Refute of Penn and Teller video

[Romber]

I hope this doesn't get closed, as the thread that originally had this was closed. However, if one Christian scratches their head after watching any video, then I think it is in it's right place to be posted with a refute. Anyways:

Penn and Teller video

To be very general right now, the people in the video have an evolutionary worldview and come into the video with a bias. This bias will force themselves to come to a result they want to see. What this means is at best this video is Evolutionary evangelism. How can this video honestly give a fair view on the bible? If you don't clearly see the bias, look 1:03, Penn uses his own bias to give the bible a "fairy tale" twist (Once upon a time..)

:42-The scientist (aka Terry) makes a pretty bold and general claim that archaeologists have not found anything evidence to support places or events in the bible. This is not true on two accounts: One, we have not dug up every piece of dirt on this earth. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Two, archaeologists have found evidence listed in the bible. An example I can think of off the top of my head are Bricks with hay found in them-which is precisely what Moses said in Exodus.

1:20-The age old "Two Creation Accounts". The more I deal with people who believe such a view, I realize it is out of pure ignorance. In fact such a belief would be a definite contradiction, and God does not lie( Titus 1:2).

Let me give you an example to try and understand how Genesis chapter 2 complements Genesis chapter 1. I am writing the history of the Detroit Lions for a sports editorial for the local paper. I might start off with important dates and then give a short description. So something like this might appear:

• In 1934 the Detroit Lions were conceived.
• In 1935 Detroit won their first World Championship (Super Bowl)
• In 1952 Detroit won their second World Championship
• In 1953 Detroit won their third World Championship
• In 1957 Detroit won their fourth World Championship

This is enough to get my point across. If a reader is wanting a quick and general history, this is exactly what you would want. However, how clunky would it be if the author of this decided to explain every year with detail? It would look something like this:

• Dick Richards leads a group that purchases the Portsmouth Spartans for the staggering price of $7,952.08, and moves them to Detroit, where in keeping with the jungle tradition with other Detroit nicknames the team utilizes the name Lions. The Lions play their first game ever on September 23rd at the old University of Detroit Stadium, and beat the New York Giants by a score of 9-0 in front of 12,000 fans. The Lions would go on to win their first 10 games that included 7 straight shutouts. Four days after their first loss the Lions host the Chicago Bears on Thanksgiving establishing a new tradition. The Lions would lose the key game 16-13, and would go on to finish their inaugural campaign with a 10-3 record.
• The Lions are among 4 teams in the NFL's competitive Western Division that finishes with a winning record. The Lions would finish the season with a 7-3-2 record, finishing percentage points ahead of the Green Bay Packers for the Division Championship earning them a birth in their first ever Championship Game. On December 9th in front of a rockus home crowd the Lions host the New York Giants for the NFL Championship. Led by QB Earl Clark the Lions would roar their way to a deceive 26-7 victory earning their first NFL Championship.
• The Lions continue to improve finishing 9-3 and in a flat-footed tie with Los Angeles Rams for the National Conference Title. The tie set up a tiebreaker for a trip to the NFL Championship game. On December 21st in front of a loud home crowd the Lions beat the over matched Rams by a score of 31-21 to earn a trip to the following week's NFL Championship game in Cleveland against the Browns. The Lions would on to stun the Browns in front of their home fans 17-7 to claim their 2nd NFL Championship.
• The Lions finish 10-2 to earn a return trip to the NFL Championship game where they a matched up in a rematch with the Cleveland Browns. On December 27th in front of a load crowd of 54,577 the Lions win a 17-16 nail bitter to claim their second consecutive NFL Championship.
• Prior to the start of the season Head Coach Raymond Parker who guided the Lions through their best era of success abruptly resigns. Assistant George Wilson would replace him the following day. Rogers helps lead the Lions to an 8-4 season which is good enough to earn a tie for the Western Conference title with San Francisco 49ers. The Lions would fall behind early in the Western Conference Championship at San Francisco's Cesar Stadium. However, the Lions would roar to life in the second half and would claim a 31-27 victory to earn a trip to the NFL Championship game. In the NFL Championship played in front of a 55,263 fans at Briggs Stadium the Lions take apart the Browns 59-14 to claim their 4th NFL Championship, and 3rd of the decade. However, the Lions would not win another Championship in the 20th Century.

