The Christian answer to National Geographic?

| 52 Comments

I occasionally receive a request to print or post a photograph that has appeared on Panda’s Thumb, but this one takes the cake: A magazine called Creation Illustrated, which bills itself as “The Christian answer to National Geographic,” requested permission to publish this photograph

IMG_0393_CastleRock_600.jpg

in its magazine. Fat chance!

Their e-mail was datelined, “URGENT - Matt Young’s photo of Table Mountain needed.” Needed, eh? I am afraid I was not very kind to them:

Thank you; I am glad you liked my photograph. Unfortunately, under no conditions will I allow this photograph (or any other to which I own the copyright) to be published in any creationist publication. So my answer is, “No.” Did you not notice that the website, Panda’s Thumb, where the photograph was published, is devoted to scientific reality, that is, evolutionary science? “Christian answer to National Geographic,” indeed!

Until now, I was blissfully unaware that National Geographic needed an answer of any kind.

52 Comments

I didn’t even know that National Geographic was a question!

Glen Davidson

It’s possible it’s because the sillouete of the mountain is similar to the picture of the Ark that you’ve posted on PT

Interesting. Part of the caption in front of the Louis Agassiz tree reads “He was a lifelong opponent of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.” He was also a lifelong opponent of flood geology and a young age for the earth. I wonder if they missed those bits. The wording is also somewhat peculiar since On the Origins of Species came out in 1859 and Agassiz died only fourteen years later. Not much of a “lifetime.”

Tom Ish of Creation Illustrated assured me that he had found an equally good photograph and added

While our story is focused more on a spiritual journey of a person who climbed Table Mountain, we are well aware of the “scientific reality” that such geologic formations could not exist without a world-wide flood. Rivers, wind, and/or Ice-age flows could not account for such erosion (or fossil deposits) found in the vast cataclysmic scientific evidence of the Grand Mesa and Grand Canyon regions.

We are open to ALL the evidence which is the only way to keep an open mind and avoid dogma – whether creationist, evolutionary, or other “theories” that need to consider all the evidence. We encourage/invite others to do the same to keep the channels of knowledge flowing.

which we will all recognize as the old “critical thinking” dodge.

Mr. Ish also sent me a letter from National Geographic promoting their new book, In the Footsteps of Jesus by Jean-Pierre Isbouts. Looks at first glance like a coffee-table book by a reputable author. I take it that Mr. Ish thinks it is ironic that National Geographic would publish such a book, but I see nothing ironic as long as it is a serious work of scholarship, as it appears to be.

Seems like Creation Illustrated honored your refusal without hesitation, and did so with a gracious spirit.

National Geographic has published articles on the lands of the Bible for decades. “Where Jesus Walked” appeared in December 1967. They have also printed articles on the biblical Patriarchs, complete with artist’s renderings of the stories in Genesis. There is no need for a “Christian answer” to National Geographic.

When I first moved to Boulder in the 1980s, I heard a rumor that there was a hang-gliding school in Golden, and jumping off that very rock was the final exam (!). Later I learned that the gentle hill south of town was used for hang-glider instruction instead. :-)

Still scratching my head trying to figure out how Table Rock constitutes evidence for a global flood.

You really should have given permission, but only on the condition they say ‘god *DIDN’T* do it’ LOL

You really should have given permission, but only on the condition they say ‘god *DIDN’T* do it’ LOL

I know you are only teasing, and I agree that God did not do it; my objection, however, is not that they are theists but that they are creationists. Big difference! I would have let Reform Judaism use any picture they liked.

Jimpithecus said:

Still scratching my head trying to figure out how Table Rock constitutes evidence for a global flood.

Castle/Table Rock is evidence against a global flood. Wet mud does not form 30-40 foot high cliffs. It slumps instead. That rock was already hard when the surrounding basalt was eroded away by Clear Creek and its tributaries.

Matt Young said:

Tom Ish of Creation Illustrated assured me that he had found an equally good photograph and added

While our story is focused more on a spiritual journey of a person who climbed Table Mountain, we are well aware of the “scientific reality” that such geologic formations could not exist without a world-wide flood. Rivers, wind, and/or Ice-age flows could not account for such erosion (or fossil deposits) found in the vast cataclysmic scientific evidence of the Grand Mesa and Grand Canyon regions.

(snip)

(snip)

wtf. that’s just collage science – gluing a bunch of words together and hoping they make some kind of sense.

Jimpithecus said:

Still scratching my head trying to figure out how Table Rock constitutes evidence for a global flood.

In the early days of geology, there were two schools of thought about basalt. One, the Plutonists, argued for a magmatic origin. The others, the Neptunists, insisted on precipition from sea water.

Seems Creation Illustrated is still pushing Neptunism.

I have rappelled that very precipice of Castle Rock and can testify first-hand there are no fossils to be found. Zeolites in vugs, however, are eagerly sought after.

Sounds like they were just trying to use the “National Geographic” name and its association to promote and legitimize their own rag on the coattails of the NGS.

Jimpithecus said:

Still scratching my head trying to figure out how Table Rock constitutes evidence for a global flood.

Silly… everything does! You just have to look at it with your ‘biblical glasses.’

(Known as ‘blinders’ to those of us in the real world.)

Just Bob said:

Silly… everything does! You just have to look at it with your ‘biblical glasses.’

Don’t knock special glasses - they worked for Joseph Smith!

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Um, so, I just ordered a copy – should get it in a week or 2. More later!

Carl Drews said:

Jimpithecus said:

Still scratching my head trying to figure out how Table Rock constitutes evidence for a global flood.

Castle/Table Rock is evidence against a global flood. Wet mud does not form 30-40 foot high cliffs. It slumps instead. That rock was already hard when the surrounding basalt was eroded away by Clear Creek and its tributaries.

Creationists realized this problem fairly early on. Their claim is that the layers themselves were deposited by the floodwaters (which then somehow receded over a timespan of about a year without causing any appreciable erosion; I have no idea how that is supposed to have worked) and hardened into rock over the next few hundred years during the single impossibly brief ice age. Then, they tell us, glacial melt following the ice age did all the impossibly rapid localized erosion, like the Grand Canyon and Table Mountain and the Garden of the Gods.

A counterexample to this model should be easy to find. Isn’t there a canyon somewhere carved over millions of years that hasn’t ever been fed by a glacier oe snow or ice of any kind?

david.starling.macmillan said:

A counterexample to this model should be easy to find. Isn’t there a canyon somewhere carved over millions of years that hasn’t ever been fed by a glacier oe snow or ice of any kind?

Only those carved by The Flood itself! Or their modern-day analogs from Mt. St. Helens.

I’m not sure if it was just prior to 2000, or just following, but at this point National Geographic came out and accepted without any reservations the theory of Global Warming. All articles about this subject are considered only in the context of how fast it is occuring, and how much man has contributed to it.Wonderful!(Not Global Warming, NG’s position on it. Heh!)

I am not a particular fan of the Magazine, but am an eternal supporter of the ethos. What a bland publication must ‘Creation Illustrated’ be. I would think something along the lines of glossy production values, lots of pictures, and.……

We are open to ALL the evidence

CHALLENGE - Creation Illustrated, PLEASE respond.

I am also open to all the evidence. But we find ourselves in disagreement. You think that the evidence supports a global flood.

Here is my challenge -

Tell me what evidence or experiment could convince you that this geological formation is NOT best explained by a recent global flood.

If you are truly open to all the evidence, then even if the evidence available now somehow does not persuade you of this, there should be some hypothetical evidence that would.

It would be very easy for me to describe neutral, non-Biblical, physical evidence that would persuade me that this geological formation was formed due to a flood 4000 years ago, if such existed.

You should very easily be able to do the same.

If your answer is “no evidence could convince us” then you are not open to all the evidence.

Whether or not the Christian Bible conclusively states that the wicked suffer agony for eternity in Hell is a subject of dispute among experts. Whether or not the Christian Bible condemns hypocrisy is not. Hypocrites are repeatedly condemned in strong terms. If you say you are “open to all the evidence”, but you are not, you are a hypocrite. If the Christian God exists, He is unequivocally displeased by hypocrites. I urge you to change your ways and admit that you do not at all care about the evidence, and will just say that everything was caused by a global flood no matter what the evidence says. Or else prove otherwise by telling us what evidence would sway you form this belief.

