Skip to comments.Creationists Gather...Dinosaurs Subject of Discussion
Posted on 07/20/2002 2:08:38 PM PDT by yankeedame
Saturday, July 20, 2002
Creationists gather today:Dinosaurs subject of discussion
By Cindy Schroeder, firstname.lastname@example.org
The Cincinnati Enquirer
UNION As children create models of dinosaurs, their parents can search for Biblical references to the giant creatures at a weekend conference hosted by a pro-Creationist ministry that vows to defend scripture from the very first verse.
The site of the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum in Boone County is being graded. (Patrick Reddy photo) | ZOOM | Organizers of the program running today and Sunday at Big Bone Baptist Church in Union say the Answers in Genesis family conference is expected to draw between 500 and 600 people within a day's drive of the Tristate. They say it is part of an ongoing series of family conferences that the 8-year-old nonprofit ministry now building a 50,000-square-foot museum in Hebron has offered throughout the country to give (believers) arguments to help debunk evolution.
Answers in Genesis followers believe the Earth's creatures were created by God and were not the result of an evolutionary process as espoused by scientists such as Charles Darwin.
Our purpose is to equip Christians to be able to defend Christianity against the evolutionary ideas (or) secular ideas that challenge the Bible, said Ken Ham, executive director of Answers in Genesis and the conference's keynote speaker. He said organizers will present what they believe is the factual account of the history of the world as presented in Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament.
Like those who promote Intelligent Design, Answers in Genesis followers believe that all life was the result of a creator. However, they carry that theory further, in that they maintain the creator is the God of the Bible and you can trust the God of the Bible, Mr. Ham said.
With the help of the writings of Scriptural Geologists, Terry Mortenson, a full-time lecturer with Answers in Genesis who has degrees in theology and geology, will attempt to show that dinosaurs walked the Earth with man.
Arnold Miller, a professor of geology at the University of Cincinnati, challenged participants to go out and examine the evidence themselves, rather than allow others to interpret the evidence for them.
I'm all for Answers in Genesis having every opportunity to say what they want, Mr. Miller said. But I would challenge anyone who goes to this conference to demand direct positive evidence that the creation of life took place over six days in 4004 B.C. or whatever they say. People should ask, "What's the evidence? Let's hear it.'
It's one thing to provide misleading characterizations in scientific debates. It's another to say that the answers (to issues such as how life began) really are in Genesis.
Let the GAMES begin!!! (again)
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(NO govt religion-EVOLUTION-none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(common sense/history)!
"were created by God and were not the result of an evolutionary process"
Why couldn't God create a world WITH evolutionary processes if he pleased? I think these debates are sooo off the mark.
Do evolutionary ideas challenge the Bible? Or are they picking a fight keep the faithful from questioning anything?
I'm sorry, I'm not tracking with you... Are you saying I misspelled it or that you did? I spelled the word I meant to use correctly. My Oxford's doesn't show any definitions for viscious- now viscous, that's a different matter. At any rate that's just what I'm talking about ;-)
I think you characterized the situation perfectly.
Did you read what I wrote... or like most people thump it off as stupid before reading? The coal was formed during the eons of time between verse one and verse 2... thats why its called the "Gap Theory".
This is what I believe really happened. There is no need to invent evolution to explain anything. The time between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 can easily be billions of years, time enough for all sorts of kingdoms and dominions to come and go and the earth to be decimated by several cataclysmic events.
I'm of the opinion that no descendent of Adam ever walked with dinosaurs. There is a prophet that gives a quick glimpse of the same situation then closes the curtain as if to say that this is not necessary for us to know.
Dinosaurs Gather...Creationists Subject of Discussion
There. I like that better.
running through the mind/imagination hard drive of God---
on his wish--whim--amusement/dismay!
Oh, I think God intended us to be a bit more than hypotheticals. He claims that He invested us mortals with His own image. Ponder that, if you will.
Over sentient(vain)...under spiritual(humble/honest)!
in the their destiny/origin--belief sytem!
I've posted this before, but I guess I have to say it again from time to time.
No one, not even the most strident fundamentalist, takes the numerous passages about "the four corners of the earth" and the "pillars of the earth" as being literally true. Why? Because we know the shape of the earth. Similarly, since Galileo's unfortunate encounter with the Inquisition over the solar system, probably even the most stubborn fundamentalist will agree with Galileo that the solar system is real, and those passages in scripture which seem to say that the earth is the unmoveable center of the universe are mere poetry. Why? Again, it's because we know enough now to realize that the solar system -- although "only a theory" -- is a very good description of reality.In view of the foregoing, it takes an amazingly pugnacious clergyman to deliberately select an interpretation of scripture that is guaranteed to set his flock on a collision course with science.
The point here is that our growing understanding -- through science -- of the true nature of the universe is actually an aid to understanding scripture. The scientist, quite without realizing it, and sometimes in spite of his lack of religious conviction, is providing a kind of "reader's guide" to help us have a better understanding of scripture. Actually, the universe itself is the guide but it's the scientist who discovers the nature of the universe. Thus, when understood in the light of science, scripture can be properly read, old misunderstandings can be corrected, and there is no conflict. Without science, we have no way of knowing if our reading of scripture is correct.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress(no evolution...none---ever...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH--scientific expertise(not evo--whack moonie marx-darwin-zombie swill)!
Science/reality is anti-possibilty(infinite/irrational)...
Science has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite/rational)---
Science must limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!
Because He created us in His image for His pleasure .. not a toy/plaything pleasure, but the pleasure of fellowship.
God is unchanging and eternal. It would be inconsistent with His nature to create something that changed.
The changes evolutionists claim require the loss of internal information by mutation, which logically, eliminates an 'upward' evolution.
Changes may occur within kind, but the fish to college professor transition just never occured.
To claim intelligence and morality came from an accident, is to allow us to deny any validity to the claims of evolutionists. The minds they use to deduce their claims are ... an accident ... a mutation ... a mistake.
The time between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 can easily be billions of years...
or a day, if you're God, eh?
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via sclock science...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!!
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution.
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing Is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 18].
They should show this movie:
Raquel Welch co-existed with dinosaurs
Again, in terms of general tendencies, the breakdown was something like this:
Classical Conservatives (Tories) - Creationist
Classical Liberals (Whigs) - Darwinian Evolutionists
Radicals, Socialists, etc - Lamarkian Evolutionists
I hope that doesn't confuse you.
They swooned from happiness and were never seen again.
Appropriate setting for a program on dinosaurs!
The problem is the geneology presented in Luke, which traces Jesus back, generation by generation, back to Adam. Since Christians believe tht the entire Bible is divinely inspired Truth written by God Himself via the Holy Spirit, then Adam was created, not evolved, and that precludes evolution.
That guy is not debunking anything. Look at 1.1:
According to Big Bang theory, the universe came from nothing. But something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, there must be a creator. REPLY: (i) First, of all, the idea of the universe "coming from" nothing, far from being a stipulation of standard Big Bang theory, is inconsistent with it.
That's snake oil. Matter and energy exists. It had to come from somewhere. The Big Bang is science's best explanation for it. Since it falls way short, Mark Vuletic throws in something called the "theory of quantum gravity." Then he says "no theory of quantum gravity has yet been fully developed."
Patrick, that's not debunking anything.
Many other replies are along the lines of "that's right but irrelevant:"
3.5: Cells are too complex to have come into existence all at once by pure chance. REPLY: This is true, but irrelevant
or "we're still looking into it."
3.2: Amino acids in living organisms are all left-handed, but in nature, equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids form, so one would expect them to occur in equal proportions in living organisms if abiogenesis were true. REPLY: There is no consensus on how this problem is to be resolved, but there are several possibilities that continue to be explored.
About the only real debunking I saw was the one in which he showed that Einstein was not an anti-evolutionist.
More interesting is how they got back, after the flood. How did they know, in general, to return to those areas where related forms occur as fossils? How did placental mammals know that only marsupial fossils are found in Australia, and that they shouldn't go there?
Specially adapted cave-dwelling organisms have a very strong tendency to be closely related to above-gound living ones in the same locality (comprising, say, different but clearly similar genera). At the same time those that are obligatory cave dwellers are seldom widely distributed, with each cave system having its own particular species and genera. IOW they are more closely affiliated with local terrestial organisms inhabiting very different environments then they are with those inhabiting nearly identical environments in other cave systems. How did they manage to sort themselves out so post flood?
In South America they are trees or shrubs and ants that are co-adapted in such detailed and specific ways that they are classed as single "ecological species," so called "ant-plants". How did those get all the way to S.A. from Ararat?
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am .  This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'IAM has sent me to you.' "
Has not God evolved because of our understanding, of the sciences?
No. And neither have we. Only our understanding of the sciences has evolved.