Continuing on from Discussion 5, after writing the response, I sought to ascertain whether the Christian had amended the content of his website, but found that it was no longer there. Only a brief note was present saying that it had 'moved' but curiously, with no new url. However the Guestbook was still available: the first five messages were obviously from Christians who appeared to share the Christian webmaster's lack of knowledge of the subject. As will be seen, they also view any criticism as 'hate' and 'insane' and 'ridiculous' (without any supporting evidence naturally).
No less significant are the comments which claim the criticisms of Christian belief 'do not make sense', and therefore indicate inability (or reluctance) to conduct objective research into their own beliefs and/or an inability to even consider and analyse relatively straightforward data. As they view the Christian webmaster's own writing (which, as shown in Discussion 5, is a essay of continual factual errors), as 'wonderful...informative...very enlightening', this provides some idea of the average Christian's intellectual critical ability - and unwillingness to evaluate the basis of his/her faith.
One Christian wrote that my site 'depressed' her, supporting the view that religious belief is little more than escapism. The Christian webmaster's reply to the sixth message was nothing less than extraordinary in view of his catalogue of errors; from this one gains the idea that anything which conflicts with Christian belief must be rejected in favour of myth and wishful thinking. The messages left were as follows:

(1)This is a wonderful website! Thank you so much for this information. Those who cannot understand Jewish customs of the Sabbath have far to go in understanding the Scriptures. It is good to see the truth published on the web instead of twisted understandings and writings that prevail in this media. Finally, someone has the straight truth.

(2)An informative site, and very enlightening. You have great reasoning and logic, and hopefully you have no more problems from the hate group. Best wishes for you and your family.

(3)David seems to be putting God on trial. He is the judge and jury, and his outlook on Scripture is the only one. God is sovereign. God will be the one to judge in the end. David is going to have to admit his wrongs, for the Bible says, "...every knee shall bow, every tongue confess..." etc. God destroying humanity is no more vile a deed than a human stepping on a line of ants and crushing them. You cannot compare Nazi death camps with God's final judgment. David does not understand there is going to be an afterlife, whether he likes it or not. David is not in control, God is in control!

(4)Very well done and well thought out web site! I was thrilled you had answers for everyone of David's insane suggestions. I was at David's web site for a while and it actually DEPRESSED me! I had to get out of there after several minutes.

(5)Absolutely agree with everything you have on your web site. It's about time someone answered some of the ridiculous claims by some anti-Christian godless people. They don't even make sense most of the time, or a half-baked sense at best. I read your whole site and know that God will bless you because of the wonderful work you have on this site. May God bless you!!

(6)David has debunked what you have written regarding his website. Although you accuse David of "raving", many of your "facts" are wrong and you've confused characters in the bible. At this point your website seems to be missing and a comment denotes it has "moved" but no information regarding where or why.
Webmaster's reply:-
On the contrary, David did not truthfully "debunk" my arguments. He hasn't taken the time to even research the accusations he's placed. He also did not truthfully quote parts of my web site. I cannot, and refuse, to take part in a mud-slinging charade with anyone. My web site was not aimed at those who refuse to look at things truthfully. It was for people who wanted a better understanding of the other side of the argument. As I said in my e-mail to you, the web site will stand, but with a totally different topic.

(7)You say:-
  'David did not truthfully debunk your comments' - Please give examples with evidence.
  'David hasn't researched the accusations made' - What do you mean? Please give examples.
  'David did not truthfully quote your site' - again, please supply examples of this.
  'You do not wish to become involved in mud-slinging' - but you were the one who began throwing insults about, e.g., liar, fool, etc. Are you now withdrawing because you knew you've been caught out?
  'Your new site (when/if it appears) will deal with a new topic' - but why? If you are so sure of yourself, why remove the pages?
All looks rather strange......

I found no reply to the last (seventh) message and shortly after this, in addition to the website, the Guestbook was also then removed. Presumably he realized that he could not allow the website to remain as it was in view of the many obvious errors, but was also unwilling to amend it and concede his errors/ignorance. Thus the only other option was to remove it completely - which is what he did. Consequently, this Christian who once had so much to say for himself and about Christian belief has become silent.


A short time later, the site was taken over by another Christian who, wisely, chose not to pursue the same subject areas as her predecessor. Instead, visitors are greeted with her assertion that non-belief in God is foolishness, i.e., the person who does not believe in God, or rather, the writer's own god, is a 'fool'. Nearly of all the text is related to this assertion. This, interestingly, is the one thing that the writer does have in common with her predecessor, i.e., designating anyone who disagrees with their belief as a 'fool'. This naturally is made to appear absurd when their lack of knowledge and reading on the relevant subjects becomes so very apparent and their writing is a stream of errors with no supporting independent evidence.
At the same time, the writer claims that it is not necessary to be intellectually brilliant to know God. Indeed, one might be tempted to suggest that a lack of intelligence (or common sense) is actually a prerequisite for belief in God, particularly the god of Christianity.
Without warning the writer then launches into a tirade against evolutionists who, so she claims, lack understanding of 'the facts' - (which she omits to define). In reality, she would have found answers to the questions that she raises in academic literature written on the subject, e.g., Prof. Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (Penguin: 1988). Moreover, as research continues, more data which wholly discredits the Biblical Genesis-creation story becomes available, e.g.,

'The earth cooled down a lot longer ago than we thought, say scientists. They examined a tiny zircon crystal the thickness of two human hairs and discovered it was 4.4 billion years old, the most ancient material ever found on earth. It means that instead of then being a swirling ball of molten metal, as scientists thought, the earth must have been cool enough for continents and water to form. If it had water there could have been early life forms, the international team, including Edinburgh university experts, says in the journal Nature'.
The Daily Mirror, 11 January 2001.

After one paragraph the writer then shifts to a completely different subject, i.e., Old Testament history when she claims that the Grand Canyon is proof of the global flood as mentioned in Genesis, chapters 6-8. The basis of her argument is that it would require a flood as described in Gen 6-8 to produce the Grand Canyon. However, the explanation for the Grand Canyon is clearly supplied in The formation of the Grand Canyon. Once again we encounter the common Christian tactic to cast aside opposing ideas and explanations with only a few words of sarcasm or contempt rather than offer any balanced, objective, analytical consideration.
Following this, the writer suddenly reverts back to creationism and refers to those scientists involved in the first moon landing and refers to them as short-sighted as they, being evolutionists, believed there would be vast amounts of dust on the moon: the writer claims that as this was not so, this proves that the planet is 'young' and not as evolutionists maintain. If the writer had conducted the necessary research beforehand she would have realized that this argument has been wholly invalidated. For example even the Answers in Genesis Ministries refers to a paper in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7:1:2-42 (1993), which states the moon-dust argument is 'no longer useful' and says:

Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

The article Moon dust argument, cites the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal paper:

It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year time scale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, counter responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and solar system (Dr A. A. Snelling and D. R. Rush. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 7:1:2-42. 1993).

The article 'Moon dust' says:

Creationists cite the depth of accumulated dust on the moon's surface as proof that the moon originated about 8000 B.C.E., although the moon is commonly thought to be about 4 billion years old. The argument goes like this: the moon is continuously struck by micrometeorites, tiny bits of dust shooting through space. With no atmosphere and a rarely disturbed surface, a fine layer of dust accumulates. If the layer were deep, this would show an old moon and early formation, but since the layer is slight, this proves a recent creation.
This argument relies on estimates of dust accumulation made by scientists R. A. Lyttleton in 1956 and Hans Petterson in 1960. According to their estimates, if the moon were billions of years old, dust at least 100 feet deep would have accumulated on the surface of the moon, too deep for moon landings. Creationists say there was a fear that landing craft would be swallowed in dust. But Lyttleton's and Petterson's estimates were not accepted by all of the scientific community during their time, and are not now. Other estimates made by contemporaries of Lyttleton and Petterson predicted that the moon's surface would be firm with only a thin dust layer. These predictions were confirmed when astronauts observed the surface of the moon first hand. Direct measurements of accumulating dust show that a very tiny amount of dust accumulates on the moon, at a rate of merely centimeters over billions of years. Creationists, however, have not included this finding in their argument, presumably because it does not support their preconceived notions.

One scientist responds to this particular Christian creationist claim in 'Ask a Scientist' saying:

I believe that some of the rocks returned by the Apollo missions were quite old, but other were formed more recently. Apparently some parts of the lunar surface were flooded by molten lava 1-2 billion years after its formation. That would certainly destroy wipe out any dust layer. In addition, I believe that the origin of the moon is still unknown. Some people believe it was formed in unison with the Earth; others believe it was a separate body which was captured by the Earth.

Another article worth perusal is 'Creation science hoaxes: The myth of the missing moon-dust'. This includes the following observations:

Creationists claim that the Apollo astronauts expected to find anywhere from 150-200 feet of dust on the moon's surface, since the moon was thought to be 4.5 billions years old. Instead, they found only a 'few centimeters' of dust after landing, so therefore, the moon must be very young.
This is a fairly insidious distortion and proves that creationists don't even read National Geographic, which thoroughly documented what the astronauts actually found as early as 1972. The Apollo 17 crew took seismic tests of the lunar soil and determined that its lunar regolith (accumulated pulverized impact material) is about 20-40 feet deep on the lunar plain, and up to 120 feet deep in the lunar highlands. Due to the moon's low gravity, and the fact that these sand grains remain free from weathering, the surface remained firm enough to support the lunar module. Also, many creationists claim that 14 million tons of meteoritic dust fall on the earth and moon, annually, but recent space probes proved the influx to earth is 400 times less than that. Due to the moon's low gravity, its influx is even smaller, only 500 tons per year. Most creationists know of the modern measurements, but continue to report the incorrect figure because it suits their purpose. Such is their integrity and scholarship. Actually, the moon's surface should bewilder, perplex and concern most creationists. According to the Bible, there was only one world-wide catastrophe, Noah's Flood, yet the moon has millions of impact craters, many of them miles long. According to the evidence, our solar system was once pulverized by flying debris that would have sterilized the earth's surface. Does the Bible record such an event? Are 'scientific' creationists aware that creationist author and CRS founder Henry Morris once claimed that the craters on the moon were 'put there by Satan?.

Furthermore, Christian-creationist arguments for a young earth, the fact of Noah's Ark, and other myths have also been completely overturned: for example,
Meteorite dust and the age of the earth
Arguments against Creationism
The age of the Earth
Problems with a global flood
One might be a little more receptive to the writer if she supplied details of her academic qualifications or knowledge in the fields that she is attempting to discuss (geology, archeology, cosmology, psychology, etc.). However in the absence of anything of this nature being mentioned, one can only assume that she has none which makes her insults and sarcasm somewhat incongruous and insolent. This is surely comparable to a ten-year old believing that he/she can lecture and correct neurosurgeons on the mechanics of neuro-brain surgery.
In my own experience, Christians often merely repeat parrot-fashion what they have read in evangelical-fundamentalist literature, failing to realize that the (Christian) authors also lack the knowledge, experience and/or clinical objectivity to discuss the subjects properly. Moreover, the 'qualifications' of some of these writers are also suspect: see for example, the article 'Suspicious creationist credentials' which supplies examples. This simply demonstrates how easily Christians are taken in by pseudo-scientific discussions. Noteworthy is that despite being written hundreds of years ago, Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion (Parts V, VI, VII and VIII) by David Hume (1711-1776), continues to show that the Christian belief that God created the world can never be proved, nor can the argument for the existence of a creating god, as in Christianity, have any validity.

After reference to moon-dust, the writer's tirade ends and she concludes by a lengthy list of verses from the Bible (mainly from Proverbs) that warn of the dangers of foolishness which, so she claims, is the reason why people cannot accept the reality of God (or rather, the Christian god). However, she seems blissfully unaware that while the Old Testament reviles foolishness and applauds wisdom, the situation is wholly reversed in some parts of the New Testament which praises foolishness and condemns wisdom (and therefore makes her argumentation on this point worthless): for example:

For it is written 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart' (1 Cor 1:19).
...Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since, in the wisdom of God,
the world did not know God through wisdom,
it pleased God through the folly [foolishness] of what we preach,
to save those who believe (1 Cor 1:20-21).
God chose what is foolish in this world to shame the wise... (1 Cor 1:27).
The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile (1 Cor 3:20).
We are fools for Christ's sake... (1 Cor 4:10).
I repeat, let no one think me foolish, but even if you do,
accept me as a fool...
What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority,
but as a fool...I am speaking as a fool (2 Cor 11:16-17,21).

I have already noted that the writer is mainly dependent upon Proverbs for the disjointed diatribe against intellectuals who dare to say something different from what she believes and her interpretation of her Bible (this surely brings to mind the Christian church's treatment of Galileo whose findings conflicted with Biblical statements). In view of the writer's usage of Proverbs, it seems appropriate to cite one text that some might feel applies to this particular Christian and the nonsense that she asserts:

'Leave the presence of a fool,
For there you do not meet words of knowledge' (14:7).

Email: bibleanalysis@yahoo.co.uk

Back to Discussion 5 (83k) Forward to Discussion 6 (10k) Home