an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Answers in Genesis, Never Letting Facts Get in the Way of Lies

Based on strict biblical chronology and assuming no gaps in the ancestral lists, the Ice Age ended about four thousand years ago.

From Answers in Genesis

Oh dear. Assuming Answers in Genesis actually mean the last Glacial Period (as the last Ice Age hasn’t technically yet ended), then they are out by a factor of three, as the last period ended roughly 12,500 years ago.

To say the last Ice Age ended 4000 years ago is ‘so wrong it’s not even wrong’. Europe was very much NOT in the grip of a Glacial Period in 2000BC, in fact it was about to enter the Bronze Age. We shouldn’t be surprised that Answers in Genesis are so spectacularly in error about this though, as their Statement of Faith claims, in clause 6 of Section 4 –

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

These are people who demand that evidence be ignored if it doesn’t match their worldview, and that’s not how you discover anything about reality, and (with that in mind) they should not be making any claims that anything they publish on their site is ‘science.

Single Post Navigation

5 thoughts on “Answers in Genesis, Never Letting Facts Get in the Way of Lies

  1. You should see that you routinely overstate your case, calling it a "lie" as if you actually traveled back in time and took temperature samples. And you expect that "wikipedia" is an adequate substitute. You believe in Scientism, which is not the same thing as science. Real scientists know how fallible science can be, especially when they cannot measure the conditions directly, perform repeatable experiments and must extrapolate.You have this implacable ire. No wonder Sye got under your skin.

  2. *Sigh*1. I use Wikipedia as it's a good basic source of info for the lay person, and because, when it was tested by the BBC, it came out as MORE accurate than the Encyclopaedia Britannica.2. Your object for objection's sake is pointless, AiG are dead wrong in what they've said in this article. 3. I couldn't care less about Sye, though the poor chap does seem to be somewhat obsessed with me.4. Instead of making a fool of yourself over and over again in the comments here (surely you must be getting tired of never being right by now?) why don't you skype into Fundamentally Flawed and defend your views there?

  3. Alex:     They did say "based on a strict biblical chronology." [Emphasis mine] Insofar as they are using that as their basis, there statement is not a lie. On the other hand, it isn't really any more useful than me using The Wizard of Oz as a basis for knowledge. They are fictional accounts.

  4. If you're going to discuss the Bible as some sort of reference that is valid then please read only the first three pages of Genesis. There are enough flaws in what is written there to disprove the entire book, and the theory of God.Try it, find the flaws.Hint. First words? In the beginning. Of what and how did God happen to be there at "the beginning". Suggests this God pre existed thus it was not the begining of anything but the Bible, first page. Complete bullshit.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: