Now here's Peter Galling, one of Ken Ham's cronies' playing innocent, engaging in bibliolatry, and being a total hypocrite with this new approach to responding to a feedback given by an S.T. from Rockport, Texas and L.B. from a somewhat false location (What false location, Galling?),
"We thought we’d try something a little different in this week’s response to feedback. Usually, we select one negative feedback to answer, always looking for an emailer who asks a valid question rather than someone just unloading unsubstantiated claims. Recently, we received two relatively similar emails asking about our contention (or the Bible’s contention, as we argue) that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Both authors write as Christians, so we thought this would be a good opportunity to address the question once again and touch on some of the issues it relates to."
The contention of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time is not of the Bible. It's all the invention of Hollywood producers, science fiction writers, and comic book artists who made up such a concept for entertainment purposes right before the creationists took it and shoehorn it into the Bible it don't belong in to begin with. So what Galling is doing is comparing somewhat similar claims made by 2 Christians who asks about where did they ever get the idea of making up such a concept and shoehorning it into the Bible. The answer is that they got such a contention from watching far too many science fiction films, reading science fiction comics, pulp fiction, and novels, searching for ideas and inspiration on how to elaborate their young earth beliefs, fabricate folklore and distort images from mythical and modern animals made in ancient art, and then shoehorning them all into the Bible they seem to worship as a god.
The next part shows a table featuring the similarities between the 2 Christians who objected to Ham's idiot dino/human manifestos while ranting about the earth being billions of years old, dating methods accurate, laying accusations of misusing the bible in a shameful way, relying on myths and unproven claims for their idiocy, and then asks in their own way, "Where is your faith, Ham?"
The third part is Galling's turn to play innocent and defend his made-up cause by lyingly claim,
"Our ministry is not about “beating people over the head” with the Bible, but rather about giving answers for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15) and defending God’s Word from compromise."
AiG's is not doing a real good job at giving answers that would satisfy Christians like those two men. Instead of defending God's Word from compromise and giving out hopeful answers they claimed to have, AiG offers the opposite and enhance their own compromise themselves by distorting the Bible and slamming anyone who rejects them. Then turn around and accuse non young earthers of the exact same thing. So Galling's ministry is too about "beating people over the head” with not only the Bible, but pure ignorance, bigotry, and self-centered, hate mongering rants as well.
Don't ever let this article fool you. Creationists maybe telling readers to "Love God, Love people" through its supplemental article about the reactions made to the despicable Expelled movie, but they themselves don't practice what they preach. Especially when they harbor hatefulness towards anyone who oppose them and their views and spew out hate, fear, pure ignorance, and hypocrisy at any chance they get.
The next paragraph claims,
"Squarely put, our view is, if it’s what the Bible says, it’s true; if it goes against what the Bible says, it’s false (or at best misconstrued, due to erroneous presuppositions)"
Wow. If what the Bible says is true, then the earth is indeed flat and stand on pillars, have a huge dome above, and is the center of the universe. If the Bible is true according to the creationists, then mountains do leap, trees clap their hands, the earth is unmovable (never mind it moving around the sun and the tectonic plates and earthquakes moving the earth about.), and ostriches never caring about their eggs and young. Anything else, no matter if it's entirely factual, get rejected and regarded as "false" or torn down due to alleged flaws found within. If that isn't a direct example of bigotry and hubris Galling is displaying in his idiot article, then I don't know what it is.
Even AiG themselves don't take all of the Bible literally, including Genesis and may regard some passages as false and untruthful; they don't pay attention to anything in the Bible outside of their one-track distorted view of Genesis 1-11 and certain out-of-context passages that agrees with their narrow-minded beliefs lest they see certain bible passages, including Matthew Chapter 7:1-5 and passages that condone, glorify, even instigate carnivory, that would destroy their 6,000 year old earth of a fairy tale.
"Thus, as Bible-believing Christians, we are devoted and have immense respect for the Word of God, not allowing any other ideas to dilute or adulterate the Bible."
A blatant lie. Look at how these supposed "bible-believing Christians" conjure up ideas to dilute or adulterate the Bible while paying no attention to the verses that contradicts their made up beliefs about baby animals in the ark, excising the Tree of Life from the Garden of Eden when they display the ever flawed no-death-in-the-pre-fallen-world fallacy, making tidal waves of mud, debris, and dirt covering the earth like a large lasagna after it rained for 40 days and 40 nights in direct contrasted to the passage that clearly says that the water went straight down after the rain stopped, mythic vegetarian animals while ignoring the verses that condone carnivory, and much more. How can creationists say they have immense respect for the bible when they ignore everything beyond their one-track view of Genesis 1-11 and the out-of-context verses that seem to agree with their idiot perception?
"We don’t consider the idea that man and dinosaurs coexisted a few thousand years ago (or even more recently) our belief; rather, the Bible plainly presents this view, and one can only escape the view by twisting God’s plain words and by placing secular science on a higher pedestal than Scripture"
Another example of creationist hypocrisy. The Bible does not present such a view to begin with. It is the single belief the creationists themselves consider, then shoehorn them into the bible, twisting God's plain words, say it's a part of it while it's not, put their dogma on a higher pedestal than the real Holy Scripture, then turn around and accuse non young earthers of the exact same thing. Here folks is an example of hypocritical creationists being completely everything they accuse Christians who reject their so-called "literal reading of Genesis" (all made up of imaginary tales that's anything but literal) of, including compromising and twisting the bible to fit their own beliefs about it.
And it shows, too when the next section seemingly breaks down the claims made in the table boxes by first implying that Jesus is a young earth creationist (which makes no difference since it's the same as if to say that Jesus is an Aryan, Jesus is a Liberal, Jesus is an old earth creationist, Jesus is not a Jew, Jesus is a Jew, Jesus is a black person, Jesus is a homosexual, and any other "Jesus is a.." that's out there) and that dinosaurs were land animals that were created on the same day as man on Day six of Creation week, therefore man and dinosaurs lived at the same time, never mind the passages in Genesis 2 which contradicts the passages in Genesis 1 by saying that God created the animals after He created man and never mind the real biblical, historical, fossil, and archaeological records that factually reveal none of these things.
The next part displays false history of how people began to discover that what they believe about creation and the age of the earth is wrong,
"…how can you accept what the Bible says in light of modern science?"
To a creationist, it's simple: make up lies about modern science and shoehorn them into the bible like what is displayed here,
"It began in the nineteenth century church when Christians allowed uniformitarian scientists to erode away the authority of Genesis 1 by arguing that plainly written “days” couldn’t be ordinary days, but must instead have been vast geological ages—the “day-age” theory—or that such ages occurred between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2—the so-called “gap” theory."
No. It really begin when people, especially creationists, begin to uncover evidence that the earth is far more older than anyone has ever imagined just by observing rock formations, in which the bottom layers are much older than the top layers, and the strange markings (we now call fossils made up of remains of animals that have lived and died long before humans appear on the earth) that are embedded within them. They began to look closely and observe how things work and how they operate, and make discoveries that cause them to search and find reasonable answers to how are one type of plants and animals different than the other types; how can extant animals be closely related to animals that are no longer living; why is the sky really so blue; what really cause thunderstorms to form; why are there so much diversity of plants and animals in the world; where did such animals as the kangaroo come from; why are we not finding them anywhere outside their native country that's block by a vast amounts of water; and so much more. It's about observations of life in pure detail and really inquire who, what, where, and why all these things are there. Back then it is believe that God is showing them how He made things, why did He put them to where they're at, and how he set up everything, from gravity to evolution, to work in the exact way God wanted them to. Science is born through observing and learning how did God created everything other than He just spoke and it was done.
Even before there was ever such a concept as science, Christians have been questioning the Bible's authenticity, including the miraculous accounts, ever since Ancient Roman times and have tried to either discredit them or interpret the Bible to fit their own perceptions about it only to create so much conflicts, wars, unrest, and divisions among the church leaders and congregations that the church eventually split apart, forming many different denominations and cults that still exist today. People have tried in every way to make science fit with the Bible but they failed. Still this doesn't stop some die hards from making science fit with the Bible only by making up lies in every way and shoehorning them into the Bible like what Galling is doing here when he whines,
"When it comes to dinosaurs and the Bible, this pattern applies. Christians have sadly accepted the “absolute facts” (actually interpretations of data) of secular scientists over God’s Word, such that behemoth “couldn’t have been” a dinosaur but must have instead been a hippopotamus, elephant, etc."
Actually Behemoth is a monster of Jewish folklore resembling a bull. He was neither a dinosaur, hippopotamus, nor an elephant, but a supernatural beast created by God. Such concepts of Behemoth being either a hippo or an elephant was first proposed by Bible scholars long before dinosaurs were discovered by man. "Secular scientists," who in most cases worships the Lord, had nothing to do with it. Always creationists have to use anyone who don't agree with their idiocy as scapegoats for their own wrong doing which includes sadly leading Christians to accept the creationists own interpretation— albeit, distortion of data.
"But the absolute facts Christians should stick to are the verses of God’s Word, interpreting scientific findings through that framework, rather than adopting the unbeliever’s naturalistic presuppositions and interpreting God’s Word through man’s fallible ideas."
Christians have already tried to do that and have failed miserably. Thus, proving time and time again that the real naturalistic presuppositions and interpretations of God’s Word through man’s fallible ideas Christians should avoid is not evolution and "long ages," but young earth creationism and all its fallible glory invented by those who think they have the ever loving right to dictate to Christians on what they should believe, accept, and do. What Christians should do and what Christians really should do is two different things.
No one needs to listen and submit themselves to the likes of Ham, Morris, Davis, Hodge, and other creationist dictators along with all of their followers and bow to all of their stupid lies, dictatorship, bigotry, self-righteous preaching, and hate-mongering speeches. No one needs to believe them and accept their views. It's all for themselves, neither for the Glory of God, nor for furthering God's Kingdom.
The next part tries to explain of how since dinosaurs are land animals (as well as air borne and aquatic animals in form of birds), they along with all other land animals were created on Day 6 while pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs, which are sometimes, yet incorrectly, lumped together with dinosaurs, were created on Day 5 along with all other sea and air borne animals. This ultimately make all of earth such an massive, overcrowded place with no room to move about without bumping into each other.
Now look at this,
"…the only “evidence” we need that dinosaurs and man lived together is Scripture…"
Which is the most poorest, highly worthless piece of evidence creationists have to prove their fallacy of dinosaurs living with man.
That reminds me..
Galling's article sure appears to follow the creationist method instead of the real scientific record as shown on the left side of the image. In the creationists' eyes, it has to be scripture to explain things or else Christianity would be worthless. Christianity as practice by creationists is already worthless. It's completely as worthless using the Bible to explain things the Bible is completely silent about such as dinosaurs, evolution, and dating methods which the creationists blindly regard as highly useless, untrustworthy, and the result of people's "failure to recognize how their presuppositions actually shape how they interpret the evidence." which is what Galling define "evidence" as. How is scientific evidence a failure for people to recognize how their presuppositions actually shape how they interpret such evidence? How is scientific evidence everything creationism is? Creationism is exactly what Galling claims independent "evidence" is.
Using worthless presupposition they got from distorting the bible, creationists finds themselves indoctrinated to believe that dragon tales and ancient art depicting monsters are accounts of people meeting live dinosaurs (other than birds) while what they did is simply fabricate them by taking them out of context and twisting the stories and distorting the artwork to fit their own presuppositions about them, then say that these are just historical accounts of people "discovering" live dinosaurs, made centuries before they were "re-discovered" in the 17 and 1800s', out of ignorance of the real inspiration behind the inventions of dragon tales and monster art that mostly involves ancient discoveries of fossilized remains of Early Cenozoic and Ice Age Mammals, such as cave bears and mastodons.
The next part deals with carbon-14 dating and how Galling claims that C-14 might be used to agree with their way of dating the age of the earth and the dinosaur bones based on the Bible while ignoring the fact that the Bible actually said nothing at all about the age of the Earth let alone the age of the dinosaur fossils and dating dinosaurs using Carbon 14 dating is as worthless as relying on the Bible for stuff that's not there.
