Ah, well I see that once again it is time for either "Dr. Dino" or his son to enlighten an ignorant population on some of the finer points of Earth history. Hovind posts on the Creation Science Evangelism website "facts" about Noah's Flood (available here: http://www.drdino.com/noahs-flood-points/), a rather humorous beginning to a big chuckle-fest of an article, listing point after point purporting to be a true assertion about the Flood or the Ark. I find it hard to believe that anyone, even "Dr. Dino" himself, reading this list would be able to do so with a straight face. Let's try one out to see how it goes:
"All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood, according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9.3."
Are you laughing yet? I guess the teeth of Tyrannosaurus rex and the claws of Deinonychus were just for show then, as were the admirable canines of Smilodon. Well, how about this one:
"Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all of the thousands of insect varieties."
Well, now I'm having a hard time controlling my mirth. Hey, Dr. Dino, I don't know if you realize this, but insects breathe too! And many of them also dwell on land, making them, by your definition, prime candidates for cruising on the Ark. So how did they survive the Flood if they weren't on the Ark? I guess this is convenient for him to "discover" from his enlightened reading of Genesis since not only does this mean far fewer organisms to put on the Ark but also the not-inconsiderable benefit of having to share accommodations with wasps, fleas and bed-bugs.
"The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000 to 29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals." Yes, Dr. Dino, because the collision of the subcontinent of India with Asia resulted in the Himalayas. In another part of the article, you posit that everything was covered because, by your reading, the formation of the mountains only occurred after the Flood, but now you present seashells atop Everest as great evidence of a worldwide flood. You can't have it both ways.
And the reason most people today, especially those who haven't been blinded by a literal interpretation of Genesis, isn't because there is a total lack of evidence for a worldwide Flood, but because "it speaks of the judgment of God on sin." Right. This Flood geology redux is starting to feel a lot more like acid reflux than any semblance of intelligent reading. Some of us just prefer to live in a reality-based world, not the strange viewpoint of Flood proponents.
How fascinating to recall, after this brief look at his facts on the Flood, that the author began with the assertion that "people who scoff at the Bible are 'willfully ignorant' of the Creation and the Flood." I intend no scoffing at the Bible in this post, only at the flawed thinking that underlies the narrow, literalistic interpretation of Genesis. The only "willfully ignorant" person I see here is the author himself, whether it is Kent Hovind or his son, who refuse to acknowledge over two hundred years of scientific progress, much of it made, not by atheists, but by thoughtful religious persons who saw no threat to their faith from science.
"All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood, according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9.3."
Are you laughing yet? I guess the teeth of Tyrannosaurus rex and the claws of Deinonychus were just for show then, as were the admirable canines of Smilodon. Well, how about this one:
"Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all of the thousands of insect varieties."
Well, now I'm having a hard time controlling my mirth. Hey, Dr. Dino, I don't know if you realize this, but insects breathe too! And many of them also dwell on land, making them, by your definition, prime candidates for cruising on the Ark. So how did they survive the Flood if they weren't on the Ark? I guess this is convenient for him to "discover" from his enlightened reading of Genesis since not only does this mean far fewer organisms to put on the Ark but also the not-inconsiderable benefit of having to share accommodations with wasps, fleas and bed-bugs.
"The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000 to 29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals." Yes, Dr. Dino, because the collision of the subcontinent of India with Asia resulted in the Himalayas. In another part of the article, you posit that everything was covered because, by your reading, the formation of the mountains only occurred after the Flood, but now you present seashells atop Everest as great evidence of a worldwide flood. You can't have it both ways.
And the reason most people today, especially those who haven't been blinded by a literal interpretation of Genesis, isn't because there is a total lack of evidence for a worldwide Flood, but because "it speaks of the judgment of God on sin." Right. This Flood geology redux is starting to feel a lot more like acid reflux than any semblance of intelligent reading. Some of us just prefer to live in a reality-based world, not the strange viewpoint of Flood proponents.
How fascinating to recall, after this brief look at his facts on the Flood, that the author began with the assertion that "people who scoff at the Bible are 'willfully ignorant' of the Creation and the Flood." I intend no scoffing at the Bible in this post, only at the flawed thinking that underlies the narrow, literalistic interpretation of Genesis. The only "willfully ignorant" person I see here is the author himself, whether it is Kent Hovind or his son, who refuse to acknowledge over two hundred years of scientific progress, much of it made, not by atheists, but by thoughtful religious persons who saw no threat to their faith from science.
I wonder if you might tell me how big a boat would have to be to fit a amphicoelias fragillimus or two on there? By the by, does anyone teach Paleontology at the university? Can we still afford that sort of thing?
ReplyDeleteGood question...is anyone teaching paleo? Given the budget crunch and the changing nature of the profession, more than a few schools are dropping paleo. Big loss, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is teaching it, it's "Vertebrate Paleontology" and I believe Dr. Ryberg is the man. Though it's certainly not available every semester.
ReplyDeleteYou should have a FB like button.
ReplyDelete