beachbum

I am not trying to be crass or mean when I say this but if you go here:
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1316.asp" target="_blank">The Necessity for believing in six literal days</a>
and look at the picture in the upper right hand corner, doesn't Ken Hamm look exactly like Cro Magnon or is it Neanderthal?

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: beachbum ]</p>

lpetrich

First, I'd prefer translating the word into "sea monster", which is much more noncommittal about the details about that particular beast.

But that part of the Bible also states that birds, bats, and insects were created before land animals -- which is plainly contrary to the fossil record, and which is counterindicated by comparative anatomy. Birds' closest living relatives are the crocodilians, and birds are descended from a lineage of carnivorous dinosaurs. Bats' ancestry is less clear, but they continue to have a mouselike appearance. Insects are the only flying arthropods, and they fly only in the last molt or two of their lives. Evolution does go backwards sometimes, and fleas are flightless, as are worker termites and ants.

lpetrich

What's interesting is the lameness of non-Fundies -- why are they such whimpering cowards when it comes to Fundamentalism? I don't like the idea of saving the butts of those who are not much more than appeasers.

excreationist

The link works... maybe your internet provider is blocking your access to it... you can use anonymizer.com to get around this.

Scigirl, you are missing the point! The point of the article is that if Genesis isn't literal, then Christianity collapses.

ps418

I strongly believe the Bible contradicts the idea of 24 hour periods of time, and embraces long periods of time. Not only that, but the Bible also contradicts the idea of a global flood, but seems to agree with a local one.

I hate to disagree, but . . .

The bible hardly contradicts literal 24 hour periods -- it demands them. The text of Genesis also supports a global flood, since no local flood would be capable of covering the highest mountains to a depth of 15 cubits. Nor would there by much need to preserve the seed of all life in the case of a merely local flood.

I don't agree with the YECs on much. I do believe that they are faithful to the literal sense of scripture though. I could not in good conscience deny that. I also agree with the YECs that day-age views and local floods are manifestly attempts to reconcile scripture with geologic problems.

Liquidrage

The problem is thus.

If you are not currently a Christian you see no need to wrap Christianity to fit your other beliefs. You can see that if the Bible contains at least one error then there are major problems with it since by it's own admission it is divine.

Most people don't think that way.
They go to church some of the time and their kids play with dinosaur toys.

It's the funies that need to keep the translation literal and I have no doubt you could pile up the evidence against the Bible so high that they suffocate from it and they still would believe it word for word.

It's a no win situation.
They need to be deprogrammed, not occasionlly reasoned with.

---
PS418
BTW: Anything interesting to do in Louisville, KY?
My job is flying me there tomorrow to do some development for the next 3-4 weeks.
---

hezekiah jones

Whatever it is, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html" target="_blank">Jack Cuozzo thinks it's an ape</a>.

scigirl

Hello excreationist!

Sorry I was actually replying to LinuxPup not you. My argument was that there is no reconciliation of Genesis and science. Not Old earth nor YEC can fit with the data.

I was in a bit of a hurry to post so sorry I wasn't clear about what links I was referring to.

Many Christians would disagree, and do disagree with the fundies like on AiG. I also disagree here, since Christianity is based on the NT, and much of the OT becomes obsolete if you do accept Jesus's salvation. I would say, if you disproved a portion of my history book, it would not automatically invalidate the whole thing.

It would however make a good case that claims in the Bible are on shaky ground. And of course there are many other proofs that the NT is a bunch of baloney as well!



scigirl

ps418

I would tell you to check out the Louisville Science Center, but now they've taken out all the fossils and other truly interesting stuff and replaced it with crappy Nickelodeon-like displays that only 10-year olds can appreciate. The IMAX is still there though, which is very cool. Then there's Actor's Theater, but I dont know what they have right now. Oh, yeah, go have breakfast at Lynn's Paradise Cafe on Barrett Avenue.

Email me while you're here (ps418@aol.com). Maybe we can meet up for coffee (I'll be gone from the 4th to the 10th).

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, if you're interested in fossils and such, check out the Falls of the Ohio State Park, right across the bridge in Indiana. Its one of the best places in the world to see Devonian fossils.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

excreationist

Hey scigirl...

But that implies that Christianity is still ok, as long as you don't take Genesis too seriously...

ok.

But a lot of revelations is about a restoration of the earth to its former glory. If there was pain, disease and suffering before Adam sinned and God cursed the earth, then the restoration isn't very impressive.

But I guess you'd still get eternal life, but it isn't as perfect/nice as the creationist's version (which the Bible talks about).

The NT also talks about God's word being the truth. And Jesus seems to believe in Genesis, etc. And if Genesis is wrong then those parts of the NT are wrong also.