Creative Thinking and The Creation
You may believe that the present is the key to the past, but what if The Present has been 'created' as is, and there is no such thing as The Past?
For those of you who need a nudge from your science-infested arrogance, to return to belief, the Institute for Creation Research offers a great deal of information to counter the propaganda spread by such ignoramuses as Charles Darwin, Julian Huxley, and the evil-mouthed Richard Dawkins. Here's an extract from an article by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D., of ICR, that finally trumps all the fallacious logic which has resulted in conclusions based on faulty extrapolation of evidence.
Evolution is not the only misleading theory under attack by the people at ICR, which claims that its "articles are written by top professionals in the fields of geology and biology."The Appearance of Age at CreationAt the marriage feast in Cana (John 2:1-11) Jesus commanded servants to take huge water pots and fill them with water. He then told the servants to draw from the pots and take it to the Ruler of the Feast, who deemed it excellent wine. However, the Ruler of the Feast had used the assumption that the present is the key to the past! He used his own reasoning based on what he knew happens in the present. He assumed, based on everyday experience, this wine had come from grapes grown on vines, grapes that had been harvested and crushed, fermented, and bottled. He thought it had taken a long period of time, but he was wrong. Jesus had, in fact, created this wine. This then is the characteristic of anything God does in creation. From our experience it has an apparent age, an appearance of a non-existent history. And why did Jesus do this? He did it to meet an immediate need.
When God commanded the fruit trees into existence He created them already bearing fruit. If we went back in time, we would have looked at those trees and would have said that they had taken years to grow and mature. But God created a mature, fully-developed creation, because it was meant to be in existence immediately so that when Adam and Eve walked the earth three days later, their food needs would be met.
What do many people say today? They say the world "looks old," therefore the Bible is wrong or God has deceived us. No, God has not deceived us, because He told us what happened in His eyewitness account in Genesis 1. God saw what He made and said it was very good. He was present. He was fully capable of recording and preserving for us His eyewitness account so we would know what happened at creation with absolute certainty. The Gospel accounts give Jesus' stamp of approval on Genesis 1 as the historical record of the earth's beginning. God's timetable for the creation was that He spoke the earth into existence.
Yes, the earth has an appearance of age. But if we use the wrong assumptions to interpret the evidence, we come to the wrong conclusion that the earth is very old, when God clearly says it isn't.
"Global Warming may affect some parts of our society negatively ... but would likely benefit others. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden...", says Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., also of ICR.
Hmmm ...
Dr. Snelling bases his conclusions on the Bible, but what about Dr. Vardiman? I searched and searched ... and finally found the book from where he got his great insight.
HERE IT IS!
Labels: Books, Education, Environment, Media, People, Politics, Religion, Reviews, Science
posted by Zakintosh at 9/21/2007 07:14:00 PM
9 Comments:
'Here's an extract from an article by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D., of ICR, that finally trumps all the fallacious logic which has resulted in conclusions based on faulty extrapolation of evidence.'
LOL!!!
I have often wondered why non-believers cannot admit that fact out loud in belief riddled societies but have to meekly cow down to the 'belief' majority and 'respect' them while no similar respect is accorded to the non-believing minority.
23 September, 2007 14:43
I think belief can co-exist with the theories that have been sought to be debunked by the ICR.
Not that it would be easy to convince them of that, however, and I, for one, would not even bother to try. I would just agree to disagree, if possible, or simply leave them to their own devices.
24 September, 2007 12:03
I think it is very important that the example of the festive boozing be taken as living proof of instant creationism. It can'a be anything else.
In fact, in my boozing days/liquored haze, I often created entire worlds, although I must confess I never got as far as any real animals such as pink elephants.
Obviously I hadn't soaked in enough of the real thing, no matter how spirited - or wilde - I seem.
Now that my salad days are done (and I am practically a tossed vegetable), I can clearly see my past as complete fiction. It's the present that doesn't seem gifted enough. Maybe I should be working on a novel future.
25 September, 2007 08:06
Tail End:
I can't be sure this will be the last word, but as long as your godfearing Creation researchers are goosing the literature, perhaps they should take a gander at this.
25 September, 2007 22:29
I think you guys need to keep an open mind.
I have done a lot of research on this subject and there is some weight to the fact that the Theory of Evolution (which by the way I consider a hypothesis rather then a theory) is actually pushed on us for rather unscientific reasons.
The theory of evolution is most of the time purported as fact and creationism theories are considered some how unscientific ranting of (insert religious book here) thumping ignoramus whose only counter to the TOE is God did it. This of course is not true.
TOE can be broken down into two sections 1) Origin of Life, 2) Evolution of Life.
1) Origin of Life: The first living organism is shown in movies, cartoons, music videos as lighting striking water and the first living cell being created. This is fiction. No body knows how this happened and all theories on this subject have been proven false.
2) Evolution of Life: From the times of Charles Darwin this theory has undergone three evolution (excuse the pun). The original theory of Charles Darwin is now debunked. So they changed the theory to something that incorporates modern science and called it neo-Darwinism. This New-Darwinism is also not faring well, so another theory has been brought forward and it is called punctuated equilibrium.
This forum obviously does not permit me to elaborate on my above comments, but it should get you started in the right direction if you are interested in seeking the truth and are not bogged down by silly biases.
Apologies for the long post.
Omair
26 September, 2007 11:28
ZAK, this a choice post! Cracked me up and loved the end image. Brilliant!
01 October, 2007 18:30
Folks: Your comments, and the few I received via email, indicate that - to most - this is a 'religious' issue and not an attempt to explain or explore the biological growth or diversity of living organisms. With apologies, then, here is a longer set of comments:
@sabizak and sidhusaaheb: What you refer to as belief is what is better described by Coleridge as "the willful suspension of disbelief".
@sidhusaaheb: co-existence is possible in all matters as long as no party 'imposes' their views on the other, and is allowed to share them. Sadly, we are fast losing this facility through draconian laws and fundamentalist vigilantism, at least where I live.
Even among the best of societies, freedoms extend to Freedom of Religion but do not even touch upon freedom from it.
@umair: "I think you guys need to keep an open mind." seems to be - with due apologies, if I misunderstood it - a rather [close-minded?] pre-supposition that the commentators or I don't keep an open mind under reasonable circumstances. By that I mean I'd not really be open-minded, for example, if someone were to lecture and try to convince me about the advantages or the good side of Rape. (Just a reductio-ad-absurdum example, I agree .. but serves my purpose.)
Of course, I don't know you or your background to research, so I cannot know what your quantitative term ("lot of") would translate into on a qualitative rating. But if it is your area of interest, and you have read well, that would be sufficient for me to listen to your views with some degree of respect, as one should in discussions. And I enjoyed your comments, even while disagreeing with some.
My eyebrow-raisng moment while reading your comment came when you attempted to debunk or mock the fact that the Darwinian theory has undergone further evolution (Your pun excused, though punning is best left to Vic!). That, Umair, IS the scientific method: To adjust our understanding of the universe in accordance with any new evidence found.
In the development and evolution, if you'll pardon the phrase, of religious belief-systems, too, the nature of the gods over time seems to have evolved with the nature of the mental evolution of Man - from primitive, barbaric, virgin-sacrifice-demanding deities to a (within the Abrahamic mono-theistic tradition) to a single - yet widely differently understood One. The difference is that each religious system, unlike Science, decides that it has the final answer.
Darwinian or other explanations of the process of evolution notwithstanding, Evolution itself is now an undeniable scientific fact, while Creationism (and not the mere belief in a Creator) is a purely speculative explanation of religious works. (It's illegitimate and evil twin, Intelligent Design, is just a power-struggle-based manipulation for legal purposes in the USA).
Religious teachings are impossible to debate, for each question can be answered - at the debater's whim - to (a) be outside the realm of human understanding, or, (b) deciding to treat a specific portion of the holy text to be allegorical, as and when it suits the purpose.
The ICR seems to me to be merely a collection of the same kinds of qualified professionals that appear on our TV's Jaahil Online, vaghaerah, many of whom sport degrees that would have Amir Liaquat salivating.
I agree with the fact that the standard images in films and media - and, hence stamped on our minds - regarding the ORIGIN of life are based on mere simplistic views or conjecture. EVOLUTION, however, explains matters after that event. It is the ICR that tries to answer both with one biblical thwack.
The Origin of Life, as distinct from The Evolution of Life, has another host of interesting theories, from the scores of religious creation stories (I, myself, have discussed 10 major ones while teaching a class), to science-based and yet-unproven stuff, like Panspermia.
02 October, 2007 10:38
Dear Zak,
As I mentioned near the end of my comments this “comment section” of your post is not the best place to have a discussion on Evolution.
However to address some of the questions you raise:
You wrote:
“To adjust our understanding of the universe in accordance with any new evidence found.”
Even if that new evidence points to an intelligent designer?
The overwhelming answer by evolutionary scientist would be NO. So how can there be an objective outcome to evidence if the understanding of the said evidence must lead to the same conclusion.
TOE is not a fact, if it was we would not be having this debate and there would not be any evolution of the evolutionary theory. All these issues would be resolved in court where the evidence would be produced.
Evolution of religious beliefs has always evolved from worship of a single deity to worship of many. That is the nature of man and an entirely different debate. You may wish to look at the history of the following religions to better understand the process: Hindusim, Zorastrian, Trinitarian Christianity, Islam, Ancient Egyptian worship of Pharos etc.
It was not my objective to start a debate but merely point you in the right direction. People believe what they want to believe, look at the Evolutionist and Creationist who are looking at essentially the same thing but coming to different conclusions.
Omair
04 October, 2007 16:27
@Omair: I could take issue with many things you have stated here ... but I'd rather end this on a happy note and agree with the only indisputable statement in your comments: that this is not the best place to debate such an issue.
04 October, 2007 18:14
Post a Comment
<< Home