Ping.
Noah
by Bill Cosby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATGrbTN63H4
The reason literal creationists spend so much time attacking evolution and science is because they have no evidence on their side.
"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."
At a time when the quality of education in the US is plummeting and the US is in real danger of losing its scientific supremacy, the LAST thing we need are charlatans actively trying to turn kids against science and teaching that scientists are evil.
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."
This story highlights a danger of literal creationism that I hypothesized about a long time ago, but have never expressed. Kids can be indoctrinated into believing that the creation story of Genesis is a literal account, and that to believe otherwise is sinful. But some kids have a strong curiosity about the natural world. It really doesn't take much for the kid to notice that the real world simply does not fit the Biblical story. They might find fossil seashells on a hillside twenty miles away from the coast, for instance. They could pick up a book about dinosaurs whose tone is that of a descriptive book, and they perceive that it is different than fantasy books. They might visit a park, where educational signage explains rock strata and their long geological history. Etc. To a kid who's been taught that evolution vs. creation is an either/or proposition, what conclusion will they draw when it becomes clear that there really is evidence that only supports one side, and it isn't the Biblical side? The way I see it, adherence to a strict literal creationist view is extremely damaging to the effort to bring people back into the fold. Is this what we really want?
What if, instead of indoctrinating him into a literal creationist interpretation of the Bible, Koerner's parents had instead encouraged his youthful wonder? What if they had, instead, told him that the process of evolution is, in fact, a sign of God's glory, since only He could devise the physical laws that made such a process possible? Would he still have rejected his faith completely, or would he be a witness to the wonder of creation as it actually is?
"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?'"
Masters is only talking about one religious belief, and trying to convince people that they can only demonstrate that belief by closing their eyes to the real wonder of the world around them. No doubt, he makes money by doing so. Scientific theories are not, never have been, and never will be, religious beliefs. And where we spend eternity isn't predicated upon our closing our ears and eyes to the scientific evidence all around us.
A very disturbing thing to me about the concept of such a flood is the great number of innocent babies who would’ve died horrified in their mothers arms as the water rose above their mouths.
Anyone in doubt about the errant thinking on any campus in the US of A ought to read the course catalogs and the student paper. The freak show we think of as higher education is already so fraught with nutcase ideas there is hardly any room to condemn the beliefs of millions of normal, moral and productive people.
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
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.
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!
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.