again but there is every reason to expect the sun to rise tomorrow, in a week and in a year from now. We could figure out a way to blow up the sun or the earth in the mean time but based on what we know, there is no reason to expect the system to grind to a halt tomorrow. Given what we scientifically know about gravity and the nuclear furnace that is the sun, they aren’t stopping anytime soon.

        I also have it on good authority that Phaethon is still fit and the sun swallowing serpent’s sore throat has resolved.

      • islandbrewer

        Given the physical principles that appear to be operating and the current vectors of our sun and planets, and seeing no obvious impediment to their current vectors, it’s a safe assumption to say, Yes, we’re pretty certain.”

        No, not with an absolute certain, but the degree of uncertainty is negligible to the point of being practically ignored.

        But I don’t suppose an insurance salesman would really think in those terms.

        Note: That actually was an ad hominem, Joseph! Note that there was no profanity. Are you starting to get how to use the term, now?

      • Kodie

        I know for a fact it will not.

      • TCC

        I have a justified true belief based on past evidence, yes.

  • ORAXX

    How does one argue with people who don’t even begin comprehend the extent of their own ignorance?

    • Gerry Mooney

      that’s the central problem.

    • John Herling

      Be as well-informed as you can make yourself so that you can give them some measure of education.

  • A3Kr0n

    Science Reality isn’t decided by how awesome your museum is, or how startling a movie you can make.

    • David Kopp

      s/Science/Reality.

      But I agree.

      • A3Kr0n

        Thanks. I changed it.

  • Itsrealfunnythat

    Theists swear like atheists are just waiting to pounce on them and steal their souls.

  • Rain

    I always did love his exclamation points, lol.

    As we have come to expect from most atheists, they are already against a message before they even see and hear it!

    Skippy doo-daw!

    That’s because they have decided that no matter what evidence is before them and no matter what someone argues, if it has its basis in the Bible, it’s wrong regardless!

    Yippee ki-yay ding dong!

  • Greg G.

    Do we need to see Ham’s movie? Will there be anything anything in it that is not a PRATT?

  • busterggi

    I’m putting his film n my must-see list right below Battefield Earth.

  • Justin

    Wait, is that a round earth? That’s not what the bible says!

    • Mario Strada

      It’s pictured top down. Otherwise, it’s no thicker than pizza.

      • islandbrewer

        New York or Chicago pizza?

        • Deus Otiosus

          It would have to be deep-dish. A thin crust wouldn’t leave room for Satan to bury the fake fossils that trick us into thinking evolution is true.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            But if it wasn’t thin-crust, it wouldn’t be so easy to fold and make mountains from and fuck I just invoked science in a thread about Ken Ham talking I’ll go sit in the corner

            • Deus Otiosus

              No, no. It’s fine to invoke science. As long as it seems to support your foregone conclusions.

    • RobMcCune

      ח֣וּג
      can actually mean either circle or sphere, since that is the issue in question providing a translation made in modern times does nothing to prove your point.

      • RobMcCune

        It’s ambiguous and could just as easily say that the earth is flat, which it probably meant.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Google the Courtier’s Reply to learn why you look like a moron.

          • islandbrewer

            Please familiarize yourself with what ad hominem actually means.

            “A moron like you wouldn’t understand that you’re not answering the question,” is an ad hominem.

            “You are not answering the question, moron,” is an observation coupled with an insult.

            Get them straight.

            Edit: And please look up the Courtier’s reply. That’s what you’re doing. It’s not an answer. You’re being kind of duplicitous. Aaaaand you’re a moron. (That’s not an ad hominem.)

            • islandbrewer

              That, you failed to say. I can’t be blamed for your ignorance of the terms you so blithely bandy about. Congratulations on your purchase of a new thesaurus!

              Contumely is far more grown up, when appropriate, than dishonesty.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM

            • islandbrewer

              And you’re still resorting to a Courtier’s reply.

              Stop it.

              And do read up on your debate terms and fallacies, again. It makes your tiresome arguments all the more tiresome when we have to hold your hand and explain it to you.

        • RobMcCune

          Ya got me, I ran through several Hebrew to English dictionaries online where ‘circle’ was the most common, and and sphere rarely appeared. I suppose I’ll just have to accept a post hoc reinterpretation of a passage describing how god is really, really big is actually about the geometry of the earth.

          • RobMcCune

            You insisting that it proves the bible claims the earth is round based on an ambiguous word, please pay attention.

            • RobMcCune

              Actually most dictionaries say circle, please pay attention.

              • RobMcCune

                It’s far less common. Besides in either case it contradicts a biblical verse by some guy called Isaiah who claimed the earth had four corners.

                וְנָשָׂא נֵס לַגּוֹיִם, וְאָסַף נִדְחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּנְפֻצוֹת יְהוּדָה יְקַבֵּץ, מֵאַרְבַּע כַּנְפוֹת הָאָרֶץ. – Isaiah 11:12

                Was he referring to a tetrahedron? Or was god revealing contradictory information to this very important prophet?

                • RobMcCune

                  i. They say both, what’s your basis for deciding between the two?

                  ii. I’m aware of them, why should I believe a passage saying the earth is square or tetrahedron is a literary trope while another passage is not?

                • RobMcCune

                  Ok, then what about Isaiah suggests he meant sphere instead of circle? And if Isaiah 40:22 is to be taken literally then we can also conclude that god is floating several hundred feet in the air, which is the height from which humans would look like locus, some short distance above this is the top of the sky which functions as a tent.

                  ii. Common sense.

                  Common sense of course means modern knowledge, which means your interpretation of the passage is a matter of convenience. Common sense as you mean it also means that Isiah 40:22 can’t be taken literally since planes fly well above the distance where individual people can be seen, and that altitude is far far below the sun, moon and stars.

                • islandbrewer

                  What scientific truth? That the earth might be a circle or a sphere, maybe …ish?

                  Wow. There’s a pretty low standard for those fucking amanuenses, isn’t there?

                • RobMcCune

                  i. You’re using circular reasoning to deny that the passage says circle.

                  i.a. If the passage is meant literally then it is wrong about the scale of the universe, thus Isaiah doesn’t know any special scientific truths.

                  ii. Presuming god never lied then interpreting the bible to make it true is begging the question.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  i. Yes you are.
                  i.a. Yes it does. The word you assume to mean sphere is “chug” in the original Hebrew scripture. It is used several times to describe something round and flat, as drawn using a compass.

                  Take Is. 29:3 as an example. Will you argue that the solider camped in a “sphere” around the city?

                  In Sir. 43:12 the word is used to describe a rainbow.

                  FYI, there is a word describing something round like a ball; “Dur”. As in Is 22:18

                  ii. I can see how you could conclude that given that you’ve never read the Bible three times in full. Me, on the other hand … let’s just say I’m coming at this from a more competent position.

                • RobMcCune

                  i. Then explain why it means sphere instead of circle.

                  i.a. Then explain why I should only take 2 words of the passage as literal truth, and consider the rest poetic license.

                  ii. You’re asking me to believe you just because.

                • Andy_Schueler

                  God authored the Bible.

                  [JoPolancoMode] Argumentum assertio. Prove your claim. [/JoPolancoMode]

                • Andy_Schueler

                  Thanks for admitting that your copy-pasted BS is pure assertion backed up by nothing of substance.

                • Andy_Schueler

                  Joseph Copypasta Polanco, long time no see! What do you think how long it will take until you get banned on this blog as well because people don´t appreciate your mad Ctr+C – Ctr+V skillz?

  • TiltedHorizon

    “That’s because they have decided that no matter what evidence is before them and no matter what someone argues, if it has its basis in the Bible, it’s wrong regardless! ”

    That’s because I insist that *all* evidence all be evaluated, tested, and qualified before accepting it and forming a conclusion. Whereas creationist only consider facts that support their already formed conclusions.

  • FookedonHonix

    One of the endorsers says, “This will show biblical truth in an excellent way. We are raising the bar!” -Alex Kendrick, Director of Fireproof and Courageous.

    Interesting he says “biblical truth” instead of just “truth.”

  • Abdiel

    I hope for a day when people like Ham go to jail for crimes against science for spreading fallacious ideologies as science.

    • DavidMHart

      Tempting as it might be to wish this, bad ideas have to be countered with better ideas, not judicial persecution of those who promote beliefs that happen to be false. After all, what you are proposing is no different to what actually is happening to outspoken atheists in several Muslim-majority countries, and what actually used to happen to people under Christian-dominated legal systems back when they had the power to jail people for disgreeing with the prevailing orthodoxy.

    • Matt D

      If history was a highway, jailing (or worse) people with “bad ideas” is clearly full of potholes.

      Not only does it make the victims more popular, but it reinforces their expectations (and their followers), that they are “persecuted” for their faith. This solution also fails to take into account many discouraging factors, such as what to do about the family and friends (and followers) of the victim, who will retaliate, even if it takes them generations.

    • Spuddie

      Tax evasion will do nicely in its stead.

      • Derrik Pates

        Worked for Al Capone.

  • Karl Goldsmith

    Surely the first few days you are not going to see anything other than a black screen, with no sun. And how the hell do you explain how long a day is without a sun? Or his god going to pull some light out of his arse for day one.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      In 3D, no less.

      “It’s like the lights are really off!”

  • diogeneslamp0

    There’s something about Ham that’s just not kosher.

    • TnkAgn

      (Rim Shot)

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      And that’s not even counting his well-known piglet fetish. Hey, don’t ask me, ask Google!

    • Matt D

      *laugh* Thanks for that.

    • diogeneslamp0

      If anybody would like more creationism & science-related jokes, my Twiitter feed is devoted only to one-liners about science vs. creationism, & nothing else (no biographical details). DiogenesLamp0 @ Twitter.

  • jdm8

    Hey! It’s flashy It must be true!

  • Kengi

    Didn’t I see this movie already in 2D with William Shatner and Ricardo Montalban?

    “Khaaaannnn!!!”

  • DougI

    Creationists spend millions on movies and museums to promote their myth, but not a dime spent on any actual scientific research to validate their claims. I guess that’s because creationists like Ken Ham really know their myths are complete bunk.

    • Glasofruix

      Since it’s all in the bible, no research is required.

  • SeekerLancer

    “if Christians use the latest technology to produce first-class museum exhibits and a startling movie to teach people the truth of God’s Word, well, that’s not OK for atheists because they have already decided Christianity is false.”

    Putting a mannequin next to a dinosaur statue doesn’t count as evidence that man once lived with dinosaurs, Ken.

  • eric

    Um, this isn’t evidence, it’s a movie. Evidence is a reproducible experiment, published in a peer review journal, which supports a testable creationist hypothesis and would run counter to an evolutionary one..

    • islandbrewer

      Demonstrably, then, your contention with and distaste for the notion of God’s existence is not evidentiary but purely philosophical.

      Absolute bullshit.

      If it’s demonstrable that my rejection of the existence of any god is not evidentiary, then demonstrate it. You’ve merely made an unsubstantiated assertion. No demonstration at all.

      Back up your bald assertion around here. As they say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If my claim is that there’s no evidence for a god, and you claim that a giant invisible sky fairy cares about whether I’m gay or not, you’d better have some extraordinary evidence to show that my claim is not evidentiary.

      And yes, given the Null Hypothesis in this case, the burden is on you.

      • islandbrewer

        Ask and you shall receive: [apologetics tripe which doesn't demonstrate anything]

        Ha.

        No.

