Duck-suit atheist?

I ran across this story from the Roanoke Star the other day by Dennis Garvin. It's so absurd that I almost didn't bother writing this blog. But then I say that some people had actually 'liked' this story's facebook link. Sigh...

“If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck and flies like a duck, it must be an atheist in a duck suit.”   –  Dennis Garvin, former atheist and duck-suit wearer

Well this is off to an interesting start already... Duck-suit? Is that a Virginia term, or am I missing something? Also, Dennis claims to have been an atheist but doesn't say why. Simply stating you were once an atheist is a meaningless statement because everyone is born with no belief in God. Based on the rest of this article, I'm going to guess he wasn't an atheist due to reason.

 Atheistic science suffers from the same foibles common to all humanity… narrow-mindedness, intolerance, judgmentalism

First, it's important to point out that there is no such thing as 'atheistic science'. There's just, well... science! Also, I'm guessing Dennis doesn't quite understand science or how it's self correcting nature works. Oh, and it seems that for the remainder of this Dennis also doesn't understand that science and atheist are not interchangeable terms.

For years, the atheists said the universe and all its particulate matter had always existed.  Then came the Big Bang Theory where, in an infinitely small period of time, light came into existence (and Only light, no solid stuff) That sounds eerily like Genesis 1:3 “And God said ‘let there be light,’ and there was light.”  Carl Sagan, producer of ‘Cosmos,’ refused to accept this theory and insisted on continuing to reinvent the flat tire.

Um... I guess that Dennis also doesn't realize that light (photons) was not the first thing that was created in the Big Bang. So much for that claim, huh? And of course early theories would be that the universe always existed. At that time there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. But guess what? We found evidence and changed our minds accordingly. That's not a shot against science at all! As for his Carl Sagan claim... citation needed.

Atheists laugh at the six days of creation versus the 15 billion years of he universe, claiming it to be irreconcilable. That is laughable only if you are stuck in the Newtonian physics of the 18^th century.  Einstein introduced Relativity.  This explains for us, for example, why we would weigh less on the moon than we do on earth, the force of gravity changing relative to the space rock we are standing on. The atheist embraces Einstein but doesn’t want relativity applied to the passage of time itself; that Time is influenced and changed by many factors. Using the wavelength of Cosmic Background radiation and Einstein’s Time Dilation, we find that the 15 billion years of scientific creationism fits precisely with the six days of biblical creation, those six days passing at the speed of time back in the beginning.  Atheists really should get their heads shaved so these concepts won’t get caught in their hair as they zoom over their heads.

No doubt there would be severe time dilation if one were watching the Big Bang from afar. But there was no 'somewhere' to watch it from in the first place. Remember, that if you were somehow in the Big Bang, time would appear to pass normally to you. Models clearly do not support a local creating of the entire universe in just six days. The formation of Earth itself took about 767 million years to coalesce and cool. That alone doesn't match the Biblical account of Earth being created the first day.


It it any better if we are viewing from an Earthy perspective? Nope. Each day of creation is described as dawn to dusk. But while light was created on day 1, the light sources (sun and stars) were not created until day four. If the sun had not been created until day four, there was no way to keep track of dawn to dusk days. Also, the Bible has the Earth being created first, and then the Sun. This is very much the reverse of what actually happened. Furthermore, all stars are not the same age. It is plain wrong to say that all stars were created at one time. Our very own solar system was born from the death of a previous generation star. Also, we can see light today from stars that are at distances of millions and billions of light years. This again, does not wash with Biblical creation.

Evolutionists opined that mankind appeared on the earth simultaneously in multiple different locations, sneering at Adam and Eve.  Then came the finding of mitochondrial DNA which can trace mankind back through generations along the maternal line.  Doing regression studies, they have traced the origin of humanity back along a migratory path that began in eastern Africa, possibly northeast; quite close to where the Bible places Eden.   The media referred to a prime beginner female and called her ‘Eve.’ The evolutionary biologists sputtered and denied it.  When you search through their Latin, their denial is only based on a desperate hope

There are various evidences that support the 'out of Africa' theory. So what if that has become the primary explanation rather than simultaneous evolution?  Remember, science adjusts and improves as evidence is collected.

