Re: NY Times reviews AiG's "museum"

On May 30, 10:28 am, Cemtech <c...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1180495554.513960.24...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx says...





On May 26, 8:20 am, Chris Thompson <notlik...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1180062609.154109.64140
@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 7:46 pm, bdbry...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
The LA _Times_ comes down hard on it, describing it in the first
sentence as "a $27-million tourist attraction promoting earth science
theories that were popular when Columbus set sail" :
<http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/yabba_dabba_science.php>

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

Since the L.A. Times is controlled by Atheists and Darwinists could
one expect them to say anything else?

Ray

And of course you know these people personally, Ray? Right? You can
respond to this message with their names, and direct quotes from them
showing they're atheists?

You're a vile, lying, hypocritical person, Ray. Liar, liar, liar.

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This comment betrays the fact that what I said hit a nerve of truth
that Chris does not want to accept. Either that or he is genuinely
naive and thinks the L.A. Times is run by Christians and Creationists.

Christians? Very likely as we've seen many polls that the majority of
Americans are Christians.

Creationists? Not likely as said Christian majority are not creationis.

--
"We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state
separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and
we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate
the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the
framers built this democratic republic."

--Barry Goldwater, "Mr. Conservative"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm new to this group, but I notice Ray claims to be an Old Earth/
Young Life creationist. So am I. FYI, here's my theory:

In my opinion, the Genesis creation account is not another Near East
creation myth. I believe it is true and scientifically sound, despite
being dismissed as the opposite by some British Catholic bishops
recently. Most evolutionists will mock me for saying so, but from my
perspective it takes far more faith to believe in the theory of
lengthy evolution of life than in the theory of sudden creation of
life.

To believe the former, one must believe in spite of the astronomical
improbability of elements coming together to form even a complex
molecule, let alone a single cell; in spite of the complete lack of
fossil evidence of transitional forms between species, the "missing
links," and a fossil column which does not always go from lower to
higher life forms (thus better supporting a global Flood); in spite of
the deleterious value of mutations; in spite of Malthusian population
theory which would have resulted in a population explosion of
hypothetical hominids over 50-100,000 years (obliteration by the last
ice age--an age without a good scientific explanation--is postulated,
but with few hypothetical hominid remains); and in spite of such
evidence as soft tissue found inside a T. rex thigh bone, encased in
sandstone (evolutionists are still closed-mindedly claiming it is 68
million years old).

To believe the latter--the theory of sudden creation of life (around
3970 B.C., according to biblical chronology)--one must believe with
the supporting evidence of the oldest village settlements in the world
being about 6,000 years old and just west of Jerusalem (Eden's site, I
believe); the oldest city in the world from about the same time being
Jericho, just east of Jerusalem; the ancient civilizations of Egypt
and Mesopotamia dating to 3500 B.C.; the destruction of those
civilizations about 2300 B.C., exactly the time the Bible puts the
global Flood; the extinction of dinosaurs by flooding; and carbon
dating of dinosaur bones in the thousands of years.

Which theory requires more faith to believe? Which puts forward the
best evidence? Which do you believe? Of course if you do not believe
in God, then the theory of evolution is your only choice, in spite of
the fact that it is full of holes, which bad science has tried to
fill. One simple example makes my point. Which is better science: to
accept the carbon dates of dinosaur bones as an indication of their
young age or to throw them out just because they do not fit the theory
of evolution and instead, date the bones by dating the rock around
them? What if the rock is in fact millions of years old, as I do not
dispute, but the dinosaur is only thousands? So the problem with
evolutionists is that in spite of the bad science they put forward,
they can not believe that God suddenly created the species "after
their kinds," as Genesis says He did.

But many sudden creationists have their problems too. Firstly, many do
not see that the best interpretation of the Genesis creation account
is an ancient universe, but young life. They do not see that the first
two verses of Genesis cover stage one of creation, lasting fourteen
(two times seven, interestingly) billion years, and that the seven
"days" of creation are stage two, beginning in verse three. Stages one
and two are also reflected, respectively, in the verbs
"create" (Hebrew: bara) and "make" (Hebrew: asa) in the last verse of
the prologue, 2:3, and in the first verse of the first book of
Genesis, 2:4. Further, from Genesis 2:4 ("These are the generations of
the heavens and the earth ...."), I believe "day" figuratively means
the first millennium, so a "generation" of 1,000 years (as Adam's and
Noah's were) figuratively means 365 million years.

Secondly, nearly all sudden creationists interpret stage two as seven
literal days, rather than seven figurative "days," which were really
years, as the ancient Jewish Book of Jubilees asserts. Strong
arguments can be made for this: 1) It puts Enoch's translation to
heaven exactly seven years before the end of the first millennium,
which is a figure for the translation to heaven of the true Church,
seven years before the end of the sixth millennium. 2) Seven years is
one of the "seven" precedents in the Bible: e.g., six years to work
the land and one to leave it fallow, seventy seven-year periods in
Daniel 9, the last one being seven years of judgment and destruction
centred around Jerusalem at the end of 6,000 years, paralleled by
seven years of creation centred around the site of Jerusalem (Eden).
3) Seven years is more in line with what was accomplished in the
"days," especially "day" six, which includes the events of Genesis 2
and, I suspect, 3. It is also more in line with the "no rain" comment
of 2:5.

Thirdly, most sudden creationists believe the sun, moon and stars were
not created until "day" four, after light and the day/night cycle
appeared on the earth in "day" one. This is an unfortunate result of
the Hebrew word translated "made" (Hebrew verb: asa). The verb can
also mean "to manifest." Also, these lights were manifested in the
"firmament of the heavens," up to the clouds (see 1:6-8). The intended
meaning is a thinning of the cloud cover over the earth, so that the
sun, moon and stars were manifested.

So, what is my take on the Genesis prologue, that merges the creation
account with good science? Well, here it is.

Bang! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis
1:1)." I have no doubt that stage one of God's creation began, as
astronomy indicates, about fourteen billion years ago and that, as
radiogeology indicates, the earth is about four billion years old. A
description of the earth at the end of stage one appears in verse two
of Genesis 1: "And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters." I believe that this is a picture of the earth in a more
distant orbit from the sun than at present, explaining the ice ages
and precluding evolution. The earth was dark from complete cloud and
fog cover (see Job 38:9) and it was completely covered by water and
ice.

Verse three begins stage two of God's creation: seven figurative
"days," which were in fact years. In year one (3970 B.C., inferred
from biblical chronology), God began to move the earth and perhaps all
the planets closer to the sun. The sun's increasing gravitational pull
began to pull away some of the cloud and fog cover on the earth to
make light and the day/night cycle visible. In year two, the
exponentially increasing gravitational pull of the the sun extended
the earth's atmosphere even further, pulling the clouds up into the
sky. In year three, the increasing heat from the sun had evaporated
enough of the water, covering the earth, to make dry land appear. At
that point, God created plant life. In year four, enough of the cloud
and fog cover had been diffused to make the sun, moon and stars
visible. At the end of that year, the earth was in its present orbit
(biblically inferred). In year five, God created air and water
creatures and in year six, land creatures, including man. Finally, He
ceased His creative work in the seventh year.

I should also add that I believe the earth was initially vertical on
its axis, but that God tilted it 23.5 degrees to cause the Flood in
about 2300 B.C., by which many species, including dinosaurs, were made
extinct. This explains the absence of rain in the tropics until the
Flood; tropical fossils in the arctic; almost edible woolly mammoths,
frozen in the arctic with tropical plants in their stomachs; and
perhaps the long lifespans of the ancient peoples, which were
mythologized in Near East king lists in the thousands of years.

Let me conclude with one other piece of evidence for the truth of the
Genesis prologue. Not only are the seven "days" figurative for seven
years, but they are also figurative for seven millennia. Every
thousand years there has been a spiritual "sunrise." In 3970 B.C., it
was God and Adam. In 2970 B.C., it was Lamech and Noah. In 1970 B.C.,
it was Terah and Abraham. In 970 B.C., it was David and Solomon. In 30
A.D., it was Jesus and the early Church. In 1030 A.D., it was the
Cluniac reform. In 2030 A.D., it will be Jesus again, the Second
Coming.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THATS why.
    ... People throughout history have had experiances that they could not ... If you say science, well, with out a time ... Job 38 ~ Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ... Creation was an supernatural event that cannot be explained ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: THATS why.
    ... If you say science, well, with out a time ... Job 38 ~ Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ... Creation was an supernatural event that cannot be explained ... Within the species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hmongs version of creation.
    ... Yog li pog saub thiab yawm saub nyob khua siab khuav. ... For scientific articles about the origins of the Earth, the Universe, ... Museum of Anthropology, Vancouver.An origin belief, or creation myth, ... with God or Buddha Sakyamuni by the tribes influenced by Tibetan ...
    (soc.culture.hmong)
  • Re: NY Times reviews AiGs "museum"
    ... the Genesis creation account is not another Near East ... they can not believe that God suddenly created the species "after ... appeared on the earth in "day" one. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: THATS why.
    ... life appeared on earth. ... If you say science, well, with out a time ... earth, have dominion over animals and multiply. ... Creation was an supernatural event that cannot be explained ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading