Confessions of a YEC part1: WHY am I a YOUNG Earth Creationist?

Most people know there is a large, secret subculture in America who reject Darwinian Evolution. Christians and Jews look at the Bible and say, “There’s not a lot of room for Evolution in there.” Intelligent design proponents look at DNA and molecular machines in living cells and say, “There is no way in the name of science that these things came about without a brilliant designer guiding the process.” And some people just look at the mechanisms of evolution and realize that they would fail to cause anything but extinctions.

There is, however, some disagreement within the “evolution deniers” as to the age of the earth. People like me say the earth is about 6,000 years old, but many people who would call themselves “Old Earth Creationists” (OEC) would claim the earth/universe to be anywhere from tens of thousands of years old to billions of years old. It depends on who you ask. I have heard some who refer to themselves as “Middle Age Earthers” and I am not making that up.

Before I continue, let me assure you all that you would have to look far and wide to find a Creationist on either side who feels the persons on the other side are all damned. No one believes that when we get to Heaven St. Peter will greet us with a quiz about the age of the earth. I will even admit that it is possible for people who believe in Evolution to get into heaven, as eternal life is a free gift through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and not dependent on our understanding of science.  Everyone breathe easy, entrance into heaven is not a written science exam. If you needed a reason to praise God today, I think I just gave you several.

So why, you may be asking, did I choose to align myself with the YOUNG Earth creationists (YEC)? After all, Evolution is a shoddy business, but certainly science has proven the Big Bang and Deep Time, right? Don’t we KNOW that the universe is BILLIONS of years old? Don’t we know that there is NO WAY that the creation in Genesis could have happened within normal calendar days? Don’t we believe in millions of years because science DISCOVERED that to be the case?

Lots of people think so, and until a few years back, I was one of those people.

I was raised in a Christian home, so I had come to be taught Creation early on, and was introduced to the flaws on Darwinian Evolution well before I got to high school. However, the age of the earth was never a focus on mine, and I didn’t know much about it. I knew what I had been told about the Big Bang, the age of dinosaurs, etc. I watched the original COSMOS series staring the muppety Carl “Billion Billion Billion” Sagan and I loved it. But I didn’t really think about how that fit into the Creation model. Like a lot of people I was content to say, “The important thing is, GOD DID IT. The rest doesn’t matter.” If I can get political for just a second, I want the church to learn one thing. If your position on any topic is, “The truth doesn’t matter,” you’re doing it WRONG.

About a decade ago I got to see Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe (OEC) speak at a megachurch, and I found his talk to be very well done and fairly well convincing. Around the same time I had been introduced to books which attempted to line up the Creation in Genesis with the Big bang model, and from what I knew they had succeeded. While I never took a hard line stance on it, I probably would have called myself an Old Earth Creationist. A very apathetic and poorly informed one, but an OEC nonetheless.

Somewhere along the line, I started to get more familiar with the work of Answers in Genesis, and many other Young Earth Creationist groups, speakers, and conferences. I also finished taking classes toward a science teaching endorsement. What happened was, I started to learn the arguments FOR the YEC model, and Against the OEC model, and I heard the rebuttals offered by  OEC models for the arguments made by YEC models and vice versa. It’s funny how a little education can effect one’s thinking.

There was a video of a debate between Answers in Genesis’ Ken Ham (YEC) and Hugh Ross (OEC) on youtube which I stumbled across, and the thing which is remarkable about this debate is the way in which it convinced me. First of all, the audience was clearly siding with Hugh Ross, so this was no YEC propaganda piece.

Ken Ham presented evidence and arguments for YEC, Hugh Ross offered Evidence and arguments for OEC. Ken Ham offered evidence and arguments against OEC, which was very convincing, and it would have been enough. What struck me even more than that was the rebuttals offered by Hugh Ross. As Dr. Ross tried to defend his position against the criticisms of Ken Ham, not only were his defenses terrible, but I started to think that Dr Ross didn’t actually believe his own position, SO BAD were his defenses. They were far fetched, weak, and evasive. It was like watching a politician being asked about the most recent scandal. I hadn’t seen a performance that weak and shameful since Al Gore was Vice President. Seeing his defense of OEC actually convinced me most of all that his position had to be wrong. If OEC was true, I realized, then it would be possible to defend it against the criticisms of someone like Ken Ham. He would at least have been able to provide a defense which sounded like he believed it. When you don’t sound persuaded by your own arguments, your position may be in trouble.