        I’ve lost count of the cosmological “proofs” of the existence of any gods or giant invisible creators that I’ve read. Apologists are constantly whining “Read mine! Read mine! Mine is proof!” And I read them. They’re (to put it diplomatically) overwhelmingly unconvincing. Yours is one the more poorly written ones, sorry.

        Try to describe the crux of your argument in a few paragraphs. If you can’t do that convincingly, if you can’t do that without dazzling people with secondary references and failing to actually recite an argument, then you either don’t really understand your argument, or don’t entirely believe it.

        By the way, you get “bonus apologist points” for calling Hawking’s and Krauss’ description of matter and a physical description of a lack of matter as “mendacious.” So, in which Physics Department are you faculty, may I ask? Have any papers in theoretical physics you’d care to cite?

        • islandbrewer

          Ohhh, you’re one of those who’ve only debated on Twitter

          Now you’re being dismissive because I’m requiring you plainly state your argument and not disguise it. That’s much closer to an ad hominem than me simply calling you a “mendacious asshole.”

          i. Why is there anything instead of nothing?

          We don’t know, but thanks to theoretical physicists, we now have some reasonable hypotheses as opposed to folklore.

          ii. How were various Bible amanuensis able to regularly predict specific future events dozens even hundreds of years in advance with pinpoint accuracy?

          Trick question. They haven’t.

          *Honk* Next.

          Edit: You’re also acting like a mendacious asshole.

          • islandbrewer

            Please familiarize yourself with what ad hominem actually means.

            “A mendacious asshole like you wouldn’t understand that you’re not answering the question,” is an ad hominem.

            “You are not answering the question, mendacious asshole,” is an observation coupled with an insult.

            Get them straight.

            You never said you don’t respond to mere insults.

          • Spuddie

            How about you just respond to the criticism of the arguments you are posting?

            Don’t seem to be big on that. Its just cut&paste and take offense as people tear you a new one.

            Never mind that your arguments are much older than you think and rely entirely on special pleading and assumption. Just blather, rinse, repeat.

      • islandbrewer

        And I’ve also just noted that you failed to answer the question I asked, and instead conflated “your contention with and distaste for the notion of God’s existence is not evidentiary” with “I have ‘evidence’ for the existence of God.”

        But that’s kind of splitting hairs.

  • Kodie

    What kind of dope is listening to this guy? Atheists are denying genesis is true without even seeing our new movie!

  • Rich Rodgers

    I don’t think this gets enough ire for his ham-fisted attempts at skirting reality (see what I did there?). He’s often the also ran of the creationist whack-a-loon crowd. But he’s every bit as nonsensical as the Hovinds (just a little less used car salesman and bit more biblical throw back neck beardy) or Rex and Gary, Comfort/ Cameron connection. He just keeps on going, but his lack of salesmanship is apparently also noticeable in his business ventures.

  • http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/ Christian Kemp

    Ken Ham really needs to look in the mirror and see the three fingers pointing back at him when he points that finger of criticism. Like Hemant said, he has been shown the evidence of evolution multiple times and he has been told what an atheist is multiple times. Yet he still does not listen and show any respect.

  • Esquilax

    “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. ” – Answers in Genesis statement of faith.

    So, the guy who has this proudly posted on his website is shaming other people about coming to conclusions regardless of the evidence? What a hypocritical piece of shit.

  • Miranda Flemming

    updating from ink on scrolls to movie with computer generated effects (which would have never been dreamed of in biblical days) doesn’t make it more true or real

    • islandbrewer

      Yeah, but … 3D.

      3D

      Three Dees – count ‘em! That’s gotta make it true, right?

      • https://twitter.com/MetroIssuesLou Metro Issues :: Louisville

        I’d rather see double D’s, and I’m gay.

  • Ann Onymous

    So I mustn’t criticize the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn until I have read every word and watched every frame of related content?

  • Peter K

    I almost pity him, but he’s such an odious moron, I find it impossible to do so. Does he really think that just because it’s in 3D more people will be convinced by his awful so-called truth? Tosser.

  • Luke Richardson

    “…if Christians use the latest technology to produce first-class museum
    exhibits and a startling movie to teach people the truth of God’s Word,
    well, that’s not OK for atheists because they have already decided Christianity is false.”

    If we change a few words, we get what creationists have been doing forever:

    “…if scientists use the latest technology to produce first-class museum
    exhibits and a startling movie to teach people the truth of evolution,
    well, that’s not OK for fundie Christians because they have already decided evolution is false.”

    See how that works, Ken?

  • Joshua Barrett

    liked that closing line LOL

  • islandbrewer

    I always get a kick out of YEC depictions of dinosaurs. They mimic the modern paleontologists’ rendering of the various species almost exactly, all the time oblivious to the science that made such rendering possible, and wholly rejecting the majority of science that lets paleontologists discover and study dinosaurs.

    “I’ll take that nifty Quetzalcoatlus for my film, but please don’t try to teach me any of the science that made it’s depiction possible.”

    • Derrik Pates

      They like the things that science gives them, but not the questions science asks. I think that was recently said in a movie. :)

  • MKW

    3D – Check
    Shallow Characters – Check

    Crappy Plot – Check
    Story ripped off from somewhere else with cosmetic changes – Check
    Imaginary science and beings – Check

    Does James Cameron know they’re remaking Avatar?

    • islandbrewer

      Actually, Avatar didn’t exactly rip off the story, per se (although it’s a pretty generic plot theme common in lots of stories). If Cameron actually did rip off a story from some sort of … whatsiscalled … book, written by one of those … um … professional writers, it would have been better.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Wait, which movie are we talking about here? Was it The Last Samuravatar, or Dances With Aliens?

        • Spuddie

          I think it was either Little Big Alien or An Avatar named Horse.

  • tsig

    Are those 3-D glasses rose colored?

    • Nancy Shrew

      More like those goggles that simulate drunkenness.

  • Jon

    lol of course they had to put dinosaurs on the picture

  • https://twitter.com/MetroIssuesLou Metro Issues :: Louisville

    I think my rational skepticism (a superset of atheism) can readily withstand all the “evidence” Ham wishes to present. Still waiting on the first bit of that, er, evidence. We rational skeptics are extremely open-minded to FACTS as well as the unfathomable beauty of the cosmos. But if you want us to believe in something in particular, you have to make the RATIONAL case for it. Ham and his ilk are obviously incapable of this. No religious person can do it – yet. So they should perhaps take this as a challenge. Prove your God.

    • Derrik Pates

      But if you just look around, the *evidence* for god is in everything! If you’d just open your eyes! Et voila, proof.

      (Note: the above is sarcasm on my part.)

    • islandbrewer

      You seem to not understand what science is. Science is a methodology by which we can discover facts. While often refer to the facts as “scientific facts,” they are merely facts. Things that are not verifiable by any methodology or documentation really shouldn’t be referred to as facts.

      For example, it is a fact that the planet Earth orbits in an path which can reasonably be described as elliptical with a focus somewhere within the sun. It is a fact that humans and bonobos share a common ancestor and diverged, as evidenced by sequence analysis and fossil records, between 5 and 7 million years ago. It cannot be said to be a fact that a giant invisible man in the sky makes stuff poof into existence and doesn’t approve of gay people.

      • islandbrewer

        Wow, you cut and paste the same response! Congratulations!

        It doesn’t get more right each time you post it.

      • TCC

        You do realize that the latter two questions deal with values, not facts, right?

        • islandbrewer

          Nope, he does not.

        • islandbrewer

          What about genocide? Is genocide objectively morally evil? Is it a “fact” that genocide is evil?

          • Spuddie

            It certainly wasn’t a “fact” among various “god fearing people”. In fact genocide is encouraged in the Bible.

            Most acts of genocide were done by people on behalf of their version of God against people who had a different version of God.

            • islandbrewer

              Yeah, I wanted to see if he’d fall for it and say that genocide was evil, and then do the “Ta Da, Jehovah is a fucking genocidal maniac” thing.

              He’s really obsessed with rape, however. It’s getting fucking disturbing to the point where he should just change his nym to “Rape Trigger Warning Joseph O Polanco.”

              • Spuddie

                I think the guy is a walking Amber Alert at this stage.

        • TCC

          Why, hello, strawman. Are you also in need of a brain?

          • islandbrewer

            You really don’t understand what a strawman is, do you?

          • TCC

            You might do better to spend less time assuming what people are saying and more time actually learning.

            • TCC

              Frankly, insulting your intelligence is a bit redundant, since your posts do a fine job of that on their own.

              If you want to understand where you went wrong, go back and re-read my point, which is that there’s a difference between facts and values. I did not make any statement about the latter being random (in your words, “a coin toss”) or a matter of “personal preference.”

              • TCC

                No, I stated that values are not facts, because they aren’t.

                • TCC

                  I’m not even sure what you’re asking, and the meanings I can guess you might intend don’t seem entirely relevant. Are you asking me what the opposite of a fact is (intending me to say something like “a falsehood”)? Are you trying to get me to say that values are a disjunct of facts with no intersection? It would be helpful if you would use language that is clear and not obfuscating.

                • TCC

                  As amusing as it is that you’re accusing me of sophistry (“Kettle to the white courtesy phone; a Mr. Pot is calling”), I have long ago ceased to be amused by your inanities and obfuscation. Goodbye.

  • Katerina

    Um, what on earth is he talking about? We WANT evidence. He cannot provide any, so that is the problem. Going by an old anthology of myths of old does not count as “evidence.” If that were the case, then the Quran is also true because it is also written myths of old.

    • islandbrewer

      Oooh, evidence…. Interesting …. aaaaand…

      no.

      Sorry, it’s our fault we weren’t clear. When we say evidence, we mean evidence in the scientific definition of the word, as they use in labs, peer reviewed science publications, etc.

      Not the apologists’ arguments from incredulity/ignorance/semantic legerdemain definition of “evidence” (which we refer to using the phrase “crap”).

      • islandbrewer

        I do believe what I wrote. And you’re being either deluded or duplicitous to say otherwise.

        What demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable[sic] evidence clearly establishes that Christopher Columbus landed in America in 1492 or that Yuri Gagarin was the very first man to ever journey to space?

        Documentation. Copious documentation and sufficient first-hand eyewitnesses and independent verification. That’s evidence.

        What demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there proving it’s wrong to rape a little girl to death?

        What demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there which proves you should treat others with dignity, respect and beneficence?

        None, because these are not facts as we actually define the term. These are reasonable judgments and values.

        A “value” is not a “fact.” Is it wrong to rape? Yes. It’s a “fact” that it is judged wrong by reasonable people, It’s a “fact” that anyone reasonable should find it wrong. But its wrongness is not a “fact,” but it’s it’s a judgement reached by seeing demonstrable harm (that part is a fact). We can say “it’s a fact that rape is wrong” as a linguistic shortcut, but it’s not entirely accurate. Try to get past that.

        Using the apologist trick of mixing up your terms is tiring and dishonest. Yes, anyone can easily “prove” I’m wrong simply by changing the definitions of terms to suit their whim, but it’s duplicitous and transparent.

        • islandbrewer

          i. But is it “evidence in the scientific definition of the word, as they use in labs, peer reviewed science publications, etc.”?

          Yup! You’re starting to catch on! And everyone else here says you’re a blithering idiot!

          ii. Seriously? The evil of raping a girl to death is not “a piece of information presented as having objective reality”?

          Correct, again! It’s a subjective determination based on values that in turn are based on objective and observable harm! The objective facts lead to a subjective and universally recognized judgment, so we shorthand that and call it a “fact,” but it’s not in the sense that we define “fact.”

          We can say “it’s a fact that, as universally adjudged by reasonable people, rape is wrong.” The “fact” refers to the objective observation that rape is universally declared wrong.

          It’s still every bit as wrong and evil, so you can’t go around screeching “Atheists think it’s ok to rape.” (I’m sure you want to.) It’s just not a fact the way we’re defining it.

          Edit: Get off the rape – it’s a trigger to many people, and you’re using that example because it’s notably provocative. Try your argument with theft, next time. That’s still wrong and evil, right? If not, maybe your argument relies too heavily on your example being an emotional trigger.

          • islandbrewer

            i. Really? How do you get repeatable scientific evidence from singular, non repeatable historical events?

            Evidence need not be repeatable, you’re confusing that with experimentation and results. (Eg, repeating an experiment properly should produce the same results.)

            ii. Interesting. Please elaborate how objective reality is actually subjective.

            Never said it was, you fucking mendacious asshole.

            I don’t respond to ad homs.

            Please familiarize yourself with what ad hominem actually means.

            “A mendacious asshole like you wouldn’t understand that you’re not answering the question,” is an ad hominem.

            “You are not answering the question, moron,” is an observation coupled with an insult.

            Get them straight.

            You never said you don’t respond to mere insults.

      • Spuddie

        “What demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there proving it’s wrong to rape a little girl to death?”

        We certainly can’t point to God for that. In all theocratic societies such activities usually get a pass. Especially if done by clergy, against non-believers/foreigners, or against family members. Living in a society ruled by God’s word actually enables such things. =)

    • Isaac

      Your personal anecdote, if it is even true in any way, is only evidence of your delusion and ignorance.

      • islandbrewer

        Maybe he understands it and finds it mockable.

        • islandbrewer

          Wait, are you incapable of following a single train of thought without derailing it with non sequiturs and insist on only being addressed by those to whom you posed the question simply because you don’t like the response I gave?

          You’re so totally mockable. (Still not an ad hominem.)

        • Kodie

          Not so smart, vocabulary-boy. Look up words “maybe” and “he”. You are showing your weaknesses.

        • islandbrewer

          Why does it matter whether I made the statement about your personal anecdote?

          Your dismissal of what I was saying was rather rude and contemptuous. Rather arrogant of you, too.

          I wish there was some obscure word that I could use to describe that, the use of which made me sound actually more contemptuous and arrogant, while making me think I’m erudite.

        • islandbrewer

          Off topic, but may as well mention it here. In honor of you, Joseph O Polanco, and your JoHo sensibilities, I’m going down to the Red Cross to donate blood, today.

          That blood (most common, A+, they’re always calling me to donate more) will be put into a stranger’s veins in order to save their life.

          It’s great! It’s one of the simplest most efficient ways to make a huge life saving impact on others’ lives.

          I encourage anyone and everyone who is capable of donating to do so, in your name, Joseph O Polanco.

          If you don’t like the Red Cross for whatever reason, there are hospital and University blood centers where you can donate, too.

    • Spuddie

      Rehashing arguments which were considered silly a century before Darwin was born.

      My suggestion is to read some David Hume. He deflates your bullshit with some very commonsense thinking on the subject.

      We cannot know of a God, of the infinite, because it is beyond our ability to perceive it. Everything we do is finite, everything we perceive is finite. Everything we know, is from our perceptions. To claim to know God exists is to pretend to see something you are incapable of seeing.

  • Gitte

    Why can’t atheists make comments about a movie about Genesis, I mean, what are they worried about? Spoilers?

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Man I wish you could have posted this a couple of days ago so it could get all the upvotes it deserves.

  • Peter Sorensen

    The funniest thing about creationism is that intellectual Christians like Frederick Copleston were light years ahead of this creationism nonsense in the late 1940s. The issue isn’t whether evolution is a true and observable natural process, it’s whether God is necessary. What people should be doing is approaching these kinds of issues philosophically. If God exists, I doubt that he’s a) a hateful tyrant, or b) even a being who requires emotion and worship.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X