Skip to main content

Brian Thomas of ICR Visits Ark Encounter

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This post may put some creation science ministries on the prod, but I reckon that people expect me to be a straight shooter. My problem is that I perceive some ministries are acting like competitors instead of co-laborers. Y'all probably heard that Answers in Genesis has a replica of Noah's Ark called Ark Encounter that was built as close to biblical specifications as they could manage, but was not meant to float (the regulations involved for that aspect would be prohibitive, I expect). Eric Hovind of Creation Today was involved, but other prominent ministries have been largely silent about it. Shouldn't they be offering congratulations? Creation Ministries International has mentioned it as a side note in an article about Ark reconstructions. It will have been open for one year on July 7.

Ark Encounter Answers in Genesis
Image courtesy of Answers In Genesis
One reason that I believe other Christians and creationists should take a stand with Answers in Genesis is the attacks by secularists and atheists. They frequently lie, it's their nature, and AiG refutes a number of these specious obloquies, such as the "separation of church and state", AiG getting money, and lies about the beneficial economic impact on Kentucky. (I saw fit to include atheistic falsehoods in "Ark Encounter and Darwin's Deceivers", which was written for opening day, July 7, 2016).The Institute for Creation Research is involved with other ministries, and it is not unusual to see their writers contributing to AiG, CMI, and others. I was mighty pleased that science writer and lecturer Brian Thomas got his ownself over there and had some good things to say about it. See "Visiting the Ark Encounter" for his article.

Popular posts from this blog

Four-Legged Snake in the News Again

Writing about sciency things can be both fascinating and exasperating. The fascinating part is for those of us who like science, but the exasperating part is doing updates. New discoveries are a part of science, especially regarding origins. Darwin's disciples are continually attempting to rewrite history to accommodate observed evidence and still preserve their narrative of atheistic naturalism. Excitement over a supposed four-legged snake fossil slithered back ( which I posted about earlier ) and disputes continue. Tetrapodophis amplectus , Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo  ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) This whole thing was sensationalized from the get-go to promote fish-to-fool evolution and millions of years. Indeed, some important facts about the fossil were not even discussed. It "sheds light" on evolution. Secularists think it would be (insert mouth click here like Cousin Eddie) really nice, but they still have nothing upon which to base that claim. Mayhaps if they realized that

The Secular Science Industry Propagandizes Same-Sex Attraction

We are told that the peer review process in the secular science industry is a method of providing truth and accuracy, and ensuring correct procedures were followed in submitted papers. That sounds like a mighty good idea, but peer-reviewed papers are often bad,  downright fraudulent, or hoaxes . Homosexual activists passed a peer-reviewed paper in  Science  magazine, but that should not have happened. It was fake science research, and  Science  was embarrassed by the fraudulent tactics. The secular science industry did not seem to learn from this. Assembled with images from Open Clipart After the Science  humiliation and the "We're so sorry if we've caused you any pain, Uncle Albert, and boy, does this hurt the credibility of science itself in the public eye" schtick, the disastrous Obergefell decision by the US Supreme Court struck. (That is one reason I believe we're under divine Judgment .) After that ruling, the militant Gaystapo cut loose with harassing peopl

Doing Evil in the Name of Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen (Material added 24 February 2024.) When Christians point out that the mass murderers of the 20th century were atheists (Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was "god"), misotheists with things like, "Prove to me that Stalin said he did atrocities in the name of atheism!" Not in those words, but they hated the God of the Bible and had no consistent moral foundation to inconvenience their consciences. In a similar way, one would have a difficult time finding a scientist who says, "I am using science for evil!" Scientists are not blank slates driven by data. They are as corrupt or virtuous as everyone else, subject to operating within their worldviews. Open Clipart / Olga Bikmullina Professing Christians should be honoring God and following what he has revealed in the Bible. Those who are unregenerate (John 3:6-7, 2 Cor. 5:17) are unable to discern the things of God (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Rom. 12:2). We cannot expect