On the other hand, I have seen LOTS of attacks against YEC and there are always valid defenses which do not strain credulity. Admittedly, we sometimes do not know the answer. I liken this to a murder scene- we have a body which shows signs of strangulation, has six bullets in the chest and a knife in the back. We can’t say for sure which was the cause of death, or if it was a combination of all three, but we can say with absolute confidence that it was not death by natural causes. Form where I sit, Hugh Ross comes in and says, “It’s actually more likely that he died of old age, and then someone came in and strangled, shot, and stabbed him after he was already dead.” If you want to know why Hugh Ross CSI was canceled half way into its first season, I suspect this was it.

Since then, I have learned a lot of science and Biblical criticism which supports the YEC model and which does not fit within a OEC model. In short, the Bible is clear- God created within a single calendar week about 6,000 years ago. Science is in full agreement- a recent six day creation with a global flood fits within ALL of observable science. Big Bang cosmology, deep time and gradualism does not fit the observed facts. Deep time is NOT a result of scientific investigation, but rather has become a starting assumption which forces scientists to bury a lot of facts and invent a lot of weak explanations not based on observation. My goal is to give you enough of an education to join those of us who stand on the fringes of society, shunned by atheistic science and wishy-washy American church alike, and yet, holding firm to the Bible, we remain Young at heart. I shall explain the nature of some of these evidences and arguments in the near future. In the mean time, check out Answers in Genesis, Creation Week with Ian Juby on YouTube, and thanks for letting me be your Rent-A-Friend.

7 thoughts on “Confessions of a YEC part1: WHY am I a YOUNG Earth Creationist?

  1. “There’s not a lot of room for” the findings of archeological and historical research in the Bible either. Genesis and Exodus just plain don’t fit with what we know.

    • Thanks for your comment Hrafn. Unfortunately, you seem to not know a lot about archeology, because it STRONGLY supports the biblical accounts, even back in Genesis, including the existence of advanced civilizations before the flood, as we have found metal items, such as jewelry and sculpture encased in coal. There’s not a single archeological discovery every made which contradicted the bible, and MANY which have confirmed not only the big events, like the wall of Jericho falling down and Joseph- a non Egyptian- being second only to Pharaoh in Egypt, but the side characters mentioned in passing in OT accounts. We’ve found the library of Ur, city of Abraham, the palace of David, greatest king of Israel, and various parts of the OT history in the writings and artwork of other civilizations, just as we would expect. There are tons of great lectures by archeologists about this on line,

      Here’s a great look at a lot of facts: http://youtu.be/j4ZU2oUaYZ0
      Also, what we know ONLY fits with Genesis. On Creation, the human race started out in the middle east after the flood and at the tower of babel event spread out all over the earth in their family groups with their specific languages. We can trace the development of all the peoples of the earth in this way through their histories and archeology. Furthermore, all of those people on every continent made cities with a pyramid/ziggurat as the center mega structure, just as the tower of babel account describes in Genesis. None of these are dated earlier than 3000BC. On the Evolution/Deep time model, the human race sat around in fields for 95,000 years and did NOTHING, but then ALL OF THEM, ALL OVER THE EARTH between 3,000BC and 2,000BC Suddenly built cities with a ziggurat in the center, and then made artworks, writing, governments and other modern things which, for the first 95% of the history of humanity did not exist. Why did NO ONE make these things before? Why did everyone in the world all do them in the same 1% of human history? Did Ikea have a sale on ziggurats? Only the Biblical account makes sense of the history of the human race as we know it.
      thanks for your comment!

      • rentafriend2000:

        “Unfortunately” it is in fact you who knows NOTHING AT ALL about modern archeology.

        In the last 50 years, archeology has gone from the naive acceptance of Bibilical accounts of Albright’s ‘Biblical Archeology’ to rejecting most of the Patriarchal Period, the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan and the United Kingdom as both lacking any extrabiblical support and being impossible to shoehorn into the known facts of any historical period.

        The “contradictions” are voluminous, including anachronisms (domesticated camels well before they are known to have been domesticated), cities (including Jericho itself) known to have been uninhabited sites at the time of their supposed conquest, the fact that at the most viable time period of the Exodus, Egypt not only ruled Sinai and Palestine but were fighting the Hittites in Syria (meaning that the Jews would have been fleeing *into* the Egyptian army, not away from it). I have just been reading a summary of the seachange in Historical research on the topic brought on by these findings — ‘Biblical History and Israel’s Past’, Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011).

        The existence of Ur does no more to prove the existence of Abraham than the existence of real cities in a historical novel proves the existence of the novel’s main character.

        “The palace of David” has not in fact been found, and you will not find that claim in any credible archeological source.

        “Dr” Don Patton is fraud. Far from being a legitimate “archeologist”, his PhD is from the unaccredited Queensland Christian University (which appears to only exist on paper).

        I would suggest that you get your information on archeology from a university library, not Youtube videos. Any charlatan, crank or crazy can post on Youtube (and a very large number of them do).

        Archeology has found evidence of human settlement tens of thousands of years old, and paleoanthropology traces human origins to Africa, not the Middle East.

        “Why did everyone in the world all do them in the same 1% of human history?”

        Because hunter-gatherers don’t generally build much — see the Australian Aborigines for an example existing into modern times. You first need domestication of crops/animals, permanent settlements, towns and then cities before you get ziggurats (assuming even that the city doesn’t have better things to do, like floodbanks, etc).

      • Ok, I see how this works. You make a vague criticism of the historicity of Genesis, I get you to acknowledge that the city of Ur DID exist, validating part of Genesis through archeology, and then you want to change the subject and complain that it doesn’t prove that Abraham lived- which I did not claim it does prove. (For that you’ll have to dig into paleontology in the Cave of the Patriarchs, in Hebron.) Let’s both admit that this one admission on your part invalidates your original complaint; “Genesis and Exodus just plain don’t fit with what we know.” That’s false, and you admit as much right here, because we KNOW the city of Ur exits. As of the 1800’s we didn’t know where it was, and bloggers like me got comments like yours on account of it. Then we found it. Then bloggers like you complained that, ok, I GUESS Ur existed, but the stories still have to be false because it says Abraham made written covenants with people, and writing OBVIOUSLY did not exist yet. Then they found the Ur public library. And now… they didn’t have domestic camels?

        And let me complain about this argument, because I see it ALL the time. Usually it goes like this:
        Atheist: There is NO EVIDENCE for the existence of God!
        Christian: Sure there is. [lists several very convincing proofs for God]
        Atheist: Oh, yeah? Well, that doesn’t prove WHICH God is real!
        Do you see what happened? Atheist here has admitted that the arguments for the existence of God were VALID, and should therefore change himself to being a theist or at the very least an agnostic. Instead he changes the subject. You’ve done the SAME THING. I’ve given example of Genesis and Exodus fitting with what we KNOW. Now you’re changing the subject and saying that because Ur existed, that doesn’t mean Abraham did, which is completely beside the point and admits to the valid fact that Ur is real, thus invalidating your original complaint. If I went on to prove that Abraham lived, you’d complain that I hadn’t proven that he had a nephew named Lot. Just admit here that you were wrong, and I answered your objection. Your comment was FALSE. Be mature enough to admit that instead of immediately grasping in desperation for the next objection.

        Your list of what conflicts is amazing, as it makes claims NO ONE can verify; “domesticated camels well before they are known to have been domesticated.” Just tell me this, what evidence do you have for there NOT being domesticated camels at that time? Do we have records from all known ancient civilizations which say, “Darn it! We simply CANNOT domesticate those stupid camels! Not even Abraham can do it!” And again, last year’s archeology has pushed the date of camel domestication back, so if you just google a bit you’ll see your data is horribly out of date (And erroneous). Besides that, we have written accounts of people using camels from that time in Genesis. You have to make the circular argument that, because the bible is false, the accounts in it are not true, and thus there is no evidence for people using camels, which means the accounts of people using camels in Genesis are false. The source you do site is several years behind the times, obscure and hard to find, which makes me doubt it already, and the only description I found of it describes the author’s apparent anti-biblical bias, which distorts their interpretations of the data, just as you would accuse Jews and Christians. You can pretend that makes them unbiased, but it is a lie. They will be doing the same circular arguing you’ve done with these allegedly wild camels. But you’re assuming your conclusion and arguing in a circle. What can be validated supports the Bible. What cannot be validated must be assumed, and you and those authors are ASSUMING that the Bible is false, but you have no valid reason for doing so. It is a baseless starting assumption which distorts your conclusions and your arguments.

        Speaking of your data being out of date; Instead of merely GOOGLING “Palace of King David,” you want to resort to “DID NOT!” which is not as convincing an argument as you believe it to be.
        If you had Googled it, you would have found that EVERY news outlet there is reported on this multiple times LAST YEAR. Here’s one for you now:
        http://www.timesofisrael.com/archaeologists-say-one-of-king-davids-palaces-found/
        And now it’s up to you to explain why Professor Yossi Garfinkel of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority are not part of, how you say, “any credible archeological source.”
        Incidentally, this comment of yours is guilty of the “No True Scotsman Fallacy.”



        I think I know where this is going. Even though we have a giant palace at the place and from the time we would expect for King David, you will reject it because some of the archeologists are Jews and believe it to be the palace of King David, right? Because they believe the bible, and then search for and find the very places and evidences of the people they expect they’d find if the Bible is true, you reject their finds because you prefer the Anti-Biblical bias of fringe authors. But again, this is arguing from your conclusion AGAINST the observable data. It seems the data doesn’t color your conclusions.

        After all, the doctorates who are lecturing on the relevant archeology in the youtube videos I linked to have already been dismissed as “charlatan, crank or crazy” because… they are on youtube? So if these same people wrote down their lecture and published it in some journal which I could NOT link to, that would make them credible? Many of them have done so. But do you reject ALL information on youtube as wrong merely because it is on youtube? Do a quick search for logical fallacies and I think you’ll find this on there somewhere. But, you know, don’t look for it on you tube.
        Although, if you do, you’ll find these two which you have already been guilty of in your last reply:

        You attack Don Patton, as if I had said, “If DON says so, it’s SO!” Don doesn’t claim to be the sole discoverer of the info he presents, any more than the textbooks you might use are written by the discoverers of gravity, the civil war, or the automobile. Sometimes people report on things they did not do or find, and if you reject the DATA because of the reporter, then you are committing a logical fallacy.
        This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg

        If you’re willing to condemn data and the archeologists who discovered it because you don’t respect the school attended by the guy narrating the video, just admit that you’re not willing to think about the facts and leave me alone. And don’t comment on anyone’s blogs anymore. Like, at all.

        How about you skip the list of logical fallacies and just educate yourself when the opportunity is presented? Here’s a start if you prefer to read, since youtube immediately invalidates any PhD:
        http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-case-for-the-reliability-of-the-old-testament-bible-insert/
        http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/a-brief-sample-of-old-testament-archaeological-corroboration/

        If you’re looking for a fight, then go somewhere else. If you’re looking to see WHAT evidence has been found in support of the Bible, then go back to that playlist I posted and do some research on the presenters until you find one whose education you respect.

        There’s your options. Pick one and let me know how it goes. And as always, thanks for letting me be your Rent-A-Friend.

  2. 1) SPECIFIC criticism of Genesis already given: “domesticated camels well before they are known to have been domesticated”

    2) The fact that Ur existed DOES NOT PROVE that Abraham existed any more than the fact that Troy existed proves that Achilles existed (you have heard of the Illiad, haven’t you?).

    3) STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID! I ***DID NOT*** SAY “Genesis and Exodus just plain don’t fit with what we know.”

