Creationists Gather...Dinosaurs Subject of Discussion

The Cincinnati Enquirer ^ | Saturday, July 20, 2002 | Cindy Schroeder

[yankeedame]

Saturday, July 20, 2002

Creationists gather today:Dinosaurs subject of discussion

By Cindy Schroeder, cschroeder@enquirer.com

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.”

[JessicaDragonet]

I totally agree with you, APD. I know God created the earth and I don't really care how He did it. But Genesis 1:20 makes me wonder....And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

According to my sister...my first word wasn't Mommy or Daddy....it was "why". I used to think that when I got to heaven I would spend the first million years asking questions...then I read the verse that says we will know all things then. I think the Lord knows we all love a good mystery and how much fun it is to speculate.

[longshadow]

Didn't Brightsen and Bass's Cincinnati Group marketing the LENT-1 nuclear transmuter mysteriously disappear off the Internet last year? I've had the impression they went out of business for some reason.

No! Not the Home Alchemy kit that was supposed to available at $2999 ea. Surely, you jest?

[ContentiousObjector]

Even JimRob calls your garbage spam, his opinion of the term is good enough for me,

[azhenfud]

Genesis Ch 2 V4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

Carefully note the use of "generations" and "day", apply this reason to the "days" described in Ch 1, and then form your own opinions....
Regards,
Az

[razorbak]

A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero). 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.

Pseudo-Patrick Henry posts this well-worn anti-creationism list on every thread even remotely related to Creationism. The first time I posted a pro-creationism list was a couple of weeks ago. A week or so later, on another thread, PPH posted his list again, and I posted mine again and he posted to me calling me a reflex poster. These people epitomize what they accuse their opponents of being. I call him Pseudo-Patrick Henry because the real Patrick Henry was a creationist. I've posted the quotes from Patrick Henry to prove this twice, but the Darwinists accused me of being a robo or reflex poster. If someone wants the quotes let me know. I don't like casting my pearls before swine, but there are newbies who sometimes read these threads and aren't aware of the Pseudo-Patrick Henry broken record routine and might want an alternate view. I can copy and paste as well as PPH and the rest of his crowd.

[PatrickHenry]

To: medved
please shorten your posts a little bit. that's taking up too much bandwidth and makes downloading a pain. thanks.
92 posted on 7/20/02 10:14 PM Eastern by Admin Moderator

Placemarker.

[razorbak]

For Pseudo-Patrick Henry's information, Protestants aren't responsible for the Roman Catholic Inquisition, they were the victims of it. The Catholic church that condemned Galileo's idea that the earth revolved around the sun, today accepts evolution. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. Today's Inquisitors are secular, and guard the portals of schools from any opposing theory, just as the know-nothings did in Galileo's day.

When the "science" of the ancients taught that the earth was flat, or that it rested on the back of a giant turtle, or the shoulders of Atlas, etc., the one true God revealed to man in Isa.40:21-25 that the earth was a "circle" [literally in the Hebrew, a sphere], and that it was "hung" by God on "nothing."

One hundred and fifty years ago, scientists believed that flies were produced by "sponaneous generation." Creationists didn't believe such idiocy then. But evolution is founded on spontaneous generation. Ancient Egyptians believed that they had "evolved" from the little white worms that emerged from the silt left by the Nile's overflow. Evolution is not a relatively recent scientific theory, it is rehashed paganism.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I don't think the point is to defend religion so much as to discredit scientific endeavor. (That's endeavour for Jedi Girl.) Similar anti-science arguments are made by the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists as by the Creationists.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And how were the tube worms kept alive?

[Genesis defender]

The Catholic church that condemned Galileo's idea that the earth revolved around the sun, today accepts evolution.

Actually, the Catholic church didn't condemn Galileo because of his theory, but it was for several reasons. First of all, Pope Urban VIII loved to play politics, and for the latter part of the Pope's reign, Galileo was on the wrong side. Plus, the Pope didn't like Galileo very much because Galileo insulted him more than once. It didn't help that Pope Urban VIII was vain and arrogant, too.

Galileo himself was an arrogant, stubborn and proud SOB. He never shared his discoveries with his scientific contemporaries, who in turn got p!ssed off at him. The REAL reason Galileo was perseceuted was that he disobeyed a papal decree. In fact, many of the judges in the case were reluctant to press forward with it.

I could write more, but there are too many different aspects of the case. For more info, look up the article called "The Galileo Affair" by Thomas Schirrmacher, found in Creation Technical Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1.

[Aric2000]

Patrick, I am crushed, you didn't ping me!! Please add me to your ping list. I'll be good, honest!! ;)

[ChuxsterS]

Because He created us in His image for His pleasure .. not a toy/plaything pleasure, but the pleasure of fellowship.

I don’t see your point. Why couldn’t He create us using evolution, in his image and for the pleasure of fellowship?

God is unchanging and eternal. It would be inconsistent with His nature to create something that changed.

Were it valid, that line of reasoning would tend to prove that God created nearly nothing. Everything in the world is in flux - people are born small, they get big, then old, then they die. The sun rises and sets. Sometimes it rains, sometimes it’s dry... hence the old chestnut: “‘change’ is the only constant in the universe.” In fact – human beings, made in the image of an unchanging God, change physically, mentally, and spiritually as they go through life. It seems to me that “unchanging and eternal” is one attribute of God most definitely not reflected in his creation, nor in his creatures.

The changes evolutionists claim require the loss of internal information by mutation, which logically, eliminates an ‘upward’ evolution.

It appears that you’re no longer arguing against the proposition that God used evolution to create man, and have gone straight for the jugular of evolution itself. One problem is, you haven’t made any convincing argument against the proposition that God used evolution to create man, and hence, any objection you make to evolution can be answered by saying “God can induce any changes he wishes to by evolving his creatures.” Another problem is that mutation does not always mean the loss of information, so your premise here is false and your conclusion, while following logically from a false premise, is also false.

Changes may occur within kind, but the fish to college professor transition just never occured.

So say you, but if you could see one or two of my old professors, you’d have second thoughts.

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.

This statement reflects a typical creationist misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although individual mutations are ‘accidents’, natural selection winnows out maladaptive changes in a very efficient and non-random way. That is, mutations which tend to reduce the survivability or fecundity of an organism will tend to reduce the number of descendants to whom the mutation is passed, while mutations which tend to enhance survivability or fecundity will tend to increase the number of descendants to whom the mutation is passed, who will in turn have an advantage reproducing… Bigger brains helped our ancestors survive and reproduce, and hence were passed on.

[medved]

Who is PatrickHenry...

[El Whino]

Pseudo-Patrick Henry posts this well-worn anti-creationism list on every thread even remotely related to Creationism. The first time I posted a pro-creationism list was a couple of weeks ago. A week or so later, on another thread, PPH posted his list again, and I posted mine again and he posted to me calling me a reflex poster. These people epitomize what they accuse their opponents of being. I call him Pseudo-Patrick Henry because the real Patrick Henry was a creationist. I've posted the quotes from Patrick Henry to prove this twice, but the Darwinists accused me of being a robo or reflex poster. If someone wants the quotes let me know. I don't like casting my pearls before swine, but there are newbies who sometimes read these threads and aren't aware of the Pseudo-Patrick Henry broken record routine and might want an alternate view. I can copy and paste as well as PPH and the rest of his crowd.

105 posted on 7/20/02 11:08 PM Eastern by razorbak

Placemarker

[medved]

Have you ever noticed that you can't spell CREATIONIST without CRETIN ??? I am still amazed that people are still debating this subject. The proof that religion is one of the best way to keep people stupid and ignorant.

You know, the more I look at this statement, the stupider it looks. And then to have the gall to cry that English is a second language as if French and English weren't related. I mean, you can find posts of mine to the Russian side of usenet (Google group search on medved/holden/relcom) and you might find some less than optimal usage but you won't find any Russian sentence of mine which simply omits the main verb of the sentence.

espece d'imbecile...

[ChuxsterS]

Just my opinion: God can create anything at any age He chooses. That's why you can't take the carbon dating literally...He can make a 10,000 year old rock, or a 30,000 year old rock at the same instant....

And populate the universe with copious evidence that it's a very, very old place?

True, God could do that. God could have created a universe a mere 6,000-odd years ago, and created it indistinguishable, on day one, from a universe that was billions of years old.

But wouldn't that make God a liar, trying to ensnare man with false yet irrefutable evidence of a past which had never occurred?

I don't believe God can be a liar. I think that the convincing evidence he left pointing to a very, very old universe means that it is an ancient universe, and that a literal-minded reading of Genesis is wrong.

[medved]

I've never yet read anything in ancient literature which seemed to be claiming that the entire universe was created recently. Creation stories I read invariably appear to be speaking of the creation of this planet and its immediate surroundings (our solar system) and often refer to the appearance of the Earth and heavens as they appear in changed versions after some calamity or large-scale event. The most obvious case occurs late in Isaiah:

ISA 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

ISA 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

[jennyp]

If you placed all of Medved's multi-page SPAMs end to end, they'd reach Saturn and back...

