It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1) He says that the burning bush could have simply been a shiny bush. The bush could have had a light shining from it, not burning, because the people back then associated fire with light. Well...
He offers no explanation as to where this light might have come from. I'm sure he would use the god power thing, though.
He assumes that the people were so stupid they could not distinguish "burning" from "shining." Never mind the references to bright lights and burning flames elsewhere in the book. I guess hell may not be a fiery place, but a bright, shining place. Sounds kinda like heaven to me...
2) He says the plagues involving animals is easily explained through biology.
OK, I can give him that, with the insects, at least. But then, he makes a leap and says science can explain water turning to blood or boils erupting on men. I have no idea how H2O instantaneously transforms to blood with its many components, but I guess that's a scientific process I am still unaware of.
3) He says the fire falling from the sky with hail "is unusual," but could have been either real fire or another mislabelled thing. Hmmm...maybe he should have thought about meteors. I have no idea what he has to say about the hail, though...
4) He says the Red Sea event was levitation of mass amounts of water. He adds that we can now levitate small objects, so this is plausible. Does he mean with superconductors? If so, problem is that they work on principles of physics; I'm not sure if we could levitate water with a superconductor. He also attributes walking on water and being lifted on a cloud as levitation.
He says that evolution will not work because any small change in an ecosystem will completely destroy the entire ecosystem. He appears to be speaking in absolutes here. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that if this were true, life would not still exist on this planet, especially due to human activities. Remember, he didn't say alter, he said DESTROY.
In short order, he resorts to what he's been doing, trying to discredit evolution to prove creationism. How creationism would be proven even if evolutionary theory was scrapped entirely is beyond me. He says that
Guess he missed the experiments, which creationism is so sorely lacking. Then, he says Darwinian evolution has been scrapped for punctuated equilibrium. I was unaware of this. He says people who support evolution believe in evolution without any evidence for it.