Tektonics Misery YMCAism
be disgusted by Brooks' obsession here*This page is in need of reduction*
Though he doesn't seem terribly competent to comment on it, professional atheist crybaby Brooks "jimbo" Trubee-a man who wouldn't know "Ancient Near East" from "Average Netherlands Entrance"-is an ancient earth evolutionist. He actually refuses to believe that the book of Genesis is historically, factually, literally true, even though he can't tell me one single mutational step and what its natural selection advantages were. He rejects the Noah's Ark story as historic fact and he believes that the human race and the earth are over 43 kaskillion years old. And he also thinks that posturing statements like these are "arguments".
Now, take a look at how Brookee absues the mission statement on this web site:
"Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible. We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences, and to carefully evaluate issues which are relevant to the Church as a whole." (emphasis added)Brookee asks the Stupid Skeptic Question, What "scientific disciplines," if any, did Holding "incorporate" to "properly assess" that Genesis is literal history? The answer is, none -- just like I didn't incorporate any to assess the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Why? Because unlike certain loud-mouthed Skeptics who consider themselves experts on everything they sneeze at, I don't talk about things I haven't studied. And in the case of creation-evolution (as well as the Book of Mormon, Santeria, and the Cola Cult) I have done no study, so I resort to the "default" position of a consistent majority. And since the consistent majority of Americans -- 87 percent, if you believe some polls -- and Christians especially, think Adam and Eve were real people, it is obvious that this is a proper "default" position for someone otherwise not competent to defend the point. Given also that Brooks wouldn't know how to explain a "beneficial mutation" and thinks that "nucleotides" are things that come in on the ocean, statements like his such as Modern science does not support Genesis as literal history are his privilege to say as sound bites; but he also thinks that when he says such things, he's presenting "arguments". This is the perfectly "good answer" Brooks doesn't want to accept, because the reality is, the only reason he wants me to discuss evolution is because he is suffering from a delusional fantasy that, whereas he has been beaten to a pulp on topics I do know about, if only he can get me in the ring on evolution (which he knows, because I admit it, I know nothing about it) he can actually "win one" and salvage some of that bruised ego that's been swelling up on his noggin.
Below is a Theology Web discussion board thread where Holding was asked to explain his young earth creationist beliefs. He provided a few general answers at first but then became more evasive and eventually left the thread without providing detailed information Once again, the same junk; Epo's first comment says all that needs to be said:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1376Despite Brooks' efforts to bring up and rag on this topic, it isn't as important as he'd like to think it is. Young earth creationism isn't at all crucial to my inerrancy theology and apologetics, any more than it is for numerous other old earth and even evolution-believing Christians. An old earth would neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, because an earth 156,753,238 years old won't make Jesus any less resurrected than one 87,574,374 years old. But to mirror Brooks' sound bite, old earth evolutionism just doesn't fit in with the facts of reality, so there too, nanny nanny boo boo.
Brooks even admits that many Christians are able to incorporate the findings of modern science into their theology, so clearly he can't see that he has openly contradicted himself. Even Bible inerrant fundamentalists are capable of doing this, by reading Genesis as allegory, for example (which I don't do or endorse; I simply note it to show that Brooks is wrong). They are able to alter their religious beliefs to accomodate modern knowledge, and I could as easily do so if needed. Such Christians have not painted themselves into a corner and do not have to spend their lives ignoring, denigrating and denying modern knowledge that contradicts their informed theology, especially just because some narrow-minded misotheist bigot like Brooks wants to run his mouth. His position is ultimately untenable.
As science progresses and knowledge about our origins and earth's history grows and becomes more widely disseminated, it is likely that evolution will fall to some form of intelligent design and atheists such as Brooks will continue to desperately cling to old earth soundbites and be increasingly marginalized in the eyes of Christian community, who don't respect much that he has to say in the first place.
Here is some related information:
Comment from http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html:This is an unimportant topic and no more aspects of it will be examined unless Brooks runs his mouth again, which you can be sure will happen.
Books to ReadThe Discovery of Genesis by Ethel Nelson -- buy this book from Amazon.com -- how Chinese language characaters (sic) confirm the literal truth of Genesis -- see related item here.
An essay essay regarding not Genesis, and not be me, as Brooks so idiotically claims (so much for his careful reading), but regarding where Cain would get his wife, and by Eric Vestrup. Not me.Mr. Holding and Evolution -- see Brookee's hypocritical anonymous pal get crunched
My (old) links to AIG, CRI and a "feasibility study" of Noah's Ark (from 2000). Whooopeeee.
*Prominent old earth evolutionists have developed a very bad reputation for not knowing their behind from a hole in the ground while they try to promote their cause. They are clearly at a disadvantage when they are confronted with the facts.