Now this becomes a very cluttered mess and to get any exact information you want, you would almost have to sit down and piece through every year. Since our God is an intelligent creator understands this. How awkward would it be if he gives a chronological record of creation of this world, but on Day 6 puts literally everything from Genesis chapter 2 into the verses pertaining to Day 6. Again, this would be a very awkward placement. It is only fitting that immediately after the creation account is laid down does God go into much further detail on exactly what happened on Day 6. Humans are only Gods most precious creation, and a detailed account of how we came about would be very welcomed. When people try and tell me Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis are clearly contradicting passages, I slap my hand to my forehead and shake my head. If one really looked into how the two chapters are laid out it becomes clear what Chapter 2's intention was-which is quite evident by the way we work today when we organize timelines. I did not know all those facts about the Lions (Go Lions!). I merely pulled them off another website to give an example.

1:43-Terry believes he is in the authority to sanction what part of the bible Christians are allowed to say is literal. His reasoning is that because there are two creation accounts, that are complementary to each other, in Genesis, Christians can not say the account of Genesis is literal. This is an illogical conclusion regardless if the two creation accounts were complementary or not.

1:58-Terry goes on to find it impossible for Noah to maintain the more than 10 billion species living on a single Ark. Well so do I. Luckily the bible did not tell Noah to take every specie, but every kind. Granted, the exact definition of kind is not very stable, but what is known is a "kind" is on a much larger scope such as genus or even family. Species wasn't even a term fully developed yet until recent times and in Noah's time genetic variation between animals was very minimal as mutations and in-breeding had not fully been incorporated into life.

The following animals could have survived outside the ark (Whitcomb 1998, p.68):

25,000 species of fish
1,700 tunicates (mane chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas
600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins
107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters
10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids
4,000 species of sponges
31,000 protozoan, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
Noah would not have to be concerned with the aquatic mammals such as the dolphins, whales, porpoises, sea lions, and walrus. There are also many aquatic reptiles that could survive outside of the ark. These would include many types of snakes, alligators, crocodiles, and sea turtles. There are almost a million species of arthropods that would survive the flood. Animals such as the following: shrimps, crabs, lobsters, and many other crustaceans. All of the insects could survive outside the ark. Mote than 35,000 species of worms and nematodes would also survive the flood.

Most animals are not very large. The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a small rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage.

Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family.

Based on railroad industry figures a railroad stockcar can hold 240 sheep and each stock car has a capacity of 2670 ft3. Therefore each sheep requires 11.125 ft3. Most authorities on rabbit husbandry give the dimensions for a rabbit hutch as 3.0 ft3per animal. If the average animal size is indeed the size of a small rabbit the calculations shown below could be reduced by a factor of three.

The following calculations show the amount of the ark space that would be required to carry the stated number of animals, based on the average size of a sheep.

40,000 animals x 11.125 ft3 = 445,000 ft3 OR 445,000 ft 3
1,518,750 ft3 × 100 = 29% of the Ark's capacity

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html

Given that Terry had the wrong idea of what God required Noah to take (species instead of kinds) and that the Ark is more than large enough to hold two of every animal on the Earth, this argument becomes moot.

2:25-Penn proceeds to tell viewers the traditional "stolen myth" story that the flood was account was taken from a real event that happened in the region. To my surprise he didn't use the ever popular "Gilgamesh" flood account. Instead he used the story that Euphrates floods every year. One year it flooded exceptionally bad the Sumerian King took a barge to float down the river until it landed on dry ground. He then proceeds to tell viewers their is plenty of archaeological and geological evidence for such a view.

This could of been an event that really happened, I don't know. But it doesn't matter. The biblical account is so much more different from this account that to say it was an over exaggeration of it is ridiculous. The Bible says the flood was global, killed all living creatures, lasted a little over a year, took two of every animal, the ark landed on a mountain and it needed a massive boat (ark) to carry all the animals. The account Penn speaks of merely says there was exceptional flooding that over ran all the levees and killed a lot of people. The king took a barge and floated down river until he landed on dry land. Do you see any connection? Neither did I.

3:06-Ironically enough, Penn then mentions that 6 other cultures in the area have similar flood stories like Noah's. In fact, I will go a step farther and mention that nearly every culture around the world has a flood story like Noah's. If every culture, and many are independent of each other, has some story of a world wide flood near the dawn of time occurring, then maybe, just maybe it actually did happen. The details are not very similar as each is written to appease their polytheistic pagan beliefs, but one fact that stays quite consistent between each story is the fact the flood was global and killed everything except that in the ark.

Why Global flood stories from every culture is proof
Summary of every flood myth from around the world

3:45-Penn tells viewers absolutely no evidence even exists that Jews even existed in Egypt. I guess he hasn't hear of the internet What Penn said is a grand case of a secular bias. A simple search, and I came up with this site(very long read, but LOTS of evidence of Exodus):

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

4:13-Terry makes a logical fallacy in claiming "Since there is no evidence of the exodus, there must of been no exodus". I can then turn around and say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You have to remember that the Exodus was in fact, an exodus. The people were nomadic who traveled the desert, never setting up permanent cities. If there was any archaeological evidence, it would be hard press to find-that's if archaeologists dismiss just because it is in support of biblical history.

4:33-A new scientists comes into the picture that we will call Richard. He says it is so hard for people to accept biblical miracles because they can't be explained. Now let's hold on for a second. Hypothetically assume God is real. Hypothetically also assume he is the God of Judeo-Christianity who created all we see. Why must he do anything in this world in accordance to the natural laws he created? He is God, and he can do as he wants. It also begs the question, if we can explain the miracles through finite human mind, then they aren't so much miracles, but more or less an act of nature.

4:52-Richard cannot wrap his mind around the fact that God can do whatever he wants in this world. That means perform miracles unexplainably. So he does what any human being does and rationalizes it. He uses the age old theory that Moses and the Israelites crossed the "sea of reeds" or essentially a marsh. This of course is completely wrong. The Bible makes it quite clear through it's context that the Red Sea was the deep body of water east of Egypt and adjacent to the Sinai Peninsula. The bible says the sea was very deep (Isaiah 63:11-13, Psalms 78:11-13). The Bible also makes it clear the water covered the Egyptians. No mere marsh could possibly do this. ( Exodus 15:1, Deuteronomy 11:4, Joshua 24:7, Nehemiah 9:11, Psalms 78:52-54). The bible also makes it clear that all the Egyptians died from the water falling on them (Exodus 14:27-28,Exodus 14:30, Psalms 106:11). Now we need to ask the question, what is the miracle of Richard that a marsh could do all this? Cover all the Egyptians completely to the point of drowning? If we look at the hebrew word for Red Sea, yam suph, it can be translated to "sea of reeds" or a marsh. But throughout the entire old and new testament it is translated as Red Sea (1 Kings 9:26-28, Acts 7:36, Hebrews 11:29). The bible makes it quite clear the Red Sea is in fact the Red Sea. The illogical presentation of the Red Sea as a mere marsh is quite evident by all the Bible claimed the Red Sea did. I wish I could explain exactly how the Red Sea parted, but then it would take away from the whole "show the Israelites the power of God through miracles aspect"

6:08-Penn complains that a historical account was written after the event in question happened....Do I really need to explain what's wrong with this statement?

<omitted (6:48-end) due to length> Go to my blog (Christian Faith Apologetics) if you want to read the rest.

Remember, Penn and Teller are magicians. There job is to deceive people-and make money from it! Please don't buy into their 'greatest trick yet'. I have hopefully sufficiently given good rebuttals to every point of their video. However if you have questions or I missed something, let me know!

Thanks and God bless

[shepherdsword]

I think the Penn and Teller video is pure garbage and that it shouldn't even be given the courtesy of having a link in our posts.

[Joe King]

I think the Penn and Teller video is pure garbage and that it shouldn't even be given the courtesy of having a link in our posts.

It was worth it to read Romber's fantastic post. Great job Romber!!!

[Alaska]

I think Romber should get a standing ovation.

He not only busted the video but also the supposed contradiction between chapters 1 and 2.

I think this should also be considered.
In the scriptures in numerous places the reference to God creating the heaven and earth is a general statement referring to the fact that he did create everything.

I believe the first statement in Gen. 1 is doing the same thing as we see in other places such as Psalms and Jeremiah etc., making the overall declaration or statement that God did create everything in our physical reality.
So you have an overview in verse 1, very general, but all inclusive.
Then in verse 2, is the beginning of a much larger but still relatively general overview giving the order and sequence and the time involved. Here we get much more detail than the general "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In light of that, perhaps we could use the word "overlap". The most general yet all inclusive declaration of God having created everything (1:1) is overlapped by the text beginning at the next verse and continuing to the end of the chapter, generally describing how he did it.

To suppose that 1:1 is part of day one because of the word "and" at the beginning of 1:2 is, I believe, unsound, as demonstrated in the following example:

I installed all the fenceposts of the perimeter of the entire 10 acres.
And the first day was the most difficult because I started at the Northeast corner where the ground is extremely hard.

Now if I number them after the manner of Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, how wise is it to suppose that verse 1 is only a part of day one and not a very general but all inclusive overview? Does the style of speech using the word "And " at the beginning of verse 2 make it necessary to conclude that verse 1 is part of day 1?

1) I installed all the fenceposts of the perimeter of the entire 10 acres.
2) And the first day was the most difficult because I started at the Northeast corner where the ground is extremely hard.

Heaven was not even created until day two, therefore verse 1 that speaks of the heaven cannot be merely a part of day 1.
Verse 1 is the all inclusive general overview. Verses 2-5 deal with the first day. And day two starts in verse 6:

Gen. 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The style of writing using the word "And" in verse 2 is misconstrued to suppose there has to be a sequential connection linking the verse to the day instead of being a linguistic device linking the general overall statement in 1:1 to the start of the narrative that reveals how God did it .

This misconstruing of the word "and" is also an assisting culprit in the assumption that Gen. 2 is not consistent with Gen. 1.
Gen. chapter 2 overlaps the 6th day that the end of chapter 1 generally addressed.

Notice how the word "And" in Gen. 2 can be misunderstood as it is misunderstood in Gen. 1

Gen. 2:
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The "And" in verse 19 is a literary device denoting the beginning of the explanation of how God provided for the man so he wouldn't be alone. The "And" connects verse 19 to 18 as if to say:

God had planned that the man would not have to be alone. And let me tell you how God worked that out:
Remember how God made all the animals? well, God had the animals file in front of Adam and he named them all....

( I wonder if the naming thereof included the designation between the male and female as in "buck" and "doe". So at the end of the naming of all the critters, poor Adam looks around and says, "hey, that's it? that aint fair, how come I aint got one?)
Just kidding.

[Romber]

Thanks guys. It took me a fair bit of time, but I enjoyed it. I think I am going to start to take the more famous videos off youtube that challenge Christianity and post refutes. I did do the whole video, but their is an 18,000 character limit on these forums per post

@Alaska-Exactly! It is only literary flow that the two chapters seem to contradict each other, but when you inspect them carefully you realize they aren't so contradictory.

[Advocatus Dei]

To be very general right now, the people in the video have an evolutionary worldview and come into the video with a bias. This bias will force themselves to come to a result they want to see

And you didn't approach this with anything other than an open mind. Right.

archaeologists have found evidence listed in the bible. An example I can think of off the top of my head are Bricks with hay found in them-which is precisely what Moses said in Exodus.

Someone found a brick and you're using that as a basis for an argument?

Let me give you an example to try and understand how Genesis chapter 2 complements Genesis chapter 1. I am writing the history of the Detroit Lions for a sports editorial for the local paper...

I can't believe that you then posted all that dross. I can't believe anyone actually read it. An argument should be succint, to the point and relevant which doesn't describe your post up to this point. If you need to convince people who do not believe that Christ came into this world to save us, then you need to lift your game.

The following animals could have survived outside the ark (Whitcomb 1998, p.68): 25,000 species of fish

Do you know anyone who claimed that the ark contained anything aquatic at all?

Most animals are not very large. The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a small rodent

There's quite a diffference there. We should really be more specific.

One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars.

Do you have any idea of the likely outcome of keeping 40,000 sheep in railroad cars (or their equivalent) for a year. I hope you don't have a dog.

Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of a small rabbit

What happened to the rodent? Sorry - small rodent.

Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the ark

I'm glad you confirmed that.

Therefore each sheep requires 11.125 ft3.

I don't think you have any idea how small that is. It's about the same size as a domestic fridge. Can you fit a sheep into a fridge? Let me know if you're going to try this, I want to come around and watch.

the Ark is more than large enough to hold two of every animal on the Earth.

Are you so sure now?

Instead he used the story that Euphrates floods every year.This could of been an event that really happened, I don't know.

Then don't bring it in to the argument. And it's 'could have' not 'could of', by the way. Sorry to be picky but at least you won't make the same mistake again.

Ironically enough, Penn then mentions that 6 other cultures in the area have similar flood stories like Noah's. In fact, I will go a step farther and mention that nearly every culture around the world has a flood story like Noah's.

So ours is correct and all the others are wrong? Or they're all right. Or maybe none of them. It's so hard to tell. And his mentioning it was not 'irony'.

Richard cannot wrap his mind around the fact that God can do whatever he wants in this world. That means perform miracles unexplainably. So he does what any human being does and rationalizes it

I think you missed the point of the whole video.

I wish I could explain exactly how the Red Sea parted, but then it would take away from the whole "show the Israelites the power of God through miracles aspect"

Exactly. You can try to rationalise everything, including your 'sheep in a box' theory, but when it comes to the hard bits, well, that was a miracle. Why couldn't all the animals fit in the ark by dint of a miracle? Why try to play their game by 'rationalizing' it?

I have hopefully sufficiently given good rebuttals to every point of their video.

Not even close.

However if you have questions or I missed something, let me know!

OK, why do you give such facile arguments that could only strengthen an atheists viewpoint that we're barely able to debate our way out of a wet paper bag? All this 'clap on the back for ol' Romber' is blowing smoke and could only serve to perpetuate such weak posts. If you want to go head to head with clever, well edited, witty and populist propoganda such as dished up by two professional entertainers, then we need better than what you have delivered. Sorry if that's a hard pill to swallow, but I'm just tired of getting my butt kicked by atheists who are way better than most Christians at carrying an argument.

Can you possibly imagine posting on an atheist forum an argument for Christ that included the fact that someone found a brick! I shudder at the thought.

[Studyin'2Show]

AD, this was Romber's apologetic to the video. It was not his point to PROVE anything but to merely show that the video's claims to have proven something are false. The burden of proof is with those on the video. His was only to show the large areas of doubt as to their 'proof'. Also, the point of mentioning all the other cultures that have flood stories was not to say ours is right, theirs is wrong, but simply to make a point that if many cultures have worldwide flood stories maybe there's a good reason. Like for instance, there was a worldwide flood.

God Bless!

[Romber]

And you didn't approach this with anything other than an open mind. Right.

I didn't complain because they didn't have an open mind. I was telling the person (originally this was posted in this forum for help) that the view was complete and utter evolutionary bias-there was no room for any other view in the video. In a Christian forum I believe it is only fair to get a bias view from both sides so that the person questioning can see how exactly both stack up. In this sense it may be possible to derive an un-bias view from combining both sides of the debate

Someone found a brick and you're using that as a basis for an argument?

Yes. It is legal evidence and is perfectly legal to use as a basis for an argument. If it doesn't meet up with your standards of argument quality, then I'm sorry. I choose to use that example because it was the one sticking out when I wrote this.

I can't believe that you then posted all that dross. I can't believe anyone actually read it. An argument should be succint, to the point and relevant which doesn't describe your post up to this point.

I don't quite understand your logic here. I made a relevant point by describing Genesis chapters 1&2 with a modern equivalent. If you think I rambled on, I'm sorry. I felt it was needed to get my point across sufficiently. I do wonder though, why you read it if you stated 'I can't believe anyone actually read it'

If you need to convince people who do not believe that Christ came into this world to save us, then you need to lift your game.

I believe you are mistaken. It is no mere 'game' but a duty that every Christian bears on their shoulders. I don't do this to get all the Christly glory of how many people I have converted or changed. I do it because this world is quite secular and any 'proof' people are fed are under a secular bias-that is removal of God. Through this refute, it hopefully shows people that the Bible is in fact true. If the Bible is true, then Jesus must be true. If Jesus is true then I do get judged and I KNOW I don't want to spend eternity in hell.

Do you know anyone who claimed that the ark contained anything aquatic at all?

No one does. The only way to critique the Noahician Flood is to go by what the bible says and it clearly says only land animals. The statement was made only to show how many different kinds could be left off the Ark. No one was trying to insult anyone else's intelligence by saying aquatic animals could not go on the Ark.

There's quite a diffference there. We should really be more specific.

There is. But to be conservative all figures were done by the average size is a sheep.

Do you have any idea of the likely outcome of keeping 40,000 sheep in railroad cars (or their equivalent) for a year. I hope you don't have a dog.

Maybe I didn't post it, or maybe you just didn't read, but the 167 railcars to hold 40,000 sheep takes into effect the needed living space for each sheep-meaning that the mess you seem to be thinking of is not as compounded as it seems.

I don't think you have any idea how small that is. It's about the same size as a domestic fridge. Can you fit a sheep into a fridge? Let me know if you're going to try this, I want to come around and watch.

This is a number received from a person who is a professional in such areas. If you don't like it-tough. They have the credentials.

Then don't bring it in to the argument. And it's 'could have' not 'could of', by the way. Sorry to be picky but at least you won't make the same mistake again.

It is irrelevant to if it really happened or not. That was the point I was making. I was arguing the actual idea behind the story. I am not going to look pretentious either. If I don't know, I don't know.

So ours is correct and all the others are wrong? Or they're all right. Or maybe none of them. It's so hard to tell. And his mentioning it was not 'irony'.

Read my thread on Global Deluge. It will answer many of your questions.

I think you missed the point of the whole video.

No I quite well understood the video. I watched it at least 3 times while writing a critique to it every 45 seconds ago. But as you may of noticed, I refute every point brought up. One was Richard didn't think God was capable of miracles. That's why I made a point there and refuted it.

Exactly. You can try to rationalise everything, including your 'sheep in a box' theory, but when it comes to the hard bits, well, that was a miracle. Why couldn't all the animals fit in the ark by dint of a miracle? Why try to play their game by 'rationalizing' it?

Why say the Ark was a miracle. I mean certain aspects were definitely miracles. But when we have all the information we need to rationalize something, it would be out of utmost ignorance to still claim it was a miracle. Granted many things over the history of the world have been claimed miracles, but as our understanding of how things work increases we can rationalize. It doesn't take away the miracle aspect as the chances of something happening may be so slim that it is nearly impossible to happen unless if God helped it (if you subscribe to an Evolutionary belief, this would be exactly the case).

OK, why do you give such facile arguments that could only strengthen an atheists viewpoint that we're barely able to debate our way out of a wet paper bag? All this 'clap on the back for ol' Romber' is blowing smoke and could only serve to perpetuate such weak posts. If you want to go head to head with clever, well edited, witty and populist propoganda such as dished up by two professional entertainers, then we need better than what you have delivered. Sorry if that's a hard pill to swallow, but I'm just tired of getting my butt kicked by atheists who are way better than most Christians at carrying an argument.

Can you possibly imagine posting on an atheist forum an argument for Christ that included the fact that someone found a brick! I shudder at the thought.

I believe you are in the right place. If you are always getting your butt kicked by Atheists then you are forgetting a very important aspect-the Bible. You can only refute and deny and challenge what an Atheist/Agnostic says for so long. We have the same facts, the same evidences but different world views. This of course changes how we interpret everything. This is when you bring the Bible in (well you should have it in the whole time). When you make a claim, and then can back it up by many verses, your argument becomes a supernaturally charged one that is very hard to get around. I have been doing this stuff for a while now so I am no 'newb' to how this works. I use to be in the same place as you, so I know how you feel.

Let me remind you that you think this is weak argument on what basis? No offense, but you took much of my stuff out of context which gives me the impression you didn't really read through it. I did put work into it. It was no mere, let's sit down and make a refute! It was let's sit down, get a couple points down and then do something else. I am under the impression you are someone who believes Genesis 1-11 is allegorical etc. Let me challenge that view for you. I suggest you read "The Genesis Flood" by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. It will answer many, many of your questions and give you insight into my reasoning. Yes, it will cost you money and some of your time to read, but at your point, I think it would be a well-vested service for yourself.

[shepherdsword]

And you didn't approach this with anything other than an open mind. Right.

Uhhhh, whose side are you on anyways?

[Advocatus Dei]

Why say the Ark was a miracle. I mean certain aspects were definitely miracles

Just two points, I don't want to spend all day on this. If you take some figures from a third party to try to prove a point, try to put some thought into it before you use them. Don't take them at face value. Look at those figures with a critical eye and ask yourself if they're credible. The sheep in the box argument makes us all look stupid. Saying 'they have the credentials' is a cop out and doesn't absolve you from actually thinking.

Secondly, if you claim that parts of the story are true, then offer up a miracle to cover the bits that are in the too-hard basket, then you'll get torn up in any decent argument. You're effectively saying: I think that I can explain this bit, but I can't explain that bit, so I guess it must have been a miracle. Abject nonsense. And I assume that you're putting forward these points to try and convince any given atheist that they're true? You're not just preaching to the converted, surely.

And it's 'may have noticed', not 'may of noticed'. People tend to put less store in arguments with sloppy grammar.

[Romber]

I'm sorry for my grammar-it was at the end of a long-winded post.

The sheep in the box argument makes us all look stupid. Saying 'they have the credentials' is a cop out and doesn't absolve you from actually thinking.

Sorry, but we will always look stupid compared to science since we believe in a unempirical God. We obviously are anti-intellectual at best. But to answer your point, the sheep in a box argument is a very sound argument. It provides more than enough room to sufficiently care for the average size of most animals. Of course we do not know the exact number of kinds and the exact size of each one, but what we do is make very conservative estimates. Even if 40,000 kinds were required to enter the ark, that only takes 29% of the total volume. I am not "copping" out when I say this is what authorities with the credentials say. I am backing up my claims. I have not the schooling and understanding of animal care so to say an estimate I come up with would be even more laughable than one a credited zoologist came to.

You're effectively saying: I think that I can explain this bit, but I can't explain that bit, so I guess it must have been a miracle.

There are certain aspects of the Ark that were definitely a miracle. If we are unsure about a certain portion of the story, and there is no reasonable suggestion as to how it could of came about by natural processes, we are either forced to say it was a miracle or we don't know how it came about, but it did by natural forces. I don't know the history of explaining the Ark, but I am sure many facts about the Ark that weren't known were not necessarily said to be miracles, but acts that we can't explain right now. For sure there was a miracle of Noah getting all the kinds of animals, 2 or 7 of each that each had completely Heterozygous genes for every variation with the kind. This would undoubtedly require a miracle. Why? Because we know a human limit. We know animals behaviors. We know it would be nearly impossible-a miracle- to retrieve two of every animal unless if these animals were divinely guided.

[Advocatus Dei]

we will always look stupid compared to science

If you try to use bad science to prove something that was patently impossible, yes, you will always look stupid.

We obviously are anti-intellectual at best

Who's we? You don't mean Christians, surely. Do you honestly think that you have to leave your intellect at the door when you receive Jesus? I'm more than a little astonished at that statement.

the sheep in a box argument is a very sound argument

Try posting it here: *edited* and see how you get on. I'll wait here until you get back.

an estimate I come up with would be even more laughable than one a credited zoologist came to

Read that again. You are implying that the zoologist's estimate was laughable in the first instance. And I'm not going to disagree.

If we are unsure about a certain portion of the story, and there is no reasonable suggestion as to how it could of came about by natural processes, we are either forced to say it was a miracle or we don't know how it came about

You are forced to say it was a miracle? You just admitted that anything you can't explain, or refuse to accept in any meaningfull empirical way is, therefore, by definition, a miracle. That's not the most ridiculous thing that you've said so far, but it's pretty close.

And it's not 'it could of'! It's it could have'! 'Have' is the perfect infinitive that's required after words such as 'could' or 'should' to indicate past events that may have happened but didn't.

Look, if you want to critique attacks on Christianity then that's entirely up to you. If you get all warm and gooey getting a pat on the back and a round of applause from the local fan club, then go for it. But preaching to the converted and getting your support club to mark your effort means that you aren't going to get any better at it.

Going to do another one any time soon? I'll put good money on the fact that it'll be a lot better. I live in hope, anyway.

[baxpack7]

Just two points, I don't want to spend all day on this. If you take some figures from a third party to try to prove a point, try to put some thought into it before you use them. Don't take them at face value. Look at those figures with a critical eye and ask yourself if they're credible. The sheep in the box argument makes us all look stupid. Saying 'they have the credentials' is a cop out and doesn't absolve you from actually thinking.

Secondly, if you claim that parts of the story are true, then offer up a miracle to cover the bits that are in the too-hard basket, then you'll get torn up in any decent argument. You're effectively saying: I think that I can explain this bit, but I can't explain that bit, so I guess it must have been a miracle. Abject nonsense. And I assume that you're putting forward these points to try and convince any given atheist that they're true? You're not just preaching to the converted, surely.

And it's 'may have noticed', not 'may of noticed'. People tend to put less store in arguments with sloppy grammar.

First of all brutha Romber, I want to commend you on your post/thread. I watched the video and it didn't shake my faith in the word at all, but if someone else who saw it wasn't strong in the faith, then they might doubt God's word.

AD, you claim christianity yet you seem like you are trying to discredit someone who is trying to shed some light on the truth rather than atheistic propoganda spewed forthh by people who haven't proven anything (who has a vendetta against god and followers of Jesus). I would think that, instead of trying to refute what Romber was saying, you would help by trying to add to instead of take away.

I also want to add that bad grammar when typing isn't that bad-I often make mistakes when I'm typing, but when you speak to me in person, you'll understand me PERFECTLY clear!

[Romber]

If you try to use bad science to prove something that was patently impossible, yes, you will always look stupid.

I don't know what you are implying here. I don't know what is bad science in your eyes

Who's we? You don't mean Christians, surely. Do you honestly think that you have to leave your intellect at the door when you receive Jesus? I'm more than a little astonished at that statement

Of course not! Why would I say we leave logic at the door? Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were by Bible-believing Christians. When I said we is us. I don't know if you debate much with non-believers, but this seems like the general consensus among them about Christians.

Read that again. You are implying that the zoologist's estimate was laughable in the first instance. And I'm not going to disagree.

No, I am saying that in comparison with what you believe. Regardless of who told you that sheep accommodations were correct, it seems you would think that it is impossible.

You are forced to say it was a miracle? You just admitted that anything you can't explain, or refuse to accept in any meaningfull empirical way is, therefore, by definition, a miracle. That's not the most ridiculous thing that you've said so far, but it's pretty close.

Uhm, yes. Are you trying to suggest God's divinity is merely naturalistic terms? He does have miracles, and if we can't answer through reasonable explanations then they are miracles. I don't know why you are ashamed to say there is a miracle. If you hope to debate with an Atheist, you must be consistent with God's ability as an omnipotent creator. He CAN have miracles, and he has done it. I believe the biggest problem you have with debating atheists is you make to many compromises to try and make the playing field on the realm of complete science. God created science. He created gravity, thermodynamics, friction etc. He is not bound by what natural laws say he can and can't do. If he performs a miracle, he performs a miracle-nothing you can do about it. I suggest you seriously examine all your compromises you made with the Bible. Namely your belief in Evolution.

And it's not 'it could of'! It's it could have'! 'Have' is the perfect infinitive that's required after words such as 'could' or 'should' to indicate past events that may have happened but didn't.

Look, if you want to critique attacks on Christianity then that's entirely up to you. If you get all warm and gooey getting a pat on the back and a round of applause from the local fan club, then go for it. But preaching to the converted and getting your support club to mark your effort means that you aren't going to get any better at it.

Alright, let me make this clear to you. I have kept my remarks to myself and discuss this as brothers in Christ but you are wearing my patience thin. Your entire post is basically coming down to attacking how I do my stuff and not the content-which is not the point of this thread. Once you see past this stuff, we can start discussing the real content.

I did not post this for any clap on the back from everyone. I don't care about any glory any one person can give me. And if I do get any-I give it unto God. This isn't about my works. Sure it's nice to get praise for the hard work-BUT I DON'T care. I posted this to help fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ-especially ones with shaky beliefs or new to Christ. These videos are very damaging to them and can make them really question themselves. I don't like that and it hurts to see them fall from Christ over stupid videos like this. What I did was post a refute that shows light on the situation that isn't total made up stuff. If I spend 10 hours writing another refute like this, and only help change someones mind about losing their faith, then I feel very accomplished and quite proud of myself. I believe this is my area that God has called me to. And in that sense I will do my absolute best to thrive and show God's glory through it 100%. Let me say it again: I do NOT post this for support and praise from other members here, sure it is encouraging, but I do this for followers of Christ who want answers. Hence the whole Christian apologists title I give myself. So please, do not treat this like a 'praise me' thread because you are far, far from being correct.

Also, you seem to doubt my ability to debate and talk with non-believers. I have been doing it for a while. I do it all the time and in fact I enjoy doing it. The only thing that keeps me from it is time, as I often spread myself to thin and can't respond to everything. It is often me vs. 5+ people. I know how to talk to non-believers-and believe me it much different than talking to believers. So before you start judging me before you know me, stop and really think if what you are about to say has a founded basis or if you are saying it just because.

First of all brutha Romber, I want to commend you on your post/thread. I watched the video and it didn't shake my faith in the word at all, but if someone else who saw it wasn't strong in the faith, then they might doubt God's word.

Thanks. This is mainly for all the new/weak believers out there.

[Athanasius]

OK, why do you give such facile arguments that could only strengthen an atheists viewpoint that we're barely able to debate our way out of a wet paper bag? All this 'clap on the back for ol' Romber' is blowing smoke and could only serve to perpetuate such weak posts. If you want to go head to head with clever, well edited, witty and populist propoganda such as dished up by two professional entertainers, then we need better than what you have delivered. Sorry if that's a hard pill to swallow, but I'm just tired of getting my butt kicked by atheists who are way better than most Christians at carrying an argument.

Sorry, I hate to quip... But with all the focus on grammar (you actually linked to an English guide?) I find it somewhat funny you spelled propaganda incorrectly. I say this lightheartedly, don't take offense.

To be some what more serious. If you're getting your butt kicked by atheists then that is no fault of Rombers, is it? Furthermore I'm fairly confident it's no fault of any of ours, though I could be wrong. Don't you think you're being a tad bit unfair coming here and deriding (for lack of a better word) people because of their grammar (or lack thereof)? Last time I checked grammar wasn't usually the deciding factor in an apologetic or theological debate, even if an argument is that much easier to read. On the other hand, I've no problem with criticizing the force of an argument (or it's refutation), though only in taste. If I may, your comments haven't been in this 'taste'.

I highly doubt Romber intended this as an absolute refutation of the Penn and Teller video, at least I hope. I do however believe Romber intended this as a starting point for those who were, perhaps, beguiled by the showmanship of Penn and Teller? As far as I can tell, anyway. This seems reasonable to me.

Can you possibly imagine posting on an atheist forum an argument for Christ that included the fact that someone found a brick! I shudder at the thought.

Well, truthfully, how many of these 'brick' arguments have we heard in the form of 'skull fragments' and 'missing links'? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't base an entire argument around one brick (pretty sure this isn't Rombers intention). But it happens quite a lot regardless.