It is my information that Ham stated in the debate against Nye that, if the bible said that 2 + 2 = 5, he would accept that as true.

harold said:

We are open to ALL the evidence

CHALLENGE - Creation Illustrated, PLEASE respond.

I am also open to all the evidence. But we find ourselves in disagreement. You think that the evidence supports a global flood.

Here is my challenge -

Tell me what evidence or experiment could convince you that this geological formation is NOT best explained by a recent global flood.

If you are truly open to all the evidence, then even if the evidence available now somehow does not persuade you of this, there should be some hypothetical evidence that would.

It would be very easy for me to describe neutral, non-Biblical, physical evidence that would persuade me that this geological formation was formed due to a flood 4000 years ago, if such existed.

You should very easily be able to do the same.

If your answer is “no evidence could convince us” then you are not open to all the evidence.

Whether or not the Christian Bible conclusively states that the wicked suffer agony for eternity in Hell is a subject of dispute among experts. Whether or not the Christian Bible condemns hypocrisy is not. Hypocrites are repeatedly condemned in strong terms. If you say you are “open to all the evidence”, but you are not, you are a hypocrite. If the Christian God exists, He is unequivocally displeased by hypocrites. I urge you to change your ways and admit that you do not at all care about the evidence, and will just say that everything was caused by a global flood no matter what the evidence says. Or else prove otherwise by telling us what evidence would sway you form this belief.

It is my information that Ham stated in the debate against Nye that, if the bible said that 2 + 2 = 5, he would accept that as true.

That’s his business but it’s the exact opposite of “being open to all the evidence”. In fact that’s going a step further and denying mathematical proof as well as mere physical evidence.

However, I’m not sure Ham has ever claimed that he is open to all the evidence. I believe he openly states that he assumes his interpretation of the Bible to be perfect and that no evidence can show otherwise (not quite in those words but it’s a fair paraphrase). Thus, he may be a hypocrite in many ways, but not in this one.

He and his followers are rendered defensive, obsessive, and tormented by evidence AGAINST their interpretation of the Bible. He literally spends all day every day attempting to deny such evidence. But that’s not quite the same as claiming to be open to all the evidence.

However, Creation Illustrated has argued that they are “open to ALL the evidence”.

I think they are not and I would like them to either show me that they are, or admit that they are not.

2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.

In the debate Ham said:

“I love science”.

“I have a book”.

Nuf said.

What a bland publication must ‘Creation Illustrated’ be. I would think something along the lines of glossy production values, lots of pictures, and.……

That’s about it. I did like looking through it when it was available to me from time to time (creationist relative), since the pictures were nice. It’s really not even all that full of creationist articles, but it has (had, anyhow) a page of creationist “news” and usually one main article on creationism–but often not even “scientific creationism,” just something on how the “flood occurred,” the creation of animals or plants, or how hydrology was vastly different before the flood. And then there’s the “inspirational articles.” The pictures are supposed to show how everything “must have been designed.”

It’s Seventh-day Adventist, for what it’s worth. So “open to ALL the evidence” means not open just to the Bible, but to Ellen White, their prophet (forget scientific evidence, of course, unless it can be twisted to fit).

It’s a low-budget thing, except that the pictures really are pretty nice for the most part. Just look and believe, or some such thing.

Glen Davidson

I’m not sure that Ham said that about 2+2=5, but I’ve seen it to others.

How many would take that stand about:

1) The Earth is fixed in space and the Sun circles it every day?

2) Such-and-such in the Bible is not God’s word?

Henry J said:

2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.

And very small values of 5.

gnome de net said:

Henry J said:

2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.

And very small values of 5.

Well… if you do a lot of (unstated) rounding: Round DOWN 2.3 and 2.4 (for printing purposes, but only after you’ve added the full values), then round UP the 4.7 sum.

That’s the kind of thing they fall back on with that pi = 3 problem. But then if there are unstated operations like rounding going on behind the scenes, then the bible isn’t being literally accurate. And any engineer who tried to take it literally would be in serious trouble in short order.

Just Bob said:

gnome de net said:

Henry J said:

2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.

And very small values of 5.

Well… if you do a lot of (unstated) rounding: Round DOWN 2.3 and 2.4 (for printing purposes, but only after you’ve added the full values), then round UP the 4.7 sum.

That’s the kind of thing they fall back on with that pi = 3 problem. But then if there are unstated operations like rounding going on behind the scenes, then the bible isn’t being literally accurate. And any engineer who tried to take it literally would be in serious trouble in short order.

Defending something as “literally true” by saying “It’s an approximation”.

Well, if approximations are “literally true”, problem solved. Genesis is just an approximation. God set off the big bang billions of years ago, and the Genesis version is an approximation.

Well of course it’s an approximation. God downloaded 14 billion (or however many it is) years into Moses memory, but with the price of papyrus back then, he had to abridge it slightly.

Whether or not the Christian Bible conclusively states that the wicked suffer agony for eternity in Hell is a subject of dispute among experts

Wasn’t a “subject of dispute” at all for Jesus. Most of the actual description of Hell’s conditions that we find in the Bible, comes straight from Him. He’s the only Expert on this issue.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Source: Matt. 25: 31,41,46

Please notice that according to Jesus, the duration of the “fire” for the condemned, is the very same as the duration of the “life” for the righteous. Forever.

FL

FL said:

Please notice that according to Jesus, the duration of the “fire” for the condemned, is the very same as the duration of the “life” for the righteous. Forever.

That’s a lie, FL. There is no afterlife. There are no gods. You tell your ooga-booga horror stories to extort belief. You think you can frighten people into christianity.

Please do not feed the FL troll. It will be allowed that one comment and no more.

We have had enough of FL’s attempts to educate us on Bible interpretation. FL, why can’t you stay on topic and show what - according to you - is wrong with all the sciences relevant for the old earth and the billions of years of the history of life on this planet? It is true, you know - the evidence is overwhelming.

We only have our rational mind and the never ending quest for more inforamtion, more facts to rely on. That is what’s behind the marvels of our modern world, the Bible is of no help when it comes to the study of nature. We are a product of nature no matter how it got started; the universe works the way it works regardless of how it got started, it looks like there was a beginning and we probably never will find out whether a question about a “before” is meaningful. But we are comfortable with that, just as you will have to learn to be comfortable with the knowledge that you never may know for certain if your faith trumps scientific facts - no matter how cocksure you pretend to be. Don’t ever the slightest doubt sneak up on you?

Just consider the fact that every living creature on this planet today start and end its life without any help from supernatural powers but are the result of 100% genuine natural forces. That’s how my life became a fact, what about yours?

Just Bob said:

gnome de net said:

Henry J said:

2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.

And very small values of 5.

Well… if you do a lot of (unstated) rounding: Round DOWN 2.3 and 2.4 (for printing purposes, but only after you’ve added the full values), then round UP the 4.7 sum.

That’s the kind of thing they fall back on with that pi = 3 problem. But then if there are unstated operations like rounding going on behind the scenes, then the bible isn’t being literally accurate. And any engineer who tried to take it literally would be in serious trouble in short order.

Personally, the pi = 3 argument has always seemed like a terribly poor sort of objection to me. 1 Kings 7:26 even states outright that the brim was irregularly shaped, so there’d be no reason to expect the brim-to-brim distance to be exactly 30/pi. And that’s without any rounding at all.

david.starling.macmillan said:

Just Bob said:

gnome de net said:

Henry J said:

2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.

And very small values of 5.

Well… if you do a lot of (unstated) rounding: Round DOWN 2.3 and 2.4 (for printing purposes, but only after you’ve added the full values), then round UP the 4.7 sum.

That’s the kind of thing they fall back on with that pi = 3 problem. But then if there are unstated operations like rounding going on behind the scenes, then the bible isn’t being literally accurate. And any engineer who tried to take it literally would be in serious trouble in short order.

Personally, the pi = 3 argument has always seemed like a terribly poor sort of objection to me. 1 Kings 7:26 even states outright that the brim was irregularly shaped, so there’d be no reason to expect the brim-to-brim distance to be exactly 30/pi. And that’s without any rounding at all.

23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

But ANY deviation from a perfect circle (“round all about” sure sounds like a circle) makes the circumference even LARGER, and therefore the statement of a diameter of 10 and circumference of 30 even more impossible. I’ve even heard it argued that “one brim to the other” is an OUTSIDE diameter, while the 30 cubits is an INSIDE circumference.

The description sounds like it means a circular basin, and in describing such an object’s measurements, the only thing that makes sense is measuring to the same place, i.e. the outside of the rim (maximum diameter and maximum circumference).

So it’s either lousy math, with some pretty hefty unacknowledged rounding: it could have said “almost 10 cubits” or “more than 30 cubits”, but the numbers are stated as though they are precise; OR it’s lousy description, with uncoordinated measurements or approximate numbers stated as though they were exact.

SLC said:

It is my information that Ham stated in the debate against Nye that, if the bible said that 2 + 2 = 5, he would accept that as true.

That wasn’t Ham though he was interviewed for the same film the quote comes from. It was Pastor Peter LaRuffa in the HBO documentary Questioning Darwin. It’s at the very beginning of this short clip.

Watch Creationists Talking About Creationism

Just Bob said:

So it’s either lousy math, with some pretty hefty unacknowledged rounding: it could have said “almost 10 cubits” or “more than 30 cubits”, but the numbers are stated as though they are precise; OR it’s lousy description, with uncoordinated measurements or approximate numbers stated as though they were exact.

It’s primitive math.

As I understand it, the notion that two variables with the same values are equivalent is a discovery of the 15th or 16th century.

Just Bob said:

23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

But ANY deviation from a perfect circle (“round all about” sure sounds like a circle) makes the circumference even LARGER, and therefore the statement of a diameter of 10 and circumference of 30 even more impossible.

I’ll have to stop you on the math right there. If it’s not a perfect circle, then it’s quite possible for it to have a major axis of 10 units and a circumference of 30 units, with a minor axis of around 9.1 units. This alone takes care of any discrepancy.

I’ve even heard it argued that “one brim to the other” is an OUTSIDE diameter, while the 30 cubits is an INSIDE circumference.

The description sounds like it means a circular basin, and in describing such an object’s measurements, the only thing that makes sense is measuring to the same place, i.e. the outside of the rim (maximum diameter and maximum circumference).

As I stated, verse 26 quite explicitly states that the rim was not smooth, but irregular and shaped like a lily, and a handbreadth in width. If we take this to mean that the rim flared out a handbreadth (1/6 to 1/4 of a cubit) from the body of the basin and we accept the circumference of 30 cubits for the body of the basin, then this would make the brim-to-brim measurement 30/pi cubits plus 2 handbreadths, between 9.89 and 10.05 cubits.

Crap, I really sound like a bleeding apologist, don’t I?

I’m just saying…there are plenty of reasons why it’s silly to insist the Bible ought to be taken literally, but this is hardly one of them. Surely Bronze Age engineering precision can be given a little breathing room.

I’ll go for “lousy description”. “Round all about” sounds as much like an ellipse as a circle to me. But there’s a reason for the imprecision. In the first place, the writer most likely never saw it; he’s relying on earlier texts. In the second, what he is really concerned with is bragging about how much all this stuff cost. Brass and bronze were very expensive, and he wants to tell you how much of it was used. Like, man, there were tons of it. Tons and tons. And with really intricate, very expensive decoration as well, cast figures, (the hell with this no graven images shinola, let’s do this big-time) filigree, infill work, hammerwork, inlay, you name it.

Russian aristocrats who’d gotten out after the revolution lamented that they used to have golden bathtubs, and now they didn’t have a pot to piss in. Something like the same thing is going on here.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

SLC said:

It is my information that Ham stated in the debate against Nye that, if the bible said that 2 + 2 = 5, he would accept that as true.

That wasn’t Ham though he was interviewed for the same film the quote comes from. It was Pastor Peter LaRuffa in the HBO documentary Questioning Darwin. It’s at the very beginning of this short clip.

Watch Creationists Talking About Creationism

I should add that I wouldn’t be surprised if Ham has said that or something just like it, but given that the quote has recently been making the rounds I believe that to be the correct source. It’s a Ham-ism if ever I’ve heard one. Biblical glasses indeed.

Dave Luckett said:

I’ll go for “lousy description”. “Round all about” sounds as much like an ellipse as a circle to me. But there’s a reason for the imprecision. In the first place, the writer most likely never saw it; he’s relying on earlier texts. In the second, what he is really concerned with is bragging about how much all this stuff cost. Brass and bronze were very expensive, and he wants to tell you how much of it was used. Like, man, there were tons of it. Tons and tons.

Indeed.

Also remember that we should only expect the numbers to line up if the basin was exactly cylindrical, with no bulging or fluting or anything like that. Cylinders are not very pretty.

I’m a Christian and I like my National Geographic just fine.

david.starling.macmillan said:

I’m just saying…there are plenty of reasons why it’s silly to insist the Bible ought to be taken literally, but this is hardly one of them. Surely Bronze Age engineering precision can be given a little breathing room.

I take your point, but the (amateur) carpenter/builder in me cringes at such precise sounding but obviously incorrect or IMprecise measurements. It would have been so easy to have included an ‘about’ or ‘more than’ to make it clear that it’s not intended as a careful physical description.

Just Bob said:

The (amateur) carpenter/builder in me cringes at such precise sounding but obviously incorrect or IMprecise measurements. It would have been so easy to have included an ‘about’ or ‘more than’ to make it clear that it’s not intended as a careful physical description.

I know I’m just splitting hairs at this point, but I’m still not sure what about the description seems “precise sounding”. Nor is quoting “10” for something putatively between 9.89 and 10.05 a terribly imprecise figure.

I look at it this way: If I want to make my own version of it (maybe a Solomon’s Sea to go in Ham’s Arkland) then, knowing some 5th grade math, I realize right off the bat that either ‘round all about’ can’t mean circular in cross section; OR the 10 and 30 figures weren’t measured to the same place (outer perimeter and a diameter that intersects it); OR there’s some serious unacknowledged rounding; OR the whole thing was just sort of a vague gee-whiz description by someone who never saw (or measured) Solomon’s Fabulous Sea.

So to make one I immediately have to start making guesses. IOW, I can’t possibly produce an accurate reconstruction based on a literal reading because the basic measurements given don’t make sense. I have to assume the description is either inaccurate or incomplete.

Just Bob said:

To make one I immediately have to start making guesses. IOW, I can’t possibly produce an accurate reconstruction based on a literal reading because the basic measurements given don’t make sense. I have to assume the description is either inaccurate or incomplete.

Well if you were trying to make an exact replica, you’d need to know the ratio of tin and copper used to make the bronze, and the text doesn’t list that either, so you’d already be SOL. But a lack of chemical specificity and an incomplete description of the shape is a far cry from “The Bible Says PI = 3”.

Well, since the Hamites are going to have to substitute something for gopher wood, then I suppose they wouldn’t bat an eyelash at a fiberglass replica ‘Solomon’s Sea’ ;)

FL said:

Whether or not the Christian Bible conclusively states that the wicked suffer agony for eternity in Hell is a subject of dispute among experts

Wasn’t a “subject of dispute” at all for Jesus. Most of the actual description of Hell’s conditions that we find in the Bible, comes straight from Him. He’s the only Expert on this issue.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Source: Matt. 25: 31,41,46

Please notice that according to Jesus, the duration of the “fire” for the condemned, is the very same as the duration of the “life” for the righteous. Forever.

FL

Exactly which parts of the Bible did Jesus write? And in what language? You say the quotes come straight from him, yet everything I see is second hand at best, usually much further removed.

Exactly which parts of the Bible did Jesus write? And in what language? You say the quotes come straight from him, yet everything I see is second hand at best, usually much further removed.

Please do not encourage the FL troll.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on March 11, 2014 10:12 AM.

Noah travels through time, uses crane to build Ark was the previous entry in this blog.

Whoa, the Disco Institute has the Anecdote to Faulty Thinking! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter