Ken Ham Puts Up Anti-Atheist Billboards in Times Square and San Francisco

Answers in Genesis’ Ken Ham is taking a page from the atheist playbook and putting up some billboards of his own in San Francisco and Times Square to promote… Creationism? No, that’s not it… his museum? Not quite…

Actually, the billboards’ message pretty much boils down to: “Suck it, atheists.”

We decided on this billboard campaign that will last a month, with a cordial and engaging message: “To All Our Atheist Friends: Thank God You’re Wrong.” We trust this billboard campaign will give many of you an opportunity to witness to people — to proclaim the truth of God’s Word and the gospel.

I’ll give him this: He has the money to put the messages up in places where they will spur discussion. He might even get national media coverage.

Here’s the problem, though. When the kind of people who tend to live and work in San Francisco and Times Square visit Ham’s website to learn who’s “right,” they going to run into his version of Young Earth Creationism.

The conversations won’t be about why atheists are wrong. They’ll be about why Creationists are so deluded.

So enjoy the media attention while it lasts, Ken, because the aftertaste will be bitter.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • sam

    Gosh, if I found myself in agreement with someone who thinks dinosaurs lived with humans, I would be deeply worried. Thank goodness I’m not.

    • Coraulten

      You obviously never watched the Flintstones.

      • C Peterson

        Most of us watched the Flintstones. Only a few, like Ham, thought it was a documentary.

  • Frazzah

    I guess that’s one big difference between me and them. They really want a supernatural dictator to rule their lives.
    Even if it were true I don’t see any reason to thank such a monster.

  • http://lady-die.deviantart.com/ LizzyJessie

    To Ken Ham: Reality says you’re wrong.

  • C Peterson

    There’s a terrible flaw of logic here: he’s asking us to thank his god that we’re wrong? That’s the same god that intends to doom all of us to an eternity of suffering because we are wrong? I don’t think that god’s going to be getting any thanks from me!

    And on a personal note to Ham: don’t call me your friend!

    • baal

      Any time Ken Ham wants to meet with me to learn how he can assuage his guilt vis-a-vis Nyarlathotep*, I’m ready.

      *autocorrect wanted to change my original misspelling to ‘halfpennyworth’. Total wtf right there.

    • momtarkle

      He’s not my friend either, but I interpreted his message to be, “We believers thank our god that you atheists are wrong.” That makes it slightly less stupid, right?

      • C Peterson

        I don’t know. Is “idiotic” more or less stupid than “moronic”?

        • momtarkle

          To atheist up, I guess I’d label Ham as “ignorant”. Stupid, moronic, and idiotic imply inferior mental capacity and are not PC.

          Personally, I don’t mind when people call me stupid, or moronic, or idiotic because I’m pretty sure that I am not those.

          Want to wound me? Call me “silly”. That is probably true sometimes, even when I don’t know it.

          Don’t tell anybody.

          • Spuddie

            I wouldn’t consider him either. He knows what he is saying is bullcrap and making tons of money doing it. Ignorant people don’t Gish Gallop.

            If he was simply ignorant, he would be capable of being convinced otherwise. People pushing a nonsense position put out positions they know to be full of crap hoping one will stick.

            • momtarkle

              Enlightenment, from a Wiki site:

              The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as “starting 10 fires in 10 minutes.”

              The formal debating term for this is spreading.[1][2] It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren’t there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.

        • XCellKen

          More

    • Matt Bowyer

      Anyone who thinks I deserve eternal punishment just because I don’t worship their God is no friend of mine.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Don’t call me your ham, pal!

  • The Other Weirdo

    Oh, just let him do whatever he wants. Otherwise he’ll perspire and alarm the neighbourhood cats.

  • Art_Vandelay

    Creationism? No, that’s not it…

    Well, it’s promoting Genesis 1:1, which is about as creationisty as you get.

  • Kingasaurus

    Remember a while back when atheists and atheist arguments were basically invisible in America, and fundamentalists never felt that they had to spend any money on highly visible public relations to counter them?

    Yeah, well those days are over.

    • KMR

      I was having this very conversation yesterday with a good friend of mine who happens to be a progressive Christian. We both come from very fundamental backgrounds and have become the only liberal ones in our family. We remarked how “mean” our parents have become. She thinks it simply might be old age. I think it’s the climate of our country and that those who are conservative really feel under attack and also fearful of the changes that are taking place. Anyway it’s hard because literally every conversation we have with them is peppered with politics and rants against homosexuality. We could be talking about landscaping our yards and somehow it’s Obama’s fault that the ground is dry and we’re having a hard time digging. It’s also odd because they know we’re liberal and still feel it appropriate not only to dog our beliefs in front of us but also bring up Foxnews and whatnot to virtual strangers. It blows my mind although she seems to have more patience with it. I want to move where they can’t find me ;)

      • baal

        Faux news is training people to hate their familiy members via ODS*.

        *ODS, obama derangement syndrome, where literally every bad thing from how hard the ground is to your burnt toast is his and the commy leftists fault. Part of the syndrome is that it’s virtuous and you’re a good person if you point these bad things out to everyone – especially to those who give you push back or think you are nuts for saying it.

        • KMR

          LOL!!

        • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

          Oh look, another fake diagnosis from the LIEberal media. THANKS OBAMA

        • rhodent

          My father-in-law is a recovering sufferer of ODS, and we’re about to get a real-world experiment as to the cause in his case. A few years ago when he was living in Indianapolis, he was so bad he once literally turned someone sneezing into an opportunity to rant about Obama.* There are three things my wife and I think could have caused this level of derangement: 1) Fox News, which he watched upwards of twelve hours a day; 2) stress over his mom, who was in her 90s and in very poor health, 3) depression over missing his family (his children and grandchildren all lived near Raleigh NC). After his mom died he moved to Raleigh and didn’t bother to get cable/satellite/etc., and lo and behold he starting acting like a normal human being again.

          Now he’s talking about getting DirecTV. If he goes back to being Obama-deranged we’ll have good reason to think Fox News is the cause; if not, the stress or depression are more likely culprits.

          Given the fact that he’s now in town and we see him much more often, I’m really hoping the stress or the depression was the cause.

          * The person sneezed into the crook of her elbow, and my FIL sarcastically thanked her for “sneezing in the Obama-approved method.

          • KMR

            I had a moment of pride with my folks a few weeks back when I found they agreed with me on the whole going to war with Syria conundrum. I thought , “Hey look at that! We CAN find common ground somewhere and maybe this can be our new conversation of choice instead of how marriage equality makes Jesus mad.” But then my same progressive friend nicely pointed out that the only reason they didn’t want to go to war is because they hate Obama and will disagree with him on virtually everything even if he talks about the importance of wiping one’s rear after using the bathroom. Oh the disappointment….;)

          • Catgrin

            There’s a current Kickstarter campaign for a documentary on just that subject. Here’s the link.

            http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jensenko/the-brainwashing-of-my-dad-documentary

          • Baby_Raptor

            Apologies for the late comment, but I have some anecdata for your experiment.

            Roommate’s dad lives with us. He had a heart attack around the time the ACA was being debated, and was put on medical leave for 6 months. During those 6 months, he did nothing but sit around and watch TV, with Faux becoming more and more of what he watched.

            Before the Faux take-over, he was an independent, supported unions, judged candidates on their views and made an effort to get informed. Post-Faux, he’s a diehard Teahadist whose only sane view is that he thinks LGBTs should be able to marry.

        • Tainda

          One of my best friends has SEVERE ODS. To the point where she blames ALL federal and state taxes on Obama. Apparently before we never had taxes taken out of our paychecks. News to me!

      • Sherry Young

        I was on FB for awhile and my crazy Christian cousins in Ohio pretty much disowned me. No problem though because I’m in Colorado.

      • Raising_Rlyeh

        My dad is the same way. He knows that I am liberal, but every chance he gets he goes on about politics and pretty much has fox radio playing every time I am over.

      • Marisa Totten

        I think you are right. My BIL is atheist, and conservative, and he is one of the cruelest, most judgmental people I know. All the benefits of a fundamentalist belief system without the pesky god to bend knee to.

        • Possibly Dangerous Atheist

          Atheist and…conservative? And cruel and judgmental? That’s an unusual combination–you should assume your BIL is an anomaly among atheists. While many of us are outspoken (theists are too!) and we often get _frustrated_ by all the stupidity, most atheists I’ve met are very tolerant and non-judgmental. Ask yourself whether your BIL’s cruelty comes from him missing out on God or whether it’s an unrelated flaw in his personality–would he still be a mean person if he converted to some religion? I bet he would.

          As for the rest of your comment, keep misrepresenting it if you want but atheism is simply not a belief system (it’s non-belief, neutrality: what you get when you take away the belief system) and it makes little sense to call it “fundamentalism,” which is characterised by rigidity and strict adherence to something: I’d love to hear what you think atheism requires a strict adherence to. BTW, not believing you have to bend knee to a pesky god is pretty nice; you should try it.

          • Marisa Totten

            You missed the point. Religious influence or not, the conservative agenda – that others are beneath “me” because of: socio-economic status, gender or race – is on reliant up an individual’s ability to judge others as beneath him/herself. That is a trait which transcends religiosity. You are quite right, it’s a persoanlity flaw.

            Additionally, you seem to have pegged me as religious, which I can assure you I am not. I never suggested atheism to be a belief system, rather my point was quite the opposite, that one doesn’t NEED a belief system (religion) to be cruel and judgmental. In the case of my BIL, he quite nicely fits your definition of fundamentalist despite a lack of religion, as no amount of data or fact can dissuade him from certain political ideology he has maintained an almost religious-like adherence to most of his life. Indeed, this “belief” of his was given him by his parents.
            I’d love to hear you show me what I said that makes you think I said anything about atheism at all, except in reference to a lack of religion. I really don’t understand how you could have so completely missed the entire point of what I wrote, but if the flaw was in my conveyance then I’m willing to entertain that notion.
            Finally, I am an atheist. And have been my whole life, having had the pleasure of being raised by atheists. Trust me, I’ve never bended a knee except when I fell down.

            • Possibly Dangerous Atheist

              Sorry about that! I completely misinterpreted your comment; it appeared to me that you were attributing “all the benefits of a fundamentalist belief system” to atheism in general instead of to the exceptional position of your BIL, and then I went and essentially based my entire response on that misinterpretation. Armed with my misconception that you had called atheism a fundamentalist belief system, I indeed pegged you as religious right away.
              Thank you for clarifying your point, it’s a good one. I would like to complain that your comment was a little ambiguous, but still my fault for making assumptions. Have a nice day!

              • Marisa Totten

                I wish there was some sort of bowing smiliey I could insert here. Alas, I’ll just say “no worries!” and we’re friends again.

          • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

            I’d disagree about it being all that anomalous, based on social psychology work by Altemeyer. Atheists tend relatively low-RWA, so they tend not to be prejudiced from fear; however, SDO is uncorrelated, so prejudices from contempt tend neither more nor less than the overall population.

            It’s much less surprising when you remember that Ayn Rand was an atheist; and some Randite Capitalists seem pretty fundamentalist in their attitude towards her writings.

            Saying that atheism is “not a belief system” seems an oversimplification, and the sort that seems intended to minimize the impact of unpleasant information to help resist persuasion. (In technical jargon, a mix of Attitude Bolstering and Message Distortion.) While the term refers to a theological position of “non-belief”, it also therefore defines a class of “belief systems” that include that position — and the word is also used to refer to either. Furthermore, there are correlational clusters of the position, defining which of the “belief systems” that are atheist are most culturally prevalent. The predominant member of the class in the US appears to be “secular humanism”; however, the variation also encompasses Marxist Communism (presently nigh extinct in the US) and Randite Capitalism — which seems the second most prevalent strain of “belief system” for atheists, though the difficulty distinguishing its theist and atheist strains increases uncertainty considerably.

            You might find both Altemeyer’s (free) The Authoritarians and Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers (non-free, co-authored with Hunsberger) to be illuminating.

        • evodevo

          Same with mine – he and my sister are atheist, but politically CONSERVATIVE …. course, it helps that he’s career military and gets that from his father, but still – there ARE conservative non-religious atheists out there. Oh, and hates Messicans.

          • Marisa Totten

            What a koinkydink, we are military as well. My BIL is active duty AF, my husband (his brother) is active duty Army. My husband is more conservative than myself but still liberal (perhaps my influence, I’ll wear that badge with honor) but the rest of the family is party line republican, currently trending libertarian. Though I doubt any but my BIL have heard of Ayn Rand, let alone read any of her works or studied her political philosophy, they mimic her in so many ways. My personal favorite is the way they harp about needing to “get back to the Consitution” since I’m painfully aware that none of them have ever read the document. And yes, I’ve quized them about what’s in the Consitituion. Collectively, they fail miserably.

      • Candy

        KMR, what do you mean your parents dog you and your beliefs re: Obama? Did you mean your views?

    • Craig

      Excellent point. It’s akin to religious apologists. The mere fact they exist speaks volumes about the state of religion in today’s western society.

      • linford86

        Except that Christian apologists have existed for almost as long as there have been Christians….

        • Armanatar

          Exactly.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Let’s say then that the real sign is how increasingly desperate and convoluted the apologetics are getting. They’re literally far worse than Bill Clinton’s “definition of ‘is’”.

          • linford86

            I don’t disagree that the apologetics are changing or that this is a sign that atheism is rising in prominence in our society. However, one thing that bugs me is the kind of narrow view of history many in the atheist community seem to have. I recently gave a talk on early atheist history where I read some passages from Jean Messlier, la Mettrie, and d’Holbach to the audience. Several people told me that they were shocked to hear something so strident and millitant from the 18th century. Apparently, they thought that kind of atheism was born with Richard Dawkins or something.

            I think the kind of change we’re seeing, if it exists, is much more subtle.

            Early Christian apologia was focused on arguing against the Pagans — so, obviously, apologetics has changed a lot since then. But early modern (17th century) apologetics were focused on combating atheism, even though it was a bit of an invisible enemy (thousands of texts were written about atheism before there was any written record of atheists — apparently, people could sense that atheism was coming and were afraid). So, Christian apologetics responding to atheism is nothing new.

            What is new is the presence of large scale, organized secular, Freethought, and atheist groups in the media — groups like American Atheists. And as those groups get more attention, we should expect to see responses. (Though it could be debated as to how “new” is really new!)

            But that’s a very far cry from saying that the tide has turned or anything like that. One could have said precisely the same thing at several points in the past and been completely wrong.

            • momtarkle

              I mostly agree, but I do think that awareness and, maybe “tolerance” (Don’t hit me!) of atheists has increased in the last few decades.

              • linford86

                That might very well be right, at least restricting ourselves to looking at a very narrow historical window (in, say, the latter half of the 20th century/beginning of the 21st).

            • Don Gwinn

              Thought-provoking. Thanks!
              I’ve read some of apologetics from earlier days, and also some of the atheist/non-religious writings from the 18th century (but my impression is that a philosophy student would have picked up a lot more, since that seemed to be the only discipline where the subject was coming up much.)

              I don’t think it was a case of the apologists of the Renaissance or late medieval periods anticipating that atheism would rise in the future and hoping to pre-empt it; I think they realized that atheists were hiding all over, blending in with believers, and that it was impossible to ferret out an atheist who was willing to keep his or her mouth shut about it and go through the motions. I think they saw atheists the same way McCarthy saw Communist infiltrators in the 1950s and Pat Robertson saw devil-worshipping Satanists torturing and sacrificing in barns and basements in the 1980s. Neither man actually knew whether their enemies were really there, but neither man was really predicting that their enemies would become real later on–each man simply assumed that his enemies were operating at that time but in secret, and that was why they were hard to find.

              So the apologists suspected that there were secret atheists all over (and they were right.)
              McCarthy suspected (I think?) that there were Communist infiltrators in America, even as he waved his famous blank piece of paper (and he was right as far as that goes, although he was lying about having any idea who they were.)
              And Robertson and his allies suspected that there were teenage kids sacrificing cattle and the occasional baby to Satan because Iron Maiden told them to . . . and he was wrong about that. But the common thread is the idea that just because we can’t see them, that doesn’t mean they’re not out there!

              • linford86

                Well, a few things…

                1. When I said the “early modern period”, I didn’t mean the late medieval or Renaissance periods. I meant the 17th through early 18th centuries.

                2. Was the theological discussion of the atheism threat — the so-called “atheism scare of the 17th century” — due to the kind of paranoia we’ve seen over communism and Satanism in the 20th century? Well, some of it was something like that. Certainly, the witch and werewolf trials that were happening at the same time were due primarily to a kind of paranoia that arises when traditional systems of authority are being called into question. Some portion of the atheism-accusations were in the same vein. And church authorities dealt with atheists in much the same way that they were also dealing with Soccinians, Arrians, Deists, and other heretics.

                However, 3. there was something much more interesting going on with atheism. There is a Catholic doctrine — the preambulae fidei (or the “preamble to the faith”) — according to which one must first prove, by Reason alone, that God exists before one can have faith in divine revelation. Unlike many Christians living today, who simply have faith that God exists and do not believe that God’s existence can be proven, there was a large theological tradition that tried to prove the existence of God. Theologians and philosophers who engaged in this activity, such as Jacques Abbadie, developed quite rigorous and sophisticated arguments. In the process of doing so, they both a. invented atheistic arguments to argue against (because they couldn’t find any) and b. argued against each other, showing why each other’s “proofs” of God’s existence failed. In what has been called “fraticide” (by historian Alan Kors), they destroyed each other’s arguments for the existence of God. D’Holbach actually lifts several of his own atheistic arguments from Abbadie.

                In addition, thinkers at the time imagined a slippery slope from Descartes’ mechanical conception of the world to atheism. Descartes was himself sometimes accused of atheism. A large part of this fear was that the new sciences — especially the new physics — might be used for heretical purposes. For these folks, they really did see atheism as a threat on the horizon. And, to a large extent, they were right. They understood the atheistic implications of their work, sometimes better than we do now, even though many of these people were, at least initially (or, at any rate, publicly), atheists. This fear finally comes to a height when Pascal tells Napoleon that he has no need for God in explaining the origins of the solar system using the nebular hypothesis.

                • Don Gwinn

                  Fascinating. Thank you!

    • momtarkle

      Thank god for that, huh?

    • Matt Bowyer

      Yeah, they can’t just ignore us anymore.

      • randomfactor

        Can’t burn us at the stake either…

    • painperdu

      Nice observation. Progress!

    • ginalex

      Exactly. Just like all the tea party people who are scared of Obamacare for fear it will grow and become popular, same thing. These creationists are running scared.

  • Timmah

    Now AA needs to take up ad space RIGHT next to it that has a picture of a caveman riding a dinosaur and “LOL NO” stamped across it.

    • ZenDruid

      Can we have a pic of Fred and Wilma wearing fig leaves?

      • Don Gwinn

        I’ll chip in if it’s Betty and Wilma.

    • Brett N

      “…a picture of Ken Ham riding a dinosaur…”

      FTFY. I always felt he looked like a missing link.

    • http://destroyideas.blogspot.com destroyideas

      I’m surprised the AiG poster didn’t have that.

  • baal

    “Thank god you’re wrong” is a vague statement.

    You can read it as part of a conversation where the other party has concluded not only that you’ve made a mistake but it’s a good think you did. (Oops! I cut the green wire instead of the red one).

    You can read it as a command, You are wrong so you thank god for you being defective. He made you that way and all.

    From a marketing perspective, all I’m seeing is the word “god” and the word “wrong” in close proximity. It also comes off as chiding.

    Also the light blue / white combo for the “to all our atheist friends” is hard to see on it’s own and much harder to see than the bigger high contrast GOD WRONG part.

    So I’m not all that bothered by these signs and expect they’ll overall backfire.

    • KMR

      Yeah I don’t get it. Why would you thank God we’re wrong? Our asses will therefore be going to hell and what psychopath would thank God for that. How about some compassion, jerkwad.

      • trj

        Billions of people are to be tortured forever and ever and ever? Thank God.

      • Robin

        Hey, if all those guys are in heaven, give me hell caue I would NOT want to spend eternity hearing ” I told you so”

  • islandbrewer

    I’m just happy he spelled “you’re” correctly.

    • Tainda

      Many editors later… lol

      • momtarkle

        “Edits”, Tai, “edits”.

  • Rationalist1

    I don’t mind it. It shows how (some) Christians treat those who disagree with them. We take the high road and not disparage them, they resort to calling us out as wrong. Most people are smart enough and moral enough to see through it.

    • KMR

      I wouldn’t say atheists take the high road. At least not always. Some of those Christmas billboards (the myth one comes to mind) are tough. I would say they fit the definition of disparaging.

      • Rationalist1

        You’re correct, the myth one I disagreed with,

    • Artor

      I don’t have any problem with disparaging ignorant Xians like Ham. I don’t think I’m taking a low road either.

      • Rationalist1

        I would let them disparage themselves. Anyone who would fall for his teachings would be likely to become a non believer and those on the fence would feel less likely to be associated with Christianity.

  • dorcheat

    Damn, but one has to wonder how much AIG paid for a billboard advertisement in Times Square? Surely some New Yorkers must have an idea.

    • CoboWowbo

      $100,000 to $350,000/month

      • Matt D

        That’sa spicy meatball!