    What I in fact said was “…both lacking any extrabiblical support and being impossible to shoehorn into the known facts of any historical period.”

    This does not require demonstrating EVERY detail in the story is false (e.g. each and every city mentioned in the account), all it requires is that there is sufficient inconsistency with what is known (e.g. the Exodus being inconsistent with Egyptian control of Sinai and Palestine) for the account not to fit into that historical period (or on further examination any historical period).

    4) Camels aren’t native to Mesopotamia (they came from further East) and are very big-boned, so leave a LOT of archeological evidence. If you want to argue this then find a REAL archeologist (not Don Patton). Even if the “Ur Public Library” existed, it would not have a treatise on ‘Camel Domestication’ if nobody had camels, and nobody had successfully domesticated one. Camels aren’t the most pleasant of beasts, and I would rather doubt if anybody would bother with them until they had developed a sufficiently extensive trade network that their hardiness would outweigh their unpleasantness.

    5) Presence (or lack) of evidence for people and events in the OT (“extrabiblical support”) is far more easy verify than evidence for the existence of God. Was Jericho inhabited at the time of the Conquest of Canaan? (No.) Were David or Solomon mentioned in any surviving records or correspondence of the surrounding empires? (No.) Etc. Etc.

    6) The “palace” in question is sited at Khirbet Qeiyafa, 20 miles from Jerusalem. There is considerable question over whether it was Jewish, or Philistine or Canaanite, let alone David’s. That’s what you get from relying on “sensationalist” initial reports, rather than consensus science.
    I would further point out that the archeologists themselves only claimed “Khirbet Qeiyafa is the best example exposed to date of a fortified city FROM THE TIME OF King David” and that “organic material” from the site dated to that period, not that the palace had been determined to be David’s.

    7) The first video that your link pulled up was that of Don Patton, a fairly notorious fraud, with a fake doctorate from one of the more notoriously fake universities (it’s gone through at least three names in 3 cities on two continents). Are all of the other speakers frauds, I don’t know. What I DO know is that ANYBODY can post a video to Youtube, therefore it will have a higher than normal crazy-to-expert ratio (and that the playlist in question was sufficiently undiscriminating to include Patton). To get a book published is a slightly higher (though still low) hurdle, to get the book into a university library, an even higher one. So, if you want your claims to be credible, read a book on archeology, preferably from a university library.

    8) Humanity spent its time hunting and gathering for most of its existence (neither having the need, nor the technology, to do anything else), as Australian Aborigines did all the way through to European contact, and as some tribes in the Philippines do to this day. Dogs were domesticated fairly early on 30ky ago, sheep 10ky ago, with cultivation of figs and cereals starting at about the same time. Civilisation and technology has been slowly accelerating (to the modern frantic pace) ever since.

    If you want to ask why it took so long, then you’d also have to ask why it took so long to discover modern science (the laws of physics, chemistry and the like). We’ve only had those for a very few centuries, yet its increasingly hard to view the world from a prescientific viewpoint.

    9) Don Patton is a fraud (with a fraudulent PhD from a fraudulent university, that NEVER EXISTED, beyond a postal address — not simply one that I don’t “respect”). It is therefore not unreasonable to suspect that many of his claims may likewise be fraudulent (if he lies about his qualifications, why wouldn’t he lie about archeology?), and not legitimately “discovered” at all. It is therefore not unreasonable not to waste time on this fraud’s videos.

    10) J. Warner Wallace is likewise a fraud. He has no archeological or historiographical background and his work has been criticised for having no firm basis in those fields. The ‘The Case for the Reliability of the Old Testament (Free Bible Insert)’ page you cited certainly seems to support this view — for example the Masoretes were active roughly 500-1000 CE, so are largely irrelevant to the reliability of the OT.

    11) Your “playlist” DOES NOT demonstrate “WHAT evidence has been found in support of the Bible”, it ONLY demonstrates what some people CLAIM supports the Bible. I therefore have to evaluate whether these sources are likely to be sufficiently honest and knowledgeable to make their claims credible, or even sufficiently-likely-to-be-credible to warrant spending my time watching them. Given Patton’s inclusion on the playlist that time does not appear to be warranted. I have no interest in being preached at by a bunch of people whose motives and knowledge are suspect.

    I would note your own disinterest in actually reading books written by genuine archeologists (even the tiny minority still subscribing to an inerrantist view of the Bible). If you continue to treat Youtube as though it were the Library of Congress, you are unlikely to be taken seriously.

    • Welcome back Hrafn!
      You had a LOT to say, so I’ll just take your comments one at a time. And thanks for numbering them. That will make my reply MUCH easier. I’ll just take them in order, starting with #3, because it is by far my favorite.

      3) STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID! I ***DID NOT*** SAY “Genesis and Exodus just plain don’t fit with what we know.”

      What? Rent-A-Friend a LIAR? Well, let’s just scroll down to your original comment and see what you said…
      “There’s not a lot of room for” the findings of archeological and historical research in the Bible either. Genesis and Exodus just plain don’t fit with what we know.
      So… I’m not lying. That is EXACTLY what you said. All I did was cut and paste. You are, forgive me for saying so, just lazy. I mean, your refusal to google anything is bad enough, but that you have now failed to even scroll far enough to see what you originally said… come on man. And you throw “STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID!” at me? In ALL CAPS? I hope we have all learned something important about going the extra mile before throwing out the old “You’re a liar!” accusation. Because ONE of us, and I’m not going to say who it is, looks a little silly right now.

      Ok, but you had MUCH more to say:

      #1: Yes, specific criticisms given and refuted. I did not address each one specifically, but I gave you the resources to find those answers. I won’t do all of your homework for you. And I DID refute the camel one, which you mention AGAIN as if I had said nothing about it. If my argument was wrong, why do you not address it at all? I also explained why this is fallacious circular arguing. Go read that again.

      #2: I never said that the existence of Ur proves the story of Abraham. So… straw man? Or merely not paying attention? Let’s go with BOTH. I did explain the weak nature of this dodge, which DOES amount to an admission that I was right and you were wrong. Go read that again.

      #3: Classic.

      #4: Here’s the point behind all of this camel business. You are trying to argue as FACT what you DON’T know because of an admitted LACK of evidence. You START by assuming the Bible wrong, so when it says, “We had camels!” and you LACK evidence OUTSIDE the Bible, you support your starting assumption by declaring that piece of data in the Bible to be FALSE because of what you admit you DON’T KNOW. CIRCULAR REASONING. Arguing FROM your conclusion. I did address this before. It looks like SOMEONE hasn’t been taking notes…

      #5: Changing the subject, and asserting false statements about the past based on a LACK of evidence, after having refused to learn about these things from the sources I offered. No points.

      #6: Ad Hominem/ No True Scotsman Fallacy again, and circular arguing. No Points.

      #7. Ad Hominem AGAIN, and already addressed previously. It’s like you didn’t read ANYTHING I said! Why do people keep doing that to me? I say stuff, and you all are like, “YOU never said stuff…” But then, you didn’t know what YOU had said, so maybe I’m taking this too hard.

      #8. I expect it will be harder for you to see why this one is circular reasoning, but let me sum up: You are basing your answer on the mythology of deep time and evolutionary thinking, which you present here as brute facts (And which I shall prove as false in upcoming installments of Confessions of a YEC!) but you fail to see that you are also failing to answer the question. It not only fails to explain why 95% of the history of humanity was wandering in mud fields, but why cultures ALL OVER THE WORLD, who, on the evolutionary view could NOT have had any communication with each other, suddenly, within 1% of their history, all built cities for the first time with very similar plans. This also asks WHY do no governments, cities, or centralized civilizations exist ANYWHERE before the flood of Noah (Which I know you reject, but I’m using it as a time marker- about 4,000BC.). The Genesis account not only makes sense of it all, but we can trace multiple cultures, through their own history and other archeology, back to the tower of Babel event (in Genesis) which (Like the flood) many other cultures record in their histories. In short, the Biblical account in Genesis DOES fit with what we know, and the evolutionary/deep time account FAILS on all counts. Genesis has what we call “Explanatory scope and Power” while evolutionary thinking does not. It has what we call “EPIC FAIL.”

      #9. Ad Hominem. I already replied to this fallacy.

      #10. You say, “J. Warner Wallace is likewise a fraud. He has no archeological or historiographical background and his work has been criticised for having no firm basis in those fields.” Obviously ANOTHER Ad Hominem fallacy, but now that I see a background in archaeology or history are necessary to understand and communicate this information, I shall await YOUR credentials and resume before I continue to assume you know or understand anything in these fields. Also, I expect you have a degree in Biblical Textual Criticism, otherwise you surely wouldn’t go making comments about Genesis when, with no background in OT studies, you surely couldn’t know or understand anything about it. And with your fascination with camels, I suspect you also have a degree or varied experience in Biology, zoology, or other related fields.
      Your resume must be AMAZING! I look forward to seeing it.

      …Or to seeing you admit that this criticism of Jim Wallace is a weak, pathetic fallacious attack which merely is being used as an escape hatch to avoid looking at evidence you don’t want to admit exists.

      Nah. You wouldn’t do that. I’ll bet your resume IS AWESOME!!! Just post it here so I can share it with my readers.

      #11: This is basically you saying, “I’m too lazy to think about/evaluate sources of information, so I’ll just remain ignorant. Oh, and here’s one more Ad Hominem fallacy.”
      Come ON man! Even if Don Patton is a drooling pedophile and verified compulsive liar, that REALLY means ANYONE who he references is a liar and ANYONE whose video shows up NEAR Don’s is AUTOMATICALLY disqualified by sharing a youtube screen? Even if the presenter is Lecturer in Ancient History and Assistant Senior Tutor at Collingwood College, and is the author of Ancient Phoenicia: An Introduction (Bristol Classical Press 2011) and has written articles on various aspects of the religion and history of Ancient Canaan and Phoenicia. such as Dr. Mark Woolmer? He’s the third video down.

      If you can’t see why your rejection of people like Dr. Woolmer is a faulty line of reasoning, I cannot help you. And if you choose to remain ignorant of the data which supports my position when I give you the chance to learn, and merely fall back on weak reasons to reject the messenger, then you need to admit that you are not interested in reasonable discussion, but mere dogmatic assertion of things which, because of your choices, you are woahfully ignorant. I DON’T CARE why you refuse to learn. You have REFUSED to learn. What is the point of sending me comments if you choose to remain ignorant of my position? Save yourself the time, and post the following:
      “I don’t know or understand your position, but you are wrong, and I hate you.”

      That would save us BOTH a lot of time.

      You conclude by asserting that I have no interest in reading scholarly books, which I never said (Ad Hominem AND straw man in one!). I merely pointed out that I cannot link those books here for easy reference. And from the one discredible source you sited, I think that finger needs to be pointed right back at yourself, buddy. Just turn that finger around. Back at you.

      I actually own several books about OT history, but I’m not going to scan and post pages from those when I can cut and paste an hour of lecture from people like the Lecturer in Ancient History and Assistant Senior Tutor at Collingwood College, who is the author of Ancient Phoenicia: An Introduction (Bristol Classical Press 2011) and has written articles on various aspects of the religion and history of Ancient Canaan and Phoenicia..

      If you consider not only my cheeky cartoonish personality, and your AMAZING overuse and apparent dependance on logical fallacies, not to mention being so lazy that you called me a liar for quoting you, I don’t think it’s ME who needs to worry about being taken seriously. It’s not actually at the top of my list of priorities.

      And because this is becoming redundant, if you reply with the SAME empty and undocumented blanket assertions about camels and what not, and still choose to remain ignorant of the information that supports my position, then I won’t bother posting it or replying. You can choose to remain ignorant if you wish, but I won’t waste more time talking to you about your ignorance. If you wish to discuss my position AFTER you learn what it is and what supports it, then by all means drop me a line.

      And as always, thanks for letting me be your Rent-A-Friend.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s