Posted on 03/31/2012 6:04:29 PM PDT by Borges
The Grand Canyon, and much of the rest of Earth's geological features, were formed in Noah's flood, and the underpinnings of modern science and textbooks are based on frauds that have been perpetrated in a war between secular culture and Christians. That was the message brought to Northern Arizona University's Cline Library Auditorium on Thursday night by Flagstaff resident Russ Miller, who travels around the country speaking at churches as part of his Creation, Evolution & Science Ministries. He also publishes books like "Noah's Ark and Dinosaurs," and he leads paid tours into the Grand Canyon teaching his beliefs.
"You need to understand that you're involved in the greatest world war in the history of the world, and at a foundational level this is a war of world views," Miller said. "It's not a war of bombs, bullets and airplanes, it's much more serious than that. This is a war that's already claimed the souls of billions of people." Miller believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible that he says confirms the Earth was formed over the course of six days several thousand years ago. He also believes that evolution is a religious belief.
"From the big bang ... to the big rock, to the rain on rock, to the spontaneous generation, to the first cells, to the first vertebrates; there is no evidence whatsoever. It's all a religious belief. And if you wanna believe that, it's fine; just admit it's a belief and stop teaching it in schools as fact," Miller said.
BIBLE AS 'TRUE HISTORY'
The talk was sponsored by the Victorious Life Christian Center in Flagstaff, which paid to rent the auditorium for Miller's talk. The audience was escorted to their seats by ushers in maroon sport coats with nametags and given fliers on the church. Most in attendance were church members, but there were a number of NAU science students and professors in attendance as well.
Miller was introduced by Tim Masters, a pastor at Victorious Life, who said the point of the talk was to present information, not to stir debate. "One thing about the Bible is it's not a science book, but it is the true history book of the universe," Miller said. "If billions of years of death existed before man, then the Bible is not true." Rather than attempt to prove that the Earth had formed in six days or present evidence for a global flood, Miller spent most of the talk attacking evolution. He presented a barrage of slides highlighting what he claimed were problems with everything from radio-carbon dating to humanity's hominid ancestors. Each point was met with alternating smatterings of laughter and 'Amen."
'ALL PRETTY RIDICULOUS'
His presentation flew in the face of modern findings in geology, biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy. "The problem is they have to not only carve the canyon with the flood but they have to lay down all the layers of sediment with the same flood," said Northern Arizona University Associate Astronomy Professor Dave Koerner, who attended the talk. "And so you have to lay down all these layers of sediment that are in the Grand Canyon, they have to solidify within a short amount of time, and then when the waters recede, you have to carve them out again. That's all pretty ridiculous and impossible, but it doesn't keep them from trying."
Koerner does research on planets forming around distant stars using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. He also teaches astrobiology -- the study of life in the universe -- among other courses at the university.
Koerner felt compelled to start a course call "Evolution vs. Creationism" in response to the controversy surrounding prior talks Miller gave on campus. The Daily Sun sat down with Koerner before Thursday's talk. "In general it's a free country and you can believe really nutty things if you want to. Why not?" Koerner said. "Where I have a problem is if you are trying to compel a lot of people or teach them things that contradict the scientific results in our culture. ... There's a lot of students and young people who could have promising careers in technical professions. As long as scientists are demonized to them and lied about it, it puts a roadblock in their way."
FROM CREATIONIST TO AGNOSTIC
Koerner was raised in a creationist household in southern California and taught Bible school himself for years. He says he loved science growing up, but was scared to learn science because it was cast as evil. He even believed a literal interpretation of the Bible up until he taught a course using the book of a well-known creationist named Henry Morris. The book, called "The Genesis Flood," actually helped turn him against a literal account of creation because it was so hard to believe, even with a limited understanding of science.
By the time he had finished an undergraduate degree in geology, he had erased any doubt in a scientific understanding of Earth's origins. And after getting his Ph.D. from the California Institute of Technology, he no longer believed in God at all. Koerner says he now considers himself agnostic.
"I was not actually able to go into the science, just psychologically, until I was well into my 30s," he said. "It took me that long to overcome all the indoctrination about young Earth and the idea that scientists are evil, anti-religious people, which is not true."
TWO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
The talk on Thursday was closed out by Masters, who dismissed the crowd without taking questions.
"We're talking about two religious beliefs, creationism and evolution," Masters told the audience. "One has tremendous proof, one does not. There is an end to everything. ... The question we have to ask ourselves is, 'Where do we want to spend eternity?'"
He then finished with a prayer and asked people to come up and turn their lives to Christ if they saw fit. Many students walked out during the prayer. Miller was approached by several students after the talk who confronted him with scientific errors in his presentation, but the exchanges were mostly polite. That contrasted with previous talks at NAU during which discussions spun into yelling matches.
A small group of students stood outside in a protest, with one carrying a sign reading "Beware of Confirmation Bias."
There is a lot of evidence of Noah's flood lying around, but the canyon isn't part of it. The canyon is basically an electrical scar.
ltr
bump
The Black Sea perhaps. The Grand Canyon to base level, no. And I am a believer in Genesis.
One religion comes from ancient writings (over two thousand plus years old) from many who interacted directly and indirectly with obvious diety. The other religion has no god, (supporting writings less than 160 years old) proposes matter sprang from nothingness, and all life in its near-infinite variety sprang from the same nothingness - taking millions or billion of years.
I've studied both 'religions' for over 65 years - one stands above the other through observable evidence.
We did battle at the Grand Canyon over 25 years ago. They had a sign near the bottom of the canyon - pointing to a dark layer they claimed was the 'Silurian' layer - where only ferns were present on earth.
We (Bible Science Association) got permission from national government to take a small sample of that layer. It was taken with great care, the process extensively documented by film, both still and live video. Pine pollen was found in the sample. The other side went nuts, claiming we allowed the sample to be polluted. We challenged them to take their own sample, and allow us to observe. They agreed... we watched, they found pine pollen as well. They took the sign down, and never gave further full attention to their claims of how the various layers of the Grand Canyon came about.
A world of honest science can be found on the internet. A good place to start is at THIS LINK were links to the Bible Science Association, the Institute for Creation Research, and many associated links can be found and followed.
Science grew during the Rennassiance and was fostered by the Church. To me, today’s separating Christian faith and science is a false separation. God gave us the ability to reason, we did not create it ourselves.It's worth noting that the man who could be considered the Father of Modern Science, and one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Isaac Newton, spent more time studying the bible than he did inventing calculus and describing the laws of physics.
Never made sense to me either. But it is what “they” say the Bible says.
Born in sin and will go to Hell unless they accept Jesus as their personal savior, something they can’t do until the age of reason.
The logical extension is the only way to guarantee that one commits no sin and therefore goes to Heaven is to die in the womb...
I’ll grant the ad hominem against you (not against that quack you mentioned) but the rest you’ll have to prove. I directed every response to a statement you made so I’m not even sure where you’re pulling the strawman from.
Now I’ll admit I’m about as well versed in creation theory as the flat earth theory but I have to accept that you know a bit about what most other people know in the fields paleontology and plate tectonics.
So why even bother telling me you have a fossil (buried alive???) from Ohio...big freakin deal, virtually every single part of the planet was under water at one point or another, outside of a mountain range you’ll be hard pressed to find bedrock that doesn’t contain fossilized sea creatures in some amount.
As for Camelback are you changing your story there? What is this caked desert sand cause I’m pretty sure we’re talking about sandstone which is something entirely different then just sand.
But for the hell of it say you’re right? Explain to me then how desert sand, deposited on a mountain, turns into sandstone without being compressed by overhead deposits...where does the pressure come from to do such a thing?
The real problem with evolution and the 6 days controversy is NOT in Genesis.
The real problem is later in Exodus when God makes it very clear: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. Ex 20:10
And then of course: Romans 3:4 Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”
To me, that 6 days means just what it says: 6 24 hour rotations of the Earth, Days!
Nonsense on the babies go to hell.
Job 3 and 16 and 17: “Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth”. Job said, “Let the day perish on which I was to be born and the night which said a boy is conceived! May that day be darkness.”
“Why was I not hidden like a stillborn child, like infants who never saw light?” Why didn’t I die in my mother’s womb? “There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest.”
Notice that key word: REST. What’s he saying? He’s saying, “I’d be better off if I miscarried. I would be better off if I were stillborn, so I wouldn’t have to face a troubling life—that I would enter immediately into,” what? “Rest.” “Rest.” Job understood that dying as an infant would bring one to rest and one would escape the pain of suffering. He certainly didn’t believe that infants that die go to hell and some eternal torment, but rather had the confidence that they enter into rest.
Job is the oldest book in the Bible and what most people had FOR a Bible before Moses wrote what we call the first 5 books.
But we can go on: In Ecclesiastes 6:3-5, Solomon laments. He laments that a stillborn child is better off than a person who lives a thousand years twice and doesn’t enjoy the right things. He says, “What’s the point of living two thousand years if you don’t ever enjoy true goodness? You’d be better off a stillborn child.”
What about sin? Total depravity? Are all babies born sinners? Yes!
Do all sinners go to hell?
NO!
John MacArther said it thusly:
How were you saved? By what? Grace! You say, “Well, if God just takes all the babies to heaven, that’s just grace!” Right! But how were you saved? By law? What do you want? Law for babies and grace for you? You had no more to do with your salvation than a helpless infant. That’s why the truest and purest theology is that theology which understands that salvation is by grace, and maybe that’s what Jesus had in mind in part when He said, “You who go to heaven, go to heaven as little children.” Is there a better illustration of a salvation by grace than the salvation of a helpless infant? Any true understanding of Scripture yields the reality that all salvation is by sovereign choice by God through grace based on nothing that the sinner merits, and is there a better illustration of that than saving lost infants? Does that magnify sovereignty? Does it magnify grace? Of course it does.
God chooses whom He will save. And God calls ALL. Some listen, some do not. The choice to go to hell belongs to you. Babies get full unconditional grace. No contradiction.
I do believe you were deceived by my initial post. I’m not here to play games with anyone. I’m a Christian. A few years back I was probably living more in your shoes, but I had the pleasure of meeting some true Christians who are tremendous witnesses to Christ. I didn’t see it coming but one day I was just compelled to ask Christ into my life. I’m often conflicted and have many questions. But I have zero regrets. I post on a thread such as this seeking knowledge from those more informed than me, not to intentionally play the devil’s advocate.
That, sir, is the best answer I’ve ever gotten for that issue/question.
It does not dovetail perfectly with what else I’ve been told, but it is substantial food for thought.
Thanks!
Deceived? No. You were forthright, I was presumptuous.
I also seek. Sometimes by asking, sometimes by poking, and sometimes by confronting.
Amen to that, GF.
Amen bigtime to that also, GF.
Biblical literalists make themselves and other Christians look bad by trying to use the Bible for something it was never intended for. It gets liberals laughing like crazy, who turn around and use it to make atheists out of college students. It’s time to let go of the quaint 19th century American heresy of Biblical literalism; Christians got along fine without it for many centuries before someone declared out of nowhere that the Bible was relative to its interpreter while somehow it was sacred at the same time. When it comes to Creation, it should be enough to believe that God is real, that He is the ultimate cause behind the universe and its creatures, and that He takes a personal interest in what goes on here.
When it comes to Creation, it should be enough to believe that God is real, that He is the ultimate cause behind the universe and its creatures, and that He takes a personal interest in what goes on here.
Good post to wake up to. My best wishes in your search.
Let them laugh all they want - it only shows someone so closed-minded they have not considered some very simple truths and how well these self-evident truths have dovetailed with creation science. Although I’ve heard your argument many times before I simply can not agree -
2 main points:
Genesis is foundational to my true faith. It explains creation and the fall in enough details to explain not only the what, why, and when of our history, yet it also explains our present imperfect state and all the the ways we need to strive to be better.
All of scripture is God-breathed so if there are any outright falsehoods then God and His Holy Word are completely untrustorthy on all His promises. My faith will not allow me to believe God a liar - everyman yes but God no!
Awesome post Waywardson! I often listen to MacArthur too - at oneplace.com
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.