Relying on the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 to determine the age of the earth are as just as useless and untrustworthy as what creationists falsely claim radiometric dating as. Here Galling claims,
"just as with carbon-14 dating, the radiometric dating methods secular scientists do use—even aside from giving wildly differing ages—are based on the uniformitarian presuppositions. Additionally, there are many other methods for dating the earth and a vast majority of them show a young age."
What are these many other methods which you claim show a young age, Galling? Is it the dates and the genealogies of the bible that's out of order, full of gaps, and tells nothing about how old the earth is let alone how old dinosaur fossils are? If so, then these are indeed the ones that are really based on the creationists' own presuppositions they entirely made up from their heads while ignoring the real truth behind the dating methods being updated over time to give scientists the most accurate, up to date method of dating possible including the argon-argon dating method that accurately dates the extinction of the dinosaurs to about 65.95 millions ago (give or take a mere 40,000 years).
The rest of the article claims that science and religion can be compatible with each other. Check out this next claim here,
"One common mistaken view is that science and Scripture (or religion in general) are in a tug-of-war; that only one can be right, and that the two are ultimately incompatible. This view is shared by atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who argues that science shows God to be a delusion, and by perhaps a few well-meaning Christians who feel that any science is a threat to religion (though these days it’s more a straw man than a reality, those who claim dinosaur fossils are deceptions planted by Satan would probably fall into this category)."
Creationist contradicting creationist. Proof that there's no honor among creationists who even goes after each other's throat when there is a power struggle within their camp.
"In fact, “science” is not so much a set of ideas, but rather a method to obtain knowledge—a method that rests on certain foundational principles, such as universal logic, reliability of our senses, uniformity of nature, and so forth."
How ironic. Here Galling is defining science as it is, yet turn around and claim that science must adhere to the Bible because to Galling,
"The Bible explains a universe where those principles are valid; without the Bible (and, more importantly, the God of the Bible), there is no basis for science."
To a creationist, everything has to be God to explain it all— a direct example of creationists using God as a cop out for things that even creationists cannot explain. Not to mention using God and the Bible as a cop out to justify their blatant lies and their outright falsehoods they falsely cloaked as a "worldview".
"Claiming that it takes “faith” to reconcile the Bible with unbiblically based interpretations of science (as unbiblical worldviews produce) is as ridiculous as suggesting a person has more faith if they simultaneously believe two plus two equals four and five!"
Exactly what Galling does himself, ridiculously claiming that it takes faith to reconcile the Bible with unbiblically based interpretations of science (as produced by unbiblical young earth creationist worldviews) then turn around and accuse non-creationists of the exact same thing.
"This is not the sort of faith that the Bible encourages—faith in spite of reason. It is actually unreasonable to have faith in a God who can seem contradictory to the reality He created. What nonsense is faith if it is invoked merely to bridge a gap between what we believe is truth and a contradictory reality?"
Rather what nonsense is faith if it is invoked to bridge a gap between the real Biblical record based on the real studies of Biblical scholars and the contradicting creationist world that holds empty, unreasonable faith in a God who can seem contradictory to the reality He created through scientific evidence to which the creationists deliberately chose to ignore while being indoctrinated into accepting that there was once a world where there were once sickly-sweet vegetarian T. rexes going about eating coconuts while buttering up to Adam and Eve and the other extant and extinct animals that alleged to have lived at the same time.
Then finally at the conclusion of this article Galling hypocritically claims,
"Again and again, we come back to emphasizing the importance of starting with the Bible as the source and determiner of truth—not independent human reasoning, which is fallible and based on speculation and probability."
Exactly like what the creationist is doing in the cartoon above while at the same time conjure up their own brand of independent human reasoning in the entire form of young earth creationism, which is the one that's really fallible and based on speculation and probability. Time and time again, it is rather when young earth extremists try to cling “by faith” to the Bible while actually starting with their own independent human reason, the Bible is diluted and distorted as creation science and the young earth taliban extremists reshapes how we should read it whether we like it or not. That's pure hypocrisy Galling is clearly displaying at the very conclusion of his delusional article.