The desperation is palpable when you are trying to make the use of the term mitochondrial Eve into a controversy. Unlike the Eve in the Bible, mitochondrial Eve was not the only human female alive at that time. She's simply the one still with an unbroken genetic chain to the present. Also, I've never heard outrage over calling her Eve. Does Dennis think we fear that calling her Eve somehow gives credence to the Biblical one? Does Thursday's being named for Thor leave an impression of Thor being real. The space shuttle Enterprise is named after the star ship in Star Trek. Is that a nod to Captain Kirk and Spock being real? Does the recently named Pinocchio Rex lead one to outrage and worry that the name will cause others to think Pinnocchio is real? The simple fact is that names often have cultural references so that they are easily recognizable and understandable to people. And Eve just happens to fit the bill.

The Flood.  This is a favorite whipping boy for the atheists: pure fantasy, they squeak.  They come up with strangled explanations (superposition; an aberrant shift of tectonic plates) for marine (salt water) fossils found two miles above sea level in the Andes. Then, there are ancient maps indicating that the Antarctic ice was absent at a time when humans were alive to map the land mass beneath it (the melting of that ice would raise sea-level 200 feet across the globe).

 Yes, if all the ice on earth melted, sea levels would rise 200 ft. But one pole melting doesn't

necessarily tell us what's going on at the other. But let's suppose all the ice did melt. Remember, Mt. Everest has an elevation of 29,029 ft. So 200 ft is only a drop in the bucket needed. A 200 ft higher sea level causes problems for Noah too. Not only would it make getting all the impossible to obtain animals even more difficult, that extra water may very well mean that where the story was supposed to take place was already flooded before the flood. Plus the Earth being covered with that much water would slow it's rotation, making days longer. Meaning that the days of creation would have had to been even shorter than 24 hours.

Oh Oh.  In March 2014, Scientific American published an article in which they are now believing that there is ‘another ocean worth of water’ caught in the mantle of the earth.  Were that to have come up to the surface, it would seem oddly like Genesis 7:11 ‘all the springs of the great deep burst forth.’  Yes, boys and girls, it did rain for 40 days and nights, but that isn’t where most of the water came from.

Yes, Scientific American did publish such an article. But it didn't mean what Dennis thinks it does. The water is not present as liquid water. Rather it is in the form of hydroxide ions and trapped within a type of mineral called ringwoodite. When you add up the estimated amount of ringwoodite in the mantle, and assume that the mantle is equally 'wet' throughout, you get an oceans worth of water. But water that is trapped in a gem. Not exactly like liquid water shooting out of Old Faithful by any stretch. But what if it was liquid water?  Well, it's too hot in the mantle, so it would erupt as super heated killer steam. But let's just pretend it's liquid water anyway. What if we assumed that water was equal to the above ground oceans, and we melted all the ice? Well, we're still a long way off from the amount of water needed to flood the Earth. Also, let us not forget that the water question is far from the only problem with the flood story.

Scientists talk about entire continents separating from each other.  Gosh, how might that happen?  It couldn’t possibly be from an expansion of the earth as the water receded back into the earth’s mantle.  Naw!  We may need to go on EBay for a better duck-suit.

Except that such a catastrophic and sudden shift would fracture the Earth with devastating earthquakes. Oh, and the fact that we already know how continental drift works...

No statement in the Bible has been proven false.

  Oh really? Lets start with Leviticus 11:13-19...

This is NOT a bird!

And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

That's right, the Bible says that bats are birds. That's certainly something we've proven to be false. There are many more examples, but Dennis said there wasn't even one, so I feel satisfied stopping with that.

To close, what disrespectful and mocking behavior on Dennis' part... Maybe he thinks he's being cute or clever. But the good news is that it makes him easy to not take seriously. But I have just one final question... What the hell does 'duck-suit' mean (aside from a Halloween costume)?


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter