In a previous blog entry, I focused on the phony rhetoric of a Christian apologist named Ken Ammi. My attacks must have really bothered him, because he engaged in some desperate damage control in not one or two, but THREE blog entries about me in a row! I guess I should be flattered.
But clearly he is wary of direct criticism of him by others, because at the end of each blog entry is this disclaimer:
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
That’s the sort of bull$#it only a coward would claim.
He also begs for money like a televangelist would.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Too cheap to pay for all his own expenses like I do?
On the latter two blog entries, he insults my manhood by mangling my name, referring to me consistently as “Dale’s Husband”. I know the name Dale is one for females too, but….that’s just childish of him!
Ammi often claims that I failed to provide support for my assertions against him. But this is a case of me being asked to provide support for things that I always thought were OBVIOUS and common knowledge, like the sordid history of the corruption and abuses of Christians and their institutions around the world. In this day and age, almost anyone can use the internet to look up references to almost anything; why should I have to prove things like the daytime sky is blue?
There is a footnote on the end of the second blog entry attacking me that is illustrative of why I utterly despise him. His comments will be in red and italics and my responses will be in green and bold.
1. You will note from the very title, It’s not just evolution that discredits Genesis!, that it begins with the un-evidenced assertion that evolution discredits Genesis. But if not just evolution then what?
The only reason he calls my assertion “un-evidenced” is because he himself denies the overwhelming and obvious evidence for evolution itself.
Well, Dale’s Husband writes that “It’s modern astronomy as well, as this one verse makes painfully clear: Genesis 1:16 – ‘God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also’” the comment to which is “Of course, one looking at the night sky with no knowledge of modern astronomy would assume that the stars are nothing more than a decoration to add to the light provided by the Sun and the Moon. But in fact, many stars are far bigger and brighter than the Sun and ALL stars are also suns, greater lights in their own star systems.”
So here I am indeed stating the obvious. So what is his response?!
This is not only irrelevant but confused: the Bible does not refers to stars as mere decoration, it also does not deny that they add light but only that there are “two great lights” from our perspective (which is the contextual perspective), the relative size and brightness of stars is irrelevant.
This is an OUTRIGHT LIE! Something does not become irrelevant because Ken Ammi says so. It is relevant because it illustrates the ignorance of the writers of the Genesis creation stories; they were not in direct contact with God nor were they even credible scientists. They were priests and propaganda writers, much like Ammi himself is a propaganda writer.
A further comment is, “Had that Bible verse been inspired by the true Creator of the universe, it might have been written: ‘God made billions of great lights, one of which we call the Sun that rules our days, and also made a lesser light to rule the night.’” Now, Dale’s Husband is playing theologian and makes a very, very typical Atheistic argument which runs thusly: if God was then God would __________ (and they fill in the blank with their subjective preference which is always something they know does not happen) and since God does not then God is not.
And how is illustrating that any real God would have written a more credible creation account a failing, Mr. Ammi?
It is hermeneutically (and historically) inappropriate to demand that a text tell us something which its own context and/or genre was not meant to convey.
Another falsehood. This was a story about the very creation of the universe itself and claimed by some Christians and Jews to be the Word of God himself. If it was so, it would have been totally ACCURATE and it was NOT! Clearly, Ammi cannot deal with that, but that’s his problem; he needs to GROW UP!
Dale’s Husband then writes, “Ironically, in another part of the Bible, we read: Psalms 19:1-2: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge’” the comment to which is “If that is true, then clearly we need to toss out the references to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in Genesis, since they fail to ‘declare the glory of God’ and also fail to ‘display knowledge’ like the heavens are supposed to do according to the 19th Psalm.”
So here I attempted to link one part of the Bible to another to show a problem with the Scriptures. That’s what credible scholarship does. And yet….
Note the typical Dale’s Husband’s modus operandi: make a vague assertion and move on as if the case is closes. It is asserted that they fail but not told how or why. In fact, sciences such as astronomy, cosmology and cosmogony were premised upon beholding the heavens, discerning a created design and seeking to understand the created design.
I did not make any vague assertions and I did give reasons for my conclusions. Ken Ammi is in straight denial about the facts. And while sciences may have been dominated by theists centuries ago, since the Renaissance they usually did not allow their religious biases to interfere with their search for truth, then or now. The ONLY actual premises for sciences throughout history has been the search for truth about the universe and everything in it, whether a God or gods made it or not. Religious dogmas only hinder that search.
As an Honorable Skeptic, I always insist on EVIDENCE and not merely RHETORIC to support anything that I consider credible. And I have no tolerance for people who have the opposite attitude and are willing to lie about the matter!
Speaking of which, look at these from around a decade ago:
The Planets Won’t Cooperate, with CREATIONISM!
The same sort of crap back then. Nothing has changed, really. I use facts and logic, my religious opponents use lies and fallacies and I should always expect as much.