+ 
= 
?
Posted on 05/17/2004 10:46:51 AM PDT by yonif
CLARKSBURG -- Was the earth really created in six days? What happened to the dinosaurs? Where do fossils come from?
According to Ken Ham, president and founder of Answers in Genesis, the answers are all found in the first book of the Bible, Genesis.
Ham will be speaking at the Answers in Genesis conference May 21-22 at Robert C. Byrd High School.
"It is a blessing for the Christian community to have such a world-renowned speaker come to our area," said Jay Wolfe, chairman for the event. "The best part is that it's free. Typically, it costs $35 per family."
Ham, a native Australian who now resides near Cincinnati, is one of the most in-demand Christian speakers in North America. He is the author of numerous books on Genesis, the accuracy and authority of the Bible, and creationism vs. evolution.
His radio show, "Answers with Ken Ham," is heard on 680 stations worldwide. He is also a contributing author for Creation magazine. A former teacher, Ham is concerned with how education teaches the theory of evolution as fact and how the whole scientific aspect of the Bible is being ignored.
Others from Answers in Genesis participating in the conference are Buddy Davis, Michael Oard and Stacia McKeever.
Davis is a dinosaur sculptor, author/speaker and popular musician. He is also an accomplished paleo-artist, specializing in building life-sized dinosaur sculptures for Answers in Genesis's Creation Museum near Cincinnati.
He will sing selections from his eight CDs.
An expert on Noah's Flood, the Ice Age and Mammoths, Oard recently retired from the National Weather Service as a meteorologist. He'll give illustrated talks on the compelling evidence for Noah's Flood and the Ice Age that resulted, and how the woolly mammoth connects to biblical history.
He is also author of a children's book, "Life in the Great Ice Age," and a book for teens and adults, "The Weather Book."
McKeever is an author and children's speaker. She'll lead workshops for ages 4-6 using a variety of hands-on activities, taking children on a journey through the "7Cs of History."
She graduated summa cum laude in biology and psychology, and has been working full-time for Answers in Genesis (USA) since 1997. She is also a co-author of the Answers for Kids section in Creation magazine, and has written or co-authored a number of articles for that magazine and also for the AiG Web site.
Local church pastors and lay leaders are excited about the conference.
In March, Ham spoke to a standing-room-only crowd at a breakfast/planning meeting held at the Holiday Inn in Bridgeport. At that time, the planning committee and local church leaders set out to raise enough money to bring the conference to Clarksburg at no cost to the community.
"We have raised over $14,000 so we can offer it to the community for free," Wolfe said.
Wolfe added that he felt it was important for everyone to attend the conference.
"There are two world views -- God is or God isn't -- creation or evolution," Wolfe said. "Which one is the predominant world view, espoused by most information media?"
He added that the church must take responsibility for allowing the creation world view to be defeated in our culture. It is time, he said, to "equip ourselves with the sword of the spirit, which is the truth of God's word, and enter the science arena to battle for the hearts and minds of the young people of this generation."
Wolfe said that he realizes that the creation world view is controversial.
"Some will be skeptical," he said. "But the people who are still open-minded even though they now believe in evolution can come out and hear a specialist. They can then analyze for themselves the creation point of view."
Rev. David Hulme of Clarksburg Baptist Church said that hearing Ham speak and reading his books has radically changed the way he looks at some issues facing the church and society.
"I have his book and DVD series, and we've watched it at church," he said. "There seems to be a lot of interest. I think it's because he uses the whole of scripture, not just the creation."
Tressa Shaw of Bridgeport is hoping that everyone attends Answers in Genesis.
"Everyone should come and see that God's word is truth from beginning to end," she said.
Ham will also speak May 23 at Calvary Baptist and Trinity Assembly of God churches. To pre-register for workshops or for more information, call 622-2241.
+ = ?
I see a "No True Scotsman" type of reply coming your way...
Creation science is an even uglier business than I thought!
Actually your'e onto something here PH...its safe to say Mr. Jackson's nose was an act of "special" creation.
a Tomorrow AM bump. Thanks!
Anyone else hear bagpipes?
Are Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan going to be on the ticket again? I'll get my palm fan and jug of lemonade ready. Nothing's better than a good monkey show.
It is amazing how Americans extend our minds to the planets while our feet never leave parochial muck, isn't it?
Thanks for the ping!
Amen.
Thanks for the ping, Patrick.
Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" blood-clotting process is flawed because the biochemistry of blood-clotting is easily reached by adding several steps on top of a more primitive biochemical sequence, *and then REMOVING earlier portions which had become redundant* (1, 2).
The author of reference 1 had the intellectual honesty to provide a link to Behe's reply---which is more than can be said for the chest-thumper who composed the text you cut and pasted.
False; see post #33.
'Came to scoff, stayed to pray' placemarker.
;^)
Evolved from what? Why would the progenitors be less complex? How old does Behe think the galaxy is?
Nonliving matter, ultimately.
Why would the progenitors be less complex?
Their complexity wouldn't necessarily be less; it just wouldn't be irreducible.
How old does Behe think the galaxy is?
I'm sure he accepts the consensus figure, which if I recall correctly is 13 billion years---plenty of time for an intelligent race to have evolved elsewhere before there was any life on Earth.
And here I thought no one read posts from the Hobbit hole. ;)
...and I refered to his screwup concerning the mousetrap "purely for illustrative purposes" as well -- it illustrates that Behe is such a sloppy thinker even his attempt to present an elementary example of "IC" fails to actually *be* "IC".
If Behe can't even properly recognize whether a *simple* case is actually "IC" or not, how reliable is he likely to be on the *really* complex ones?
[Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" blood-clotting process is flawed because the biochemistry of blood-clotting is easily reached by adding several steps on top of a more primitive biochemical sequence, *and then REMOVING earlier portions which had become redundant* (1, 2).]
The author of reference 1 had the intellectual honesty to provide a link to Behe's reply---which is more than can be said for the chest-thumper who composed the text you cut and pasted.
ROFL!!! Man, I don't know where to even start on describing how off-base you are with this attempted "rebuttal". In no particular order:
1. I'm sorry, I had mistaken you for someone who would actually attempt an "intellectually honest" reply -- you know, one that might actually *address* the points that were raised concerning the flaws in Behe's arguments. My error, won't happen again.
2. The person who "composed the text I cut and pasted" would be *me*, actually, excerpted from my prior posts here and here. So if you were trying to denigrate the critique of Behe's errors on the grounds that I merely borrowed someone else's writing, you just fell on your face, since the analysis is all mine, baby.
3. Even if I had "cut and pasted" someone else's critique of Behe, that wouldn't justify your dodging the points that were raised about the flaws in his work. Grasping for excuses?
4. If Behe had ever actually replied to my posts, I'd certainly have the "intellectual honesty" to provide a link to it, but since he hasn't, my failure to provide a link to his non-existent reply is hardly a valid criticism, and you seem to have fallen on your face again.
5. How on earth is it "chest thumping" to deconstruct Behe's work? Are you sure you understand what the term means? And if that's the worst thing you can say about the critique -- that you didn't like its tone -- then it becomes obvious you couldn't find anything wrong with the actual *points* it made.
Please conclusively demonstrate that "we contain irreducibly complex biochemical systems". We'll wait.
The first link I checked showed that Behe had already done so, contrary to your implication. I have no time to "debate" with sneaks. Deal with it.
Ahem. First, if the "higher intelligence" could have evolved naturally, so could we. Second, no "irreducibly complex chemical processes" in humanity have been discovered. Some processes may seem irreducibly complex at first, but when they are looked into by folks who actually know what they are doing, it turns out they came about naturally after all.
Creation wins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.