A Matter of Faith: New movie by Answers in Genesis

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Nice to see anti-intellualism is thriving! Sure, science is just a 'viewpoint' like the Creationist guys says in the trailer - they probably say the Theory of Evolution is 'just a theory' too.

It's so hard to understand why these ideas still get air-time in the USA. Western superpower and technological frontrunner still giving Creationism a hearing! WTF?

I'm not knocking a belief in gods or God here but it was the application of science that gave these guys the internet, cameras and cinema - God didn't 'create' those things. No magic necessary. They'll happily use all the goodies designed and built according to scientific principles and then refuse to trust the Science that has proven a billions of years old universe and evolution on this planet.

Do they still think angels are pushing planets around in space?? Do they believe cars are powered by cherubim?!

oh yeah! just like you said.
angles pushing planets!
it's a beautiful sight for sure!!

and it's kinda science's job to invent this crap for everyone, right?

and people could do that how? finding out how things work, right?
things that were already there for the taking.
invented by who, again?

and what has it accomplished besides costing us more money?

btw, still waiting for my flying car. whenever you genius's get around to it, of course.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The very concept behind the movie depresses me. Science trumps a book of myths.

a reply to: tsingtao

You're sitting out there typing on a computer that wouldn't exist without the progress of science going back centuries. Your life expectancy is higher than at any time in history and you can watch footage of humans in space using a technology that has connected most people on this planet - the internet.

Do we thank priests, churches and holy books for that? Do you think Bibles print themselves or were they prayed into existence? Did an archangel invent the printing presses?

Like it or not, science has done more for humanity than any sermons.

a reply to: tsingtao

and it's kinda science's job to invent this crap for everyone, right?

The technology that has transformed our lives from hunter gathers could only be considered crap if you still want to live in caves. It is the hucksters and charlatans that have invented the crap in order to separate you from your wealth and power.

and people could do that how? finding out how things work, right?

Yes

things that were already there for the taking.

NO..you can't just go pick an iphone from the tree.

invented by who, again?

Apple..

and what has it accomplished besides costing us more money?

What are you talking about?

btw, still waiting for my flying car. whenever you genius's get around to it, of course.

There are flying cars, but since you are worried about money I don't think you could afford one, besides you would probably kill yourself anyway. Hey! here's an idea.. why don't you just get a magic flying carpet?

a reply to: Kandinsky

Too bad Science is totally controlled at many levels so that we cannot yield actual proof about a good many things.

Especially the parts about just HOW Science was 'invented' so that it could then invent things.

It will be most interesting when the humans and computers alike all find out just what is actually going on, and it is NOT the Creationist NOR Scientific view, both are completely controlled, and handled by an UNKNOWN SOURCE.

They would ritually bathe and put on fresh clothing, before writing God or Lord Or Jesus

So taking a bath makes you write truth? Since most people back then hardly ever bathed, I'm sure the scientists have the upper hand on that one

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Kandinsky

Too bad Science is totally controlled at many levels so that we cannot yield actual proof about a good many things.

Especially the parts about just HOW Science was 'invented' so that it could then invent things.

It will be most interesting when the humans and computers alike all find out just what is actually going on, and it is NOT the Creationist NOR Scientific view, both are completely controlled, and handled by an UNKNOWN SOURCE.

This pixy dust you speak of does not exist, we know a great deal about how things work and they are not "controlled."
There is zero evidence of a puppet master, all phenomena from the stars to the way bio-systems interact, to the human body, to our own social systems. All can be observed and explained by natural interactions.

If you need to pick one person as the "inventor of scientific method" my vote would be Roger Bacon.
He came up with the concept that experiment and theory went hand in hand and could be organized systematically to solve problems. But, no one person invented the scientific method.
It evolved over a period of time as a result of the work of many early scientists. Galileo in pioneered the idea of making experiments to test his ideas., Copernicus challenged the old Ptolemaic model of the solar system and of course the great Isaac Newton combined observation, experiment, and mathematical theory.

I remember when I was in middle school a girl in my youth group, in her freshman year of college, came back to talk to us about what college was like.
She talked about meeting all these new people and being exposed to all these new ideas and lifestyles. She said that at first she was becoming tolerant and open to all these new people, ideas and lifestyles. And then I guess one day she had some sort of epiphany and actively decided to close her mind back up and shun these people and ideas and lifestyles because they were affecting her faith.
I never saw it then as a teenager, but she actively chose to close her mind and go back to intolerance.

Are these guys the Christians who think the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old (nothing in the Bible says so), and who base their entire argumentation on that flawed assumption?

They really are an embarrassment to listen to. Completely deluded.



BTW, science and faith can be reconciled. The Big Bang model was imagined by a catholic priest, the theory of genetics by a monk and the scientific method too.


Christian fundamentalists promoting biblical liberalism are so deluded and stupid I feel bad for them. Their basic argument is "the Bible is the literal word of God and must thus be read literally". I haven't read something more stupid in a very long time. And I'm a Christian. These guys basically contradict 2000 years of Christian tradition (the Bible was never considered the literal word of God excepted in the modern US who sure knows a lot about a culture that originated from the other side of the globe). Christian fundamentalists took a successful and evolving religion and made something stupid and rigid out of it.

Hopefully this is mainly an American problem and in the rest of the world most Christians remain much saner and don't fall for this obscurantist BS trying to hide the fact that for centuries, faith was actually the driving force for many scholars and scientists to study the world and understand how it works. These answer in genesis guys have no personal beliefs of their own, they just want to define themselves as "anti-evolutionists" though nothing in the Bible denies evolution. What a bunch of tools.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Kandinsky

Too bad Science is totally controlled at many levels so that we cannot yield actual proof about a good many things.

Especially the parts about just HOW Science was 'invented' so that it could then invent things.

It will be most interesting when the humans and computers alike all find out just what is actually going on, and it is NOT the Creationist NOR Scientific view, both are completely controlled, and handled by an UNKNOWN SOURCE.

Why not sharing the big secret with all instead of spouting pseudo-intellectual mystical crap?

Science is controlled, lol. Science is a methodology. Maybe you mean scientific publications or scientific researches?

Of course they are driven by interests. Anyone with half a brain can see it. It doesn't mean it's crap though. When a scientific model gets outdated, it can be replaced. Wouldn't be the case if there was an agenda.

I don't get why it has to be one or the other? It's a bizarre concept.

Personally, I believe in some sort of intelligent design. It think (to me) it's obvious. To others, it may be ridiculous. But because I believe in ID does not make me a religious nut who can't see outside the Bible.

I was raised a Catholic - so let that sink in and try to blame my upbringing for my beliefs. Because some will.

It's nothing to do with my upbringing or religion. I have grown old enough to be able to look at the world and make up my own mind about what's going on. - I don't have all the answers, but who does?

Evolution Vs Intelligent Design/Creationism doesn't have to be a "vs" There is merit and understanding to both ideas and I think one day the answer will probably lay somewhere in between.

Most people are just too proud to see it.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
Nobody knows if Genesis is 'God's word' and the odds strongly favour it being the words of mortal men.

If it's 'Gods Word' then God lies. Genesis is easily proven wrong.

To answer the OP .. no I won't be going to see that movie. It's the first I've heard of it and it is absolutely not sounding interesting to me at all.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: randyvs

Hiya Randy, good to see ya

Nobody knows if Genesis is 'God's word' and the odds strongly favour it being the words of mortal men. Even if God existed and dictated Genesis, it's still hearsay. The irony I was pointing out was how the Creationists are selective about which part of science to declaim. The same scientific principles, Laws and methodologies that led to the media of their movie (production, promotion etc) were used to define the Theory of Evolution.

Regarding your other comments, we'll smile and disagree. I'd sooner have science changing and evolving like everything else than favour something that's frozen in the past and well out of date like the Old Testament.

The first problem is that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the translations for words can be taken different ways. In Hebrew, the phrase "The world was created in seven [steps|stages|phases|periods|days]" has all those different interpretations. Four out five interpretations would match evolutions, but the translators picked "days" rather than anything else.

a reply to: stormcell

That is an EXCELLENT point....
can you source the 'variations/synonyms' of the translations of the original word used???

That would make a GREAT case. I have not attempted learning Hebrew or studying the Bible in ancient languages. But this makes a lot of sense.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Hopefully this is mainly an American problem and in the rest of the world most Christians remain much saner

And I think most Americans are 'saner', too -
ironically, Ken Ham is Australian.
I've even seen an "open letter to America" apologizing for him.

I wonder what his biography/history is???
Nutter from what age? Was he abused and/or brainwashed as a kid? Or is this an "act" that he came up with??
And why in the hell did he leave Australia? Ugh. The last thing we need here is more nutcase "Christian" Bible-thumpers.
The guy makes no sense....and has admitted openly that he never will change his mind about any of it.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Ken Ham is an outright fraud. His goal is to organize a cult around his degenerate "Answers in Genesis". Think Jonestown.
This is not a harmless organization.

I challenged him through a family member who's wrapped up hook, line and sinker with him and his cult. I wanted to challenge him on their "dating" methods (or lack thereof). Their one claim-to-fame is the fact that the Carbon 14 isotope doesn't date further back than 14,000 years. I told them to forget Carbon 14 - what about ESR (electron spin resonance)?
Variations of this method are used for everything from oil exploration to dating most any type of rock millions of years old. I suggested he only need bring some chalk and be ready to duke out the math on a blackboard.
According to my family member who contacted them: "They thought it was interesting and might look into it". And that was the end of that. "He will get back to you" - of course never heard a peep from him or his fraudulent organization.

Ham is not a kook. He's a dangerous individual who seeks to suck in the ignorant and insecure people who need a guru like him. Never mind that he has zero evidence for anything he peddles.

I'm not finished with him. I have a few other ideas to get him sucked into a debate

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”
--Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, Book 3

"The laws of nature produce no events, they state the pattern to which every event have only and can be induced to happen, must conform. Just as the rules of Arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions of money, must conform, if only you can get a hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of nature cover the whole field of space and time. In another what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe. The incessant "
"For every law says in the last resort: 'If you have A, then B."
But first catch your A.
The laws will not do it for you."
--C.S.Lewis
12 min

yt: The Signs of God's Existence - Documentary [Full Length]
www.youtube.com...

“A single cell, the smallest living unit, is more complicated than New York City.”
--Linus Pauling, Source: Occult Invasion, Dave Hunt, p.28

Bacteria become resistant to drugs because they lose information and the anti-biotic can’t lock onto the ribosome,

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...
yt: Uranium Halos are Proof Noah Flood Laid the Sedimentary Layers, Dr. gentry
www.youtube.com...

The Fossil Record Speaks
www.youtube.com...

youtube: The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB youtu.be...

this film looks dubious: a bunch of pretty people set up to preach false doctrine and maybe worse, if they start a movement. Man did not write the Bible: God did. Any true Christ-centered person understand this profound truth.

www.icr.org...
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.
So far, none of the theoretical assumptions of science to explain this have been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

a reply to: Verum1quaere

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Could you please provide a reference to an astrophysical journal that confirms your information on comets? Same for your statistics on supernova. Thanks.

When I have the answer, I'm going to call Harvard and give them a good tongue lashing for distributing false information!!

How Often Do Supernovas Explode in Our Galaxy?
Given the incredible power of supernovas and their importance, you might think that astronomers have an excellent understanding of how often they explode in our cosmic backyard, the Milky Way galaxy. They don't. Mostly, they have given up on looking at our own Galaxy to estimate what its supernova rate is. Instead, they count the supernovas in a bunch of other, more distant, spiral galaxies that have about the same mass as the Milky Way. This is a bit like working out the average medical history of people with your size and assuming that it applies to yourself. A doctor would insist on a physical, but astronomers can't make demands of the Universe.

Milky Way Milky Way (flash)

So, why is it so hard to directly estimate the supernova rate in our galaxy? A big problem is that most of the supernovas in our galaxy should be very faint in optical light - and some effectively invisible - because their light is blocked by dust and gas lying in the Galactic plane. For example, the most recent supernova in the Galaxy (as measured in Earth's time frame [see sidebar]) is estimated to be about a trillion times fainter, optically, than it would have been without the veil of dust and gas. This makes the difference between it being visible with the naked eye and only being visible using a deep observation with a very large telescope.
Many Recent Galactic Supernovas Have Been Missed
Another problem for estimating the Galactic supernova rate is that supernovas in galaxies like ours are thought to occur about once every 30 years. But, if you want to see the bright flash from a Galactic supernova explosion using an optical telescope, you're probably in for a much longer wait, since the supernova needs to be relatively close to the Earth to avoid being obscured by lots of dust and gas. The last one definitely seen by historical astronomers occurred over 400 years ago (Kepler's supernova remnant) well above the plane of the galaxy.

Kepler Kepler SNR

Astronomers have estimated the Galactic supernova rate by extrapolating from these historical ones easily seen in the local part of the Galaxy to the obscured population in the entire Galaxy, but the correction factor is large and uncertain. It's clear that we've missed a lot of supernovas in the Galaxy in the last 2000 years - what's unclear is how many we've missed.
chandra.harvard.edu...

a reply to: Verum1quaere

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Would also like to know WHAT information do bacteria lose??? Ever heard of a mutation??? I want to know why the mutation theory is wrong. Thanks.

Why do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
Antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon. When an antibiotic is used, bacteria that can resist that antibiotic have a greater chance of survival than those that are "susceptible." Susceptible bacteria are killed or inhibited by an antibiotic, resulting in a selective pressure for the survival of resistant strains of bacteria.

Some resistance occurs without human action, as bacteria can produce and use antibiotics against other bacteria, leading to a low-level of natural selection for resistance to antibiotics. However, the current higher-levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are attributed to the overuse and abuse of antibiotics. In some countries and over the Internet, antibiotics can be purchased without a doctor's prescription. Patients sometimes take antibiotics unnecessarily, to treat viral illnesses like the common cold.

How do bacteria become resistant?
Some bacteria are naturally resistant to certain types of antibiotics. However, bacteria may also become resistant in two ways: 1) by a genetic mutation or 2) by acquiring resistance from another bacterium.

Mutations, rare spontaneous changes of the bacteria's genetic material, are thought to occur in about one in one million to one in ten million cells. Different genetic mutations yield different types of resistance. Some mutations enable the bacteria to produce potent chemicals (enzymes) that inactivate antibiotics, while other mutations eliminate the cell target that the antibiotic attacks. Still others close up the entry ports that allow antibiotics into the cell, and others manufacture pumping mechanisms that export the antibiotic back outside so it never reaches its target.

Bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance genes from other bacteria in several ways. By undergoing a simple mating process called "conjugation," bacteria can transfer genetic material, including genes encoding resistance to antibiotics (found on plasmids and transposons) from one bacterium to another. Viruses are another mechanism for passing resistance traits between bacteria. The resistance traits from one bacterium are packaged into the head portion of the virus. The virus then injects the resistance traits into any new bacteria it attacks. Bacteria also have the ability to acquire naked, "free" DNA from their environment.

Any bacteria that acquire resistance genes, whether by spontaneous mutation or genetic exchange with other bacteria, have the ability to resist one or more antibiotics. Because bacteria can collect multiple resistance traits over time, they can become resistant to many different families of antibiotics.
www.tufts.edu...