Thread	"God Hates IDIOTS, Too!" 3½pg. spam	"Some useful references" 3pg. spam
Not-So-Intelligent Design	201 posted on 3/5/02 6:08 AM Pacific by medved	202 posted on 3/5/02 6:11 AM Pacific by medved
A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]	221 posted on 3/5/02 10:08 PM Pacific by medved
A Second Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]		21 posted on 3/6/02 6:03 AM Pacific by medved
Design vs. evolution discussion Monday	11 posted on 3/8/02 4:13 PM Pacific by medved	12 posted on 3/8/02 4:15 PM Pacific by medved
Panel weighs science-standard bill (Evolution v. Intelligent Design)	18 posted on 3/8/02 4:21 PM Pacific by medved	19 posted on 3/8/02 4:22 PM Pacific by medved
Common Creationist Arguments	165 posted on 3/9/02 10:08 AM Pacific by medved	166 posted on 3/9/02 10:09 AM Pacific by medved
Creation vs evolution in England state school	14 posted on 3/9/02 10:19 AM Pacific by medved	15 posted on 3/9/02 10:20 AM Pacific by medved
Fundamentalists re-create Eden, with dinosaurs	100 posted on 3/10/02 7:47 AM Pacific by medved	101 posted on 3/10/02 7:48 AM Pacific by medved
How Evolution Monkeys with Duplicate Genes	128 posted on 3/12/02 7:07 PM Pacific by medved	129 posted on 3/12/02 7:08 PM Pacific by medved
Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience	46 posted on 3/13/02 10:18 AM Pacific by medved	47 posted on 3/13/02 10:20 AM Pacific by medved

To: medved

No one likes spam.

210 posted on 3/13/02 11:14 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

New evidence we all have the same ancestors Cal student's discovery should resolve dispute	10 posted on 3/22/02 6:15 AM Pacific by medved
The evolving Darwin debate		51 posted on 3/25/02 5:55 AM Pacific by medved
Evolution is designed for science classes	160 posted on 3/28/02 8:01 PM Pacific by medved
Ohio Excludes Creationism		79 posted on 4/2/02 3:50 PM Pacific by medved
Evolution: What is it? (long article)		144 posted on 4/4/02 6:25 PM Pacific by medved
Bishop warns Blair over danger of creationism	9 posted on 4/6/02 5:48 PM Pacific by medved	10 posted on 4/6/02 5:49 PM Pacific by medved
Gould Strikes Back At Creationists		319 posted on 4/10/02 8:54 PM Pacific by medved
The Truth for Youth: The Stupidest Comics Ever	30 posted on 4/20/02 1:48 PM Pacific by medved	131 posted on 4/20/02 6:25 PM Pacific by medved
White House to honor prominent evolutionist	64 posted on 5/9/02 8:16 PM Pacific by medved	65 posted on 5/9/02 8:18 PM Pacific by medved
["Icons of Evolution"] Premiere Evolves into Protest	38 posted on 5/20/02 7:23 PM Pacific by medved
Intelligent Design? (Another School Board Disclaimers Evolution)		52 posted on 5/23/02 6:44 PM Pacific by medved
Berkeley s Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson		323 posted on 5/30/02 11:37 AM Pacific by medved
Scientific Boehner: The new creationism and the congressmen who support it.	112 posted on 6/6/02 1:59 AM Pacific by medved	104 posted on 6/6/02 1:10 AM Pacific by medved
Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection	194 posted on 6/7/02 5:58 PM Pacific by medved	192 posted on 6/7/02 5:55 PM Pacific by medved
Cretigo: Bingo game on the Crevo threads!	32 posted on 6/12/02 8:18 PM Pacific by medved	27 posted on 6/12/02 6:35 PM Pacific by medved
Creationists Latch On To Canadian Research	12 posted on 6/16/02 7:11 AM Pacific by medved	11 posted on 6/16/02 7:08 AM Pacific by medved
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]	85 posted on 6/17/02 6:45 AM Pacific by medved	83 posted on 6/17/02 6:43 AM Pacific by medved
Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo	48 posted on 7/1/02 9:40 AM Pacific by medved	49 posted on 7/1/02 9:41 AM Pacific by medved
Missing-link fossil wasn't a fish -- it has a pelvis	40 posted on 7/5/02 7:51 AM Pacific by medved	54 posted on 7/5/02 10:29 AM Pacific by medved
Designed by Natural Selection	87 posted on 7/8/02 8:01 PM Pacific by medved	33 posted on 7/8/02 2:55 PM Pacific by medved
Astonishing Skull Found in Africa	269 posted on 7/10/02 7:58 PM Pacific by medved	268 posted on 7/10/02 7:57 PM Pacific by medved
Astronomers Hope to Find E.T. in Next 25 Years	340 posted on 7/17/02 7:42 PM Pacific by medved	339 posted on 7/17/02 7:41 PM Pacific by medved
Creationists Gather...Dinosaurs Subject of Discussion	75 posted on 7/20/02 6:43 PM Pacific by medved	71 posted on 7/20/02 6:33 PM Pacific by medved

To: medved

please shorten your posts a little bit. that's taking up too much bandwidth and makes downloading a pain. thanks.

92 posted on 7/20/02 7:14 PM Pacific by Admin Moderator

[Aric2000]

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

I thought that was a liberal ploy, too bad Medved, I was actually beginning to respect you. I still think your silly and misled, but you stick to your guns, gotta respect that, but to call names and point to threads that basically attack a person, and make innuendo etc. THAT is a liberal ploy, aren't you proud?

[cinFLA]

Do evolutionary ideas challenge the Bible? Or are they picking a fight keep the faithful from questioning anything?

One time long ago the "church" tried to keep the printing press out of the hands of the laymen so that they could continue to control the thoughts of these people.