        • CoboWowbo

          Look at it this way, that’s $100k-$350k not going to that Noah’s ark project. :)

          • Matt D

            I may be cynical about the man, but I suspect his projects are something he siphons money for himself on, whether they go anywhere or not.

  • dorcheat

    Definition of friend from Websters:

    1.a : one attached to another by affection or esteem

    1.b : acquaintance

    2.a : one that is not hostile

    2.b : one that is of the same nation, party, or group

    3. one that favors or promotes something (as a charity)

    4. a favored companion
    Ken Ham meets none of the above definitions for this atheist. Ken Ham and AIG are NOT friends of mine.

    • ZeldasCrown

      What part of that statement is cordial? It’s pretty much stating that many people are going to hell, where they’ll be tortured for eternity. Not even remotely friendly. The wording and the text (plus the flippant remarks made about why they put the billboard up) make them seem pretty gleeful about it.

      Contrast that to pictures of the various atheist billboards that say things like “you are not alone”. One of these messages is significantly more friendly and welcoming.

    • TCC

      I suspect that Hammy’s idea of friendship is about as accurate as his god’s idea of love.

      • islandbrewer

        “Adore me all the time or I’ll send you to be tortured in hell forever!
        … because I love you!”

    • decathelite

      Yah, there is something deeply wrong with calling someone your friend, then gloating on a billboard about how you’re so much better than your friend.

    • Robin

      Think used car sales man, when you read the word friend from Ham and you will have it all in perspective.

      • phranckeaufile

        Or John McCain.

    • Pseudonym

      Ken Ham and AIG are no friends of mine, either.

      Having said that, remember when atheists used to shake their heads sadly when theists would complain about “strident atheists” when all atheists were really doing is saying “we think you’re wrong”?

      Ken Ham puts up a billboard that says, pretty explicitly in fact, “you’re wrong” and all of a sudden it’s a clear sign of defeat.

      What’s up with that?

    • TCC

      After some more thought, perhaps we should all take solace in the fact that it appears that the set of “Ken Ham’s atheist friends” is likely null, and so the sentiment on the billboard applies to none of us.

  • DoctorDJ

    Where does this twit get his cash? He must have some deep-pocketed sponsors to keep him afloat.

    • The Other Weirdo

      Same place Uwe Boll does.

  • https://twitter.com/atheist_in_nc Heisenberg

    What’s really funny about him referencing the Genesis story is that Gen 1:1 starts the first creation story… and 2:4 starts the second one. And if you compare the two stories, you quickly see that they are not in sync; they have different orders of creation.

    If I was trying to convince a Christian that the Bible was not true, Genesis 1:1 is exactly where I’d start.

    • The Other Weirdo

      You are wrong. They are exactly the same, from a certain point of view and for certain values “same”.

      • https://twitter.com/atheist_in_nc Heisenberg

        I guarantee that your average Evangelical has not thought too deeply about the two stories. When I was one, I didn’t even realize that they were two separate stories that were mashed together by a later editor; but an historical/critical analysis of the original Hebrew text has drawn that out.

        Here’s the problem, though: The stories could not have come through two different eyewitnesses, because there were no eyewitnesses on days One through Five of creation. The creation story had to come directly from God.

        Look at the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Christians will argue that the reasons they tell the same stories in different ways is that they have different authors with different perspectives. But, that can’t be the case with the two creation stories; only one being could have told the story! And the fact that there are two accounts, differing significantly in details, is evidence that the original story did not remain intact, but was changed as it was passed along by oral tradition.

        Genesis 1 & 2 seem to me to be pretty solid evidence that the scriptures are not infallible and inerrant. And that’s without even dipping a toe into the “creation vs evolution” debate.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Ben Kenobi either got kicked in the face too little or not enough.

        • The Other Weirdo

          “But honey, I did not cheat on you. I was thinking of you the whole time, so from a certain point of view, there is no other woman.”

  • Carpinions

    I think the ad undoes itself. I mean, seriously: answersingenesis.org. Either they will be seen as idiots for finding worth in Genesis as regards the universe, or people will think they hear messages in Genesis lyrics. They’re also barking up the wrong tree. Their chances of swaying liberal populations is slim to zero.

  • Ryan Jean

    Of course, the one thing we can be sure that the media coverage will miss over Ken Ham’s billboards is that nowhere are atheists asserting that he doesn’t have the right to put them up, or that they are in some mysterious way oppressive to atheists, and so on… That standard only seems to apply when we put them up.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Ham is not kosher.

  • Gideon

    C’mon Ham. You need to be more specific than “GOD”. Out of all the multitude of mutually contradictory gods, which one am I expected to thank? …or did you temporarily forget that yours isn’t the only one out there?

  • The Captain

    Well, great argument, that proves his invisible friend is real.

  • Bdole

    Times Square? Well, you know what they say about a fool and his money.

  • mikespeir

    I’d like to see a study done on the return on his investment. Wasting God’s money, he is. ;-)

  • Michaela Samuels

    Did he also forget what “cordial” means?

    • baal

      I like cherry cordials especially after a nice dinner.

  • allein

    “cordial and engaging message”

    I would have gone with “smug and off-putting”…but hey, I’m not in advertising or anything, so what do I know?

  • DougI

    Oh no, I hope the costs of those billboards doesn’t cut into this scientific research fund.

    • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

      When you write out his scientific research budget as a number, you see a lot of zeroes at the end of it.

      And the beginning and the middle. In fact, pretty much just zeroes.

  • http://www.ameridane.org/ thingwarbler

    Huge win for atheists everywhere. We’ve moved Ham’s goalposts significantly if he feels the need to spend his $$$ defending himself against the “no God” billboards. Suddenly, the discussion is happening on our turf, not his. Looking good; more please!

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Why would us being wrong be a bad thing? I personally don’t think the idea of ‘a’ god existing being a bad thing. That god that wants to send you to hell if you don’t kiss his ass, sure.

    But how is the idea of no longer existing bad?

  • Matthew Baker

    I would think that Ham would rather throw money at the Ark Park than over priced billboards.

  • Brian

    So, if we are supposed to “thank God we’re wrong,” and God doesn’t exist, then does that mean we are actually right?

    I’m confused.

  • invivoMark

    He left off the rest of that sentence:

    “Thank God you’re wrong, and are therefore going to be tortured in hell for an eternity when you die.”

    What a wonderful thing to say to a “friend.”

    • momtarkle

      But, he didn’t say that.

      • invivoMark

        Right. Christians have a hard time actually accepting the logical implications of their beliefs.

        But that is exactly what he’s saying. “Thank God [you're going to be tortured for eternity].”

    • islandbrewer

      I think that needs Mr. Garrison’s voice, “You go to HELL! You go to hell and you DIE!”

  • mikedave

    This is great! It’s like the village idiot wandering through town screaming wild shit, it can only help our side.

  • Anna

    I don’t know if I’m supposed to be offended by this, but I actually find it kind of funny. What Ken Ham believes will happen to the vast majority of people after death is not something that’s going to make them “thank God” the atheists are wrong.

    • David Kopp

      It’s sad that this kind of billboard put up by an atheist organization would be met with howls of discrimination and intolerance.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Bizarrely, even if it said the exact same thing, Christians would be howling about it.

  • sara

    Aww. It was sure sweet of him to spend all that money on an ad that can only get people thinking about atheism.

    • momtarkle

      Excellent point.

  • Celestine Stoltenberg

    Thank god I’m wrong? Why? If I am wrong then he believes I will spend eternity frying in hell. Why would I thank god for that?

  • ElRay

    Got to love it. Atheists purchase supportive, non-confrontational adds, and the Theists purchase self-righteous, insulting billboards. How christian.

    • JT Rager

      Funnily enough, they’re both targeted at atheists. I wonder which ones the Atheists will respond to more favorably…

  • EuropeanCommunist

    Such a waste of money. Imagine how many zip-lines he could have build in his theme park instead!

    • trj

      Agreed, this will definitely affect his museum’s scientific research.

    • islandbrewer

      Those lightning attractors? Those are zip lines?

  • Ricardo Fischer

    “Only an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing being could prove the existence of the God described in the Bible.” Hahahaha! He’s just using it against himself! Conclusion – it is not possible to prove god existence… how does he knows that god is “an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing being”?

    • allein

      “Only an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing being could prove the existence of the God described in the Bible.”
      .
      Well, I agree…but it hasn’t shown up to prove it, has it?

  • http://destroyideas.blogspot.com destroyideas

    How is being smug an opportunity to witness?

  • Heidi McClure

    Hammy is looking desperate here. And really kind of mean.

  • Tainda

    Oh Ken, I’m reborn! You are so right. This billboard has saved me from eternal damnation.

  • Ed Adams

    Hate to admit it. It’s pretty effective. Especially for folks who don’t know it’s the work of young earth creationists. We’re going to have to up our game.

    • baal

      Why do you think it’s effective? I’m convinced it’s fail for the reasons I’ve mentioned below and for the reasons other commentors give. How are you seeing it?

      • Ed Adams

        it’s visually striking, graphically well designed and offers a snappy retort that is easily remembered and reinforces deeply ingrained prejudices against atheists. the vast majority of people will not take the time to go to their site to see how crazy they really are. ours is not a culture of deep thinkers.

        • KMR

          I DID think it visually appealing. Stupid yes but the design is good. You may be right though. Not a lot of people in our culture can consistently recognize stupid and because of that it may be successful [sigh].

  • C.L. Honeycutt

    If he wanted to convince us, why didn’t he post the message in 3-D?

  • newavocation

    Come on! Ken knows the biz. More page hits from his faithful equals more money donations for the ship to nowhere he will never build.

  • Ogre Magi

    I freaking hate christians

    • momtarkle

      Better watch out…..you say that and they’ll start forgivin’ you!

    • Matt D

      You know, they love it when people get emotional, because that’s how they maintain their own faith. Like bullies, they look for people who are off guard, then swoop in, or wear you down by tackling you daily until you submit.

    • Patrick Henry

      Of course you hate Christians! So did I when I was an atheist.
      But what’s really uncanny is Yeshua said not to be surprised that the world would hate us, after all, it hated Him first.

      • Ogre Magi

        Typical bible thumper

  • Billy Ross

    Surely the Billboard should read “Thank God we BELIEVE you’re wrong”.

    • momtarkle

      Good one!

  • martinrc

    So he is telling the theists with atheist friends that the theist is wrong? “to all your atheist friends, its a good thing you are wrong, meaning the atheists are right.” Well I knew that, I didn’t need a billboard to tell me that.

  • momtarkle

    In case you missed it, here’s a bit more gratuitous sauce for this goose:

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/10/07/thank-god-youre-wrong/

    I like this part: ” this nation has seen an incredible attack on Christianity with lawsuits filed to have Christian symbols removed from the culture—so they can
    impose their religion of atheism on the culture.” Dig it, group, WE’RE RELIGIOUS!

  • Anna

    Here’s the problem, though. When the kind of people who tend to live and work in San Francisco and Times Square visit Ham’s website to learn who’s “right,” they going to run into his version of Young Earth Creationism.

    I don’t think they even need to go that far. San Franciscans aren’t used to seeing these kinds of billboards. I have a feeling the vast majority of people are going to be annoyed by the preachiness itself.

  • Harley Quinn

    Wow, does he really think he’s said something we haven’t heard and easily dismissed before? He thinks we’re wrong; we’re pretty certain all evidence points to the contrary. And I’m not his friend. Moving on now…

  • Jeffrey G. Johnson

    Dear Ken Hamm,
    Try letting God speak for himself. Oh…I didn’t think so.

  • IAmAGuest

    Wait, wut.. He is thanking God we’re wrong, the very same God who sends people who are wrong to an eternity of torture!?

  • Thaigrr

    Actually, Ken Ham, “thank god you’re wrong”, because if your beliefs were actually true, then the vast majority of humanity would be going to hell.

    And not just the non-believers and the unevangelized, but also the vast majority of Christians, who have been cursing and damning and burning each other for millennia, over biased misinterpretations of their silly ancient texts.

    I think we should all be pretty damn thankful, that Ken Ham’s god along with his malevolent afterlife plan, is sheer fiction.

  • Steve Jacoby

    I think he can expect a huge backfire in 3.. 2.. 1..

  • Andrew

    lol didnt ken ham just file bankruptcy?

  • cyb pauli

    I’d be more impressed if Mr. Ham put up a billboard of peer-reviewed, reproducible, empirical data that support his claims about God and evolution. Then I would really feel the sting of being wrong.

  • Kevin

    Every generation has its period of New Atheism that flames out as quickly as it blew in. The Roman Empire couldn’t quash Christianity when it was no bigger than a Boy Scout troop. But knock yourselves out; generational amnesia allows the momentary inertia of the movement to believe the illusion that it ever had a lasting chance.

    • Pattrsn

      Not only atheism, just look at the history of atomism and you’ll see the future of science.
      Christianity will crush all in its path!

    • RobMcCune

      Every generation has its period of New Atheism that flames out as quickly as it blew in.

      No, actually atheism was a fairly constant minority in the centuries since christians stopped murdering people for it. Since the mid nineteenth century it’s been a prominent intellectual force that has gained mass appeal over the past decade. Of course christian amnesia prevents you from seeing the forest through the trees.

    • Matt D

      Well then, I’m glad that I live in modern times, where Atheists have access to science and technology that can reveal illusion.

    • Ed

      Your lot hasn’t been able to quash the existence of non-Christians, despite having 2000 years and numerous violent forced conversion/cleansing periods to do so. That would seem to indicate that atheists and people of other faiths absolutely /do/ have a lasting chance. I mean, shit — religions that you people thought you had completely wiped out have actually been reappearing! Man, has that got to stick in your craw.

    • Patrick Henry

      Excellent point Kevin!
      Voltaire, the famous French Atheist, once claimed that he would eradicate Christianity from the face of the Earth.
      But less than a hundred years after his death, his home and printing presses were being used to print… Bibles!
      God DOES have a sense of humor!

  • dcl3500

    Damn shame we can’t make him prove we are wrong.

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    If American Atheists does not get into a Ad war with AiG then they are a bunch of pussies. This is an ideal opportunity to use some great atheist quotes, such as Hitchen’s “Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence”.

    Keep pointing out that AiG has not yet managed to provide any evidence for their claim that gods exist.

  • Ian Dodd

    Did anybody double check this story or its sources? ‘Cause any amateur photographer worth his expired Kodachrome would recognize that second image as a Photoshop mock-up.

    • TCC

      It’s a digital billboard. There’s an NYT article on it as well with another photo.

  • ORAXX

    It can be a little painful at times, but as long as we are some semblance of a free society, the best way to deal with fools, is to let them speak. Ken Ham has spoken, and no one particularly cares.

    • Patrick Henry

      Au Contraire!, Apparently many, many people care. The ads are resulting in very impressive numbers in site visits, news stories, comments, etc.!
      Facts can be nasty little annoyances, can’t they?!

  • Matt D

    What a transparent fool Ham is.

    Still, there are more than enough religious people who aren’t Christian (or part of a sect of them) who won’t be amused by this at all, AND Ham’s public pontificating seems to only raise Atheisms profile.

  • Nancy Shrew

    Most expensive passive-aggressive note ever?

  • RuBall

    I just drove past the “San Francisco” one this evening. If anyone cares to know, it’s a digital billboard on 880 in front of the Oakland Coliseum. About 4 or 5 different advertisements cycle every few seconds on this board.

  • Jon Doee

    Thanks for making Time Square much more harder to deal with, ham… First that mor(m)on billboard and now this…

  • Rob Green

    Yes, by all means raise the profile of the issue, Mr Ham! I wonder if these people are genuinely deluded or just big liars. I believe Leviticus has something on lying…ironic…unfortunately irony is lost on the over zealous. Let alone any other humour that isn’t offensive to someone.. I suppose they wouldn’t recognise a paradox either unless it grabbed them by the short and curlies and hurled them into the very abyss they warn us about so diligently…they know not what they do, lol

  • Dave Godfrey

    I honestly don’t see the point of this campaign.

    1. Ken Ham has atheist friends? I don’t think so. He clearly regards us enemies, so the campaign is already predicated on a lie.

    2. I don’t believe in God, so just who am I supposed to be thanking?

    3. Wrong about what?

    4. Does Ken Ham truly believe that atheists like myself are going to see this and think “you know what, there is a god after all”?

    Sorry Ken, you’ve managed to sink below the level of pathetic with this one.

    • Patrick Henry

      and you’ve totally missed the whole point of the campaign, which, by the way, is pulling down some impressive numbers in terms of visits to the website, news stories, blog comments, etc. All told, it’s been a resounding success so far. And we have people like you to thank for keeping the dialogue going.

  • guest

    Actually it is good that people in SF and NYC learn who Ken Ham is. Seriously, it is possible to live a fab secular life in the big cities and ignore the idiocy that mires many Americans. They need to be exposed to the ugly truth of AIG’s existence.

  • Graham Twomey

    A child sees the Ad – Mommy what is an atheist? Well dear they are people who do not believe in god. Child – You don’t have to believe in god? Sounds like a good opening conversation to me!

  • Rob McClain

    When I imagine the sound inside Ken Ham’s head, I imagine I hear the same sound that a power pole transformer makes right before it starts boiling out PCB’s and shooting sparks like a 200 lb Roman candle firework. Blub-blub-blub…fzxxzzxzzxzxxtttttt….POW!

    He wants us to accept that atheists are wrong without evidence, and he wants his flock to keep following him, keep rattling the turnstiles at his dinosaur park, and continue stuffing money into a collection plate based on evidence that’s been disproven so many ways to Sunday you need a Twister spinner to point to them all. It sickens me to live in a nation so devoid of basic skeptical and critical thinking skills that a charlatan like Ken Ham has money to try and challenge reasonable people in the public sphere.

    • Patrick Henry

      That argument (“they’re just in it for the money”) is such a tired cliche. What you’re afraid to admit is that Ken Ham and millions of us like him, really DO believe God!
      But it’s so much more intellectually lazy to ascribe base desires.

      • Rob McClain

        Au contriare. It is disappointing that you didn’t address anything I posted, just went off on a rant of your own. I am certain that Ken Ham and his ilk believe there is a God, a personal God answering prayers and spying on masturbators and impregnating virgins and removing brain tumors, but somehow leaving amputees to fend for themselves.

        Ken Ham, Joel Osteen, Jimmy Swaggart, et al. They all believe in a magical sky wizard who created Satan to punish us for doing what Satan would approve of…which makes perfect sense.

        Yet, atheists see rampant hypocrisy from people like Ham. We call them on it, we ask for any…ANY…kind of evidence that a reasonable person can understand and verify. It never comes, and you leave us with the very powerful conclusion that everyone from the Pope to the street preacher is running a self-delusional scam.

        • Patrick Henry

          Your logic is a sad joke. I very clearly addressed your accusation that Ken Ham and other Christian leaders are just in it for the money.
          The fact is, former atheists (like me & millions of others) have seen the rampant hatred & hypocrisy of the Leftists, Homosexual activists, atheists, etc. and got out while we could.

          You continue to spew hatred at us while we continue to give millions of dollars daily, not to mention millions of man-hours, to show love & compassion to homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, etc.
          Yet, what do homosexual & atheist groups do to help the starving, homeless & diseased around the world? (…crickets…)

          The scientific evidence grows daily that the Bible is true & accurate and that atheism, evolution, etc. are bankrupt theories.
          You are on a sinking ship, yet you shout obscenities at those of us trying to tell you how to escape.

          • Rob McClain

            I wish you could feel the wind from the snort of derision emanating from me right now. If there are children in your home, I hope they get the help they need to escape the mind trap of your existence. Delusional fanatics that steal from the poor, exalt wealthy ministers, build fantastical palaces where you can grovel to nothing while mumbling to yourselves…keep taking yourself seriously, pal. Religion is mental illness, and people do lots of good without puffing themselves up with a religious label.

            Quick note…very un-godly of you to point out how charitable you godbotherers are. You are not supposed to point to your good works, and you know it.

            If science proved the derivative crapola from the New Testament (in which the 4 gospels differ radically from one another), your friends on Faux News would have it running in the crawl 24/7 with special reports from every corner of Christendom.

            And, uh, Patrick Henry, if you are using that handle because you are a PH, good for you. If you are using it because you latched onto some quote you and your Christian friends tossed around in a “The Founding Fathers Were All Christians” e-mail moment, you need to check out what snopes has to say about THAT delusion.
            http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

            You keep ‘em comin’, cowboy. It is teenage versions of people like you that sit in high school with my kids and refuse to read their science books, who mock evolution, who deride education. Get a grip on something besides the back of a pew. I grew up with a religious education and a thousand Sundays of liturgies, sermons and collection plates begging for money to make the church a prettier place. Then I grew up.

            Yeah. Those crickets you mention, those must be the ones living in Bill Gates’ backyard, because his fortune is likely to do more to change the world than the Christian religion ever did. Funny, though, he earned it and didn’t coerce it from bead-fumbling, bible-thumping theocrats like you and your buddies. Maybe stop on over at the Gates foundation page and see what a horrible human being Atheist Bill has turned out to be.

            • Patrick Henry

              Rob, sadly,you are the one who is deceived. I don’t
              rejoice in that, nor do I state it condescendingly.
              My hope is that you come to know the truth, for, as Yeshua said, “the truth shall make you free”.

              Years ago, I felt just as you do now. I was an atheist who truly hated Christians. I prided myself on my “superior intellect” when debating Christians, often deriding them for their inability to effectively debate me (in my own mind).

              I had two roommates who were radical homosexuals (I no longer prefer to use the term “Gay”). Their vitriol surpassed even my own as they sometimes described the unmentionable torturous acts that they fantasized about
              committing against Christians (“fundies” as they called them) before killing them.

              I would sometimes lead Christians to believe I had sincere questions, and then I’d ridicule their answers.
              Strangely, I loved reading Gospel tracts for a laugh, making sure I’d rip them up and trash them when I’d finished.

              Then, one night after a very raucous party, I lied awake in bed with my gf. I remember thinking that if partying &
              having a good time (Epicureanism) was really the end-purpose of life like I’d thought, then I should have felt very fulfilled that night. I didn’t… at all.

              Although I wasn’t feeling depressed, I thought, “I could kill myself right now and it really wouldn’t matter. I’d be dead, so I wouldn’t know anything. My mom & brothers would be sad for a while, but they’d get over it,” I reasoned.

              The next day, my gf’s sister, Betsy, who was a real Christian, came to visit. Strangely, both my stereo AND TV had gotten broken at the previous night’s party. Coincidence?
              So there was pretty much no avoiding hearing her talk to my gf about Yeshua.
              We lived high in the mountains, so it wasn’t very convenient to go for a drive around the block while they spoke.

              She led her sister in a prayer of repentance & faith at the dining room table as I sat in the livingroom.
              After they finished praying & talking, Betsy walked over to me in the LR and asked me if I wanted to know about Yeshua. I let loose with a non-stop string of obscenities, expecting her to flee like other Christians.

              Instead, she stood there with this silly smile waiting patiently for me to finish. I ran out of steam seeing that she wasn’t running OR arguing.
              Then she simply said that she wasn’t there to threaten or “hurt” me, she just wanted me to know that Yeshua loved me & died for me.

              As she was leaving to take my gf to Church, she left me a Gospel tract, explaining what the Bible taught about being reconciled to the One who created us. With them gone, it was the oddest thing that I couldn’t stop thinking about the tract and my gaze seemed drawn to it. Frustrated, I decided to read it and get it out of the way.

              As I read, I was shocked to discover I actually understood it, as I had never before. It wasn’t about “being good the rest of my life in the hope of making it to Heaven by earning it”.
              It was FORGIVENESS; free, immediate, eternal reconciliation with the God who created us.

              Then a very funny thing happened; before I could stop myself, I looked up to Heaven and heard myself saying to God, “You are kidding me! Really? This is what you’ve been trying to tell me this whole time?”

              I finally truly understood the Gospel, the Good News.
              I went from being an atheist for years to being a believer in Yeshua in one moment. That’s been a good number of years ago, but I remember it like yesterday!

              Rob, I learned that, with God, we don’t set the terms; we don’t say, “I’ll believe it only after I see it”.
              We first choose to believe God… and THEN He shows us all of the overwhelming evidence.

              So He wants us to trust Him first. After all, if anyone in the universe can be trusted, it would be the one who created us.

              So Rob, simply trust Him.

              Remember, Yeshua said, “If you continue in my word, then you are certainly my disciple, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you FREE!

              • Rob McClain

                TL;DR: Former atheist trolls me to explain how screwed up I am, and that reading a Gospel tract saved him from being an angry atheist like me. Thanks, Obama!

              • lmern

                I really made an effort to read all that. I didn’t get through it, but I tried. As for being Atheist, it’s really hard to believe that someone would have all that evidence and shuffle it aside and preach like you are. Like… scary preaching.

                It sounds as if you were caught up in something when you were at your most vulnerable. A classic tactic for many religious proselytizers. You might have been going through a hard time in your life, and now like many, many religious people, it’s a crutch.

                Sounds like you were a pretty hateful person before, and now you have a neat and tidy little book to support your hate today.

  • Mark

    This is good news, it shows you that he is worried. Laughing at his web site is the best way to respond to this persistent fairy story belief. The emperor is not wearing clothes and we are pointing that out. Atheists are always going to be not liked because we are pointing out the bad news of their silly fairy story’s happy endings.

  • Matt Ranson

    It’s good to know that these YECs feel threatened enough to start an anti-atheist billboard campaign.

    • Patrick Henry

      So you think it’s simply a defensive response because we feel threatened???
      Oh no, no, no. Yeshua said take the Gospel to the whole world. He also said the the “gates of Hell” would not prevail against His Church. Obviously this is an offensive maneuver to publish the Good News that you can be reconciled to your Creator.

  • anonymous

    Ken Ham, just go suck a kangaroo dick. The sexual tension is clearly killing you both. You have so much in common. The country you come from, your intellectual capacity…

    • Patrick Henry

      Wow! Your logic is so amazing and your position so untenable!

  • Keiv M. Salmon

    simple atheist retort billboard: “Prove It!”

    • Patrick Henry

      Already proven. C’mon think! You can do it.
      Why did the asteroid destroy the dinosaurs, but not man?
      Why do evolutionists say fossilization is a very rare occurrence, yet we have thousands of “fossil graveyards” full of billions of dead things?… All buried together in some great watery cataclysm?

      • FTP_LTR

        Citation needed.

        • Patrick Henry

          As a former atheist, I know (and so do you) that these “fossil Graveyards” exist. Do you really need a citation??

          • FTP_LTR

            Nicely edited, Patrick. Nicely edited.

            When I replied, your message simply said:

            Already proven. C’mon think! You can do it.

            Why did the asteroid destroy the dinosaurs but not man? Because man and dinosaurs didn’t coexist, apart from in the Flintstones?

            Fossil graveyards don’t necessarily represent single events but can easily be explained by the accumulation over time.

            • Patrick Henry

              Oops, sorry, was editing when you were replying. My apologies.
              But still, my point stands: there are billions of fossils all buried together in huge deposits. This does not fit the model of things dying slowly and falling to the bottom of the water (billions of land animals, too) and then being covered by layers of dirt before the next animal gets covered over with a light film of dirt.
              No, No, No. The scientific explanation for fossils is a rapid and very weighty burial of animals soon after they die (or that causes their death). And since many scientists ascribe almost all these deaths as asphyxiation-related, which is consistent with drowning, the evidence is overwhelming of a great aquatic cataclysm.
              Else, the fossils would NOT be found in mass graves, but only scattered here & there.

              • FTP_LTR

                The concept of the billions of animals coexisting brings about the question of where? For all the animals in the Karroo Formation (approx. 800 billion vertebrates) to have lived simultaneously, and be killed by the Great Flood there would be more than 20 vertebrates for each and every square acre of land on earth – notwithstanding the fossils in other deposits.

                If the Earth were this crowded, where would anyone find room for, say, the construction of a big boat?

                • Patrick Henry

                  As is typical of many atheists, you simply throw out an argument without thinking it through.
                  Before the Flood, there was FAR more arable land than there is today. As a result of the Flood, the world is now mostly covered with water.
                  (BTW, have you searched for news stories about the innumerable ancient civilizations that have been discovered under the sea?? Absolutely fascinating!)

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                But, people wrote about behemoths!

                • Patrick Henry

                  YES! Excellent point Rich, and the Bible also mentions a beast called Leviathan, both oddly similar to descriptions of Dinosaurs!

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  And yet, oddly, for all the various kinds of land dinosaur fossils, we have a single brief description. Which oddly could apply more aptly to an elephant or a rhinoceros than a t-rex.

                  There are far more mentions of unicorns. But, oddly, no unicorn fossils.

                • Patrick Henry

                  You’re simply repeating tired standardized retorts. Re-read the descriptions of Leviathan & Behemoth. I don’t think Elephants & Rhino’s can be described as “smashing iron in pieces with it’s tail”. And there are many other points in their descriptions for which the only logical answer is Dinosaur.

                  And please explain why you don’t believe in a single-horned animal (uni-corn). Could it be that you got your definition of Unicorn from “My Little Pony”.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  You’re simply repeating tired standardized claims.

                  Could it be that you got your definition of Unicorn from “My Little Pony”.

                  Nope. Ancient pictures of horses with horns on their heads. It’s a common theme, along with dragons. But we don’t have any fossils of them. If people can imagine unicorns, then I don’t see why they can’t imagine dragons. The ‘ancient pictures of dinosaurs’ that google is giving me don’t look more like real dinosaurs than imagined dragons.

            • Patrick Henry

              And yes, there are mounds of evidence that man & dinosaurs co-existed. Thousands of ancient drawings, sculptures and stories that describe “dragons/dinosaurs”, including Bible references. You really have to stick your head in the sand to not recognize these evidences.

              • FTP_LTR

                But somehow these dinosaurs and dragons didn’t get preserved together, anywhere in the fossil record resulting from the Great Flood?

                As for evidence… well, there are thousands of ancient drawings, sculptures and stories describing Zeus, Hera, Mars, Hephaestus, Odin, Ixpiyacoc and many, many others. Where does that evidence stand?

                People used to believe – up until quite recently, in the scheme of things – in the cameleopard… the offspring of a camel and a leopard. It doesn’t make it evidence,

                • Patrick Henry

                  Don’t forsake logic, it is our friend. If there are thousands of examples of ancient art ACCURATELY depicting dinosaurs/dragons, then either they were quite accomplished paleontologists or they actually saw these animals.

                  (Your reference to drawings of things that haven’t been discovered, like Zeus, is almost a non-sequitur.)

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  How do you tell the difference between things that there are thousands of examples of in art that did exist, and things that there are thousands of examples of in art that didn’t exist?

                • Patrick Henry

                  That’s a much broader question and almost changes the subject, so let’s just apply your question to the subject at hand.
                  The reason it is so relative to our topic is this: If we accept many modern scientists’ assertions that we only recently developed the science of paleontology to the level of being able to accurately reconstruct what Dinosaurs looked like… and then we discover that there are thousands of examples in ancient art & literature that accurately represent what Dinosaurs actually looked like, then (as I mentioned elsewhere) either the ancients were excellent paleontologists, or (more reasonably) they actually SAW these beasts. Also, remember that many ancient examples show men and dinosaurs actually interacting with one another.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Ancient pictures that accurately represent dinosaurs? Not dragons, but dinosaurs?

                • Patrick Henry

                  Yes, literary examples, as well as pictures and sculptures. All you have to do is open your eyes (and Google).

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Please, show us these cites. They will surely be fascinating.

                  You have the claim going on, you get to provide the evidence. That’s how it works. You made the claim that ancient peoples drew and/or make sculptures of dinosaurs. Please back up that claim.

                • Patrick Henry

                  I’ll be glad to show you the evidence. Just Google, “examples of dinosaurs in ancient art, literature and sculpture”.

                  But will I hold my breath that you will believe? No, even faced with overwhelming evidence, you still won’t believe, because it’s a heart issue. You don’t want to believe, so you will reject all hard evidence.
                  It won’t be until you do some serious soul-searching, that you will recognize that He is your Creator, and He’s offering you an opportunity to be reconciled with Him. Our sin has separated us from Him. There’s no WAY we could pay the debt. So God, in the form of man (Yeshua), paid our penalty for us. Accepting it is a simple as turning to Him in humble faith & repentance.

                  Great conversation folks, but I gotta hit the sack. I’ll visit with you again. God Bless!

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson
                • Patrick Henry

                  Yes Rich, like some of those examples. Yet there are countless more.
                  Of course the site you selected was obviously biased against the evidence as shown by the attempts to explain it all away.
                  (BTW, the Ica stones number in the tens of thousands, so the lone farmer who was threatened if he wouldn’t “confess” to creating them all, actually could not have created them all and it would be foolish to presume that he could’ve or would’ve as he gained nothing).

                  However, even the site you referenced passively acknowledged the possibility that they could be legitimate, by stating that even if they were legitimate, they wouldn’t overturn the theory of evolution, which is an accurate assessment.

                  And to add to the countless other historical examples of man/dinosaur being contemporaries are the growing number of discoveries of “soft-tissue” in dino bones, which certainly degrades the “65 Million Year Old” myth.

                  Remember, science is our friend, but “science history” guessing what happened “millions of years ago” is purely philosophical.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Of course the site you selected was obviously biased

                  Certainly no more than the sites that support your claim.

                  guessing what happened “millions of years ago” is purely philosophical

                  Well guessing would be, yes. Thankfully we have multiple different lines of evidence that correlate, so we don’t have to guess. We know with a very high degree of certainty. We could be wrong. Maybe God or Satan created things in such a way so as to trick us. But that seems pretty unlikely to me.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Nono. You put the links here. I don’t do your work for you.

                • Patrick Henry

                  And yes, the great Flood has left us many, many fossils of dinosaurs/dragons. In just one instance, I believe that there were an estimated 10,000 Hadrosaurs buried together in one formation alone.
                  Evolutionists used to teach that these were evidences that Dinosaurs would go to a dino graveyard when they knew they were going to die (funNEE!).
                  Sort of ignores the requirements of fossilization, doesn’t it?

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC362.html

                  Now, what would be interesting is fossils from different ages in the same layer.

                • Patrick Henry

                  I have read their site extensively Rich. Do your own research as they exist only to try to disprove everything about Christianity (overly biased).
                  Also, it will be you that answers for you on Judgment Day, they won’t be able to represent you.

                  G’nite, & God Bless!.

  • Itarion

    I dunno… Cordial doesn’t seem the right word to describe that. Frankly, I’m insulted. Cordial words don’t insult.

  • guest

    Ken Ham is a troll.

    But any publicity is good publicity, right? And Ken Ham’s version of Christianity is easy to refute. So I think this will backfire and create a lot of new atheists.

  • Patrick Henry

    Being a former atheist, I’m amazed when I recall the unspeakable hateful, sadistic, sexually-twisted murderous things we said about Christians. Some things never change.

    • lmern

      I’m sorry, that was only YOU saying ‘sadistic sexually-twisted murderous’ things. Please don’t lump me in with whatever depraved malicious things you’ve got going on inside that head of yours.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X