$133,000 raised for Genesis 3D Movie in 16 days!

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is getting interesting. Their goal was to raise $150,000 in 46 days to complete the first installment of a Genesis trilogy to be shown in theaters. Seven Fold Films and Creation Today seem to be the main sponsors, but there are others that have invested thousand possibly millions into it in time and resources. They have endorsements from Ken Ham and Jason Lisles along with other creationists. Eric Hovind is one of the primary players in this project. The more I'm hearing about this, the more I like it.

Here is their fund raising page: Genesis 3D Movie

Here is the general website.

Some YouTube trailers to check out.

Genesis 3D Movie Trailer at www.GenesisMovie.com

Genesis Movie 3D: What is it?

And there are even hate videos popping up. This guy is particularly hateful.

There's even a hate video out about it.

I actually find this last video the most interesting. It's amazing how angry religious evolutionists get over this issue.
 
Last edited:

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, when you're a scientist, watching people expose their gross and willful ignorance and stupidity in public and call your vocation a tool of the devil and a lie can be really annoying. Especially if you're a Christian and have to deal with the fact that your own religion is being made into a laughingstock.

Which creationists called science a "tool of the Devil?" This is the kind of propaganda that surrounds this issue for the gullible who never check these accusations out. All the creationists behind this project are either themselves scientists (for instance Jason Lisles is a PhD Astrophysicist) or great proponents of science.

Where I think you've gone off the rails is, you think science somehow negates the existence of miracles. Creationists are simply fighting against the religion of naturalism which many christians falsely apply to Genesis and the origins debate. Christians are under the impression that belief in a miraculous event somehow undermines scientific knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Upvote 0

AmericanChristian91

Regular Member
May 24, 2007
1,068
205
32
California
✟12,446.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That money could be used for better things instead of being used to fight science.

Christians who happen to believe in YEC, should be focused on spreading the good news of Christ, instead of trying to force the whole "YEC is Fact" onto people. I think in some ways, this whole YEC thing does more harm then good, and causes some people to not see the truth about Christianity because they are unfortunately fed the misconception that Christians should accept YEC because some Christians think its truth.

I really don't care if some Christians believe in YEC, no harm to me, however i do dislike it when so much money/effort is wasted on the YEC ideology, when it should instead me used to further the aim of the real important things about Christianity.
 
Upvote 0
K

kellhus

Guest
Which creationists called science a "tool of the Devil?"

Happens to me and others I know fairly regularly on the internet.

This is the kind of propaganda that surrounds this issue for the gullible who never check these accusations out.

I think you are confusing "propaganda" with "anecdote".

All the creationists behind this project are either themselves scientists (for instance Jason Lisles is a PhD Astrophysicist) or great proponents of science.

Can you link Lisles' CV please?

Where I think you've gone off the rails is, you think science somehow negates the existence of miracles.

Science and miracles by definition have nothing to do with each other.

Creationists are simply fighting against the religion of naturalism

Naturalism is a philosophy, not a religion. You might want to check your definitions. These words do not mean the things you seem to think they do.

which many christians falsely apply to Genesis and the origins debate. Christians are under the impression that belief in a miraculous event somehow undermines scientific knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Some Christians are under the false impression that science has anything to say about their religious beliefs.
 
Upvote 0
K

kellhus

Guest
That money could be used for better things instead of being used to fight science.

Christians who happen to believe in YEC, should be focused on spreading the good news of Christ, instead of trying to force the whole "YEC is Fact" onto people. I think in some ways, this whole YEC thing does more harm then good, and causes some people to not see the truth about Christianity because they are unfortunately fed the misconception that Christians should accept YEC because some Christians think its truth.

I really don't care if some Christians believe in YEC, no harm to me, however i do dislike it when so much money/effort is wasted on the YEC ideology, when it should instead me used to further the aim of the real important things about Christianity.

^^basically this.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That money could be used for better things instead of being used to fight science.

You know I was wondering when this objection might be put forth.

It's a bit uncanny but it reminds me of the disciples accusation against the woman anointing Christ's head with oil.

Matt. 26:6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”

Matt. 26:10 But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12 For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. 13 Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”

Christians who happen to believe in YEC, should be focused on spreading the good news of Christ, ...

And why is it we need the good news of Christ? Oh yeah, it's because of the Fall that happened in Genesis—that book you continually deny. So you want people to believe the good news in last part of the Bible, but forget about the bad news that created our need in the first place.

I want to tell people the entire story, beginning to end.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Happens to me and others I know fairly regularly on the internet.

Bluff called. Name names. I don't believe you.

Can you link Lisles' CV please?

Sure.

Name: Dr. Jason Lisle
Title: Director of Research
Specialty: Physics, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Apologetics

As Director of Research, Dr. Lisle leads ICR’s gifted team of scientists who continue to investigate and demonstrate the evidence for creation. He graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy and minored in mathematics. He earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado. Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics and has made a number of scientific discoveries regarding the solar photosphere and has contributed to the field of general relativity. Since completion of his research at the University of Colorado, Dr. Lisle began working in full-time apologetics ministry, focusing on the defense of Genesis. Dr. Lisle was instrumental in developing the planetarium at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, writing and directing popular planetarium shows including “The Created Cosmos.” Dr. Lisle speaks on topics relating to science and the defense of the Christian faith using logic and correct reasoning; he has authored numerous articles and books demonstrating that biblical creation is the only logical possibility for origins.​

Source

I think it's safe to say the guy is a lot smarter in the sciences than both of us.

Science and miracles by definition have nothing to do with each other.

Correct, neither can the verify nor falsify one another.

Naturalism is a philosophy, not a religion. You might want to check your definitions. These words do not mean the things you seem to think they do.

Philosophy and religion are often synonymous terms. Naturalism is indeed a religion, and it's adherents are often the most religious on earth. The blind faith required to hold such a view is more than I would ever be capable of. In my humble opinion, it requires the most faith of all religions.
 
Upvote 0
K

kellhus

Guest
And why is it we need the good news of Christ. Oh yeah, it's because of the Fall that happened in Genesis—that book you continually deny. So you want people to believe the good news in last part of the Bible, but forget about the bad news that created our need in the first place.

I want to tell people the entire story, beginning to end.

Is this the part where you pretend Christians who don't deny basic biology don't believe in the Fall or the Book of Genesis?
 
Upvote 0

AmericanChristian91

Regular Member
May 24, 2007
1,068
205
32
California
✟12,446.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You know I was wondering when this objection might be put forth.

It's a bit uncanny but it reminds me of Judas's accusation against he woman anointing Christ's head with oil.
Matt. 26:6 [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”

Matt. 26:10 [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12 For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. 13 Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”
And why is it we need the good news of Christ. Oh yeah, it's because of the Fall that happened in Genesis—that book you continually deny. So you want people to believe the good news in last part of the Bible, but forget about the bad news that created our need in the first place.

I want to tell people the entire story, beginning to end.

Of course the Fall happened, Mankind has fallen into sin, and its quite obvious, just look around the world you live in and you can see why we need a savior.

Though i wonder why the fall for some can only come about through a literal/historical first man and first woman, eating a literal fruit, from a literal tree of life, because a literal talking snake told them to.

However the interpretation that everything in Genesis is completely literal, is not as important as Jesus's teachings and the fact he died on our cross for our sins, and is the son of God.

And no i don't want people to forget about the fallen nature of Man. But to teach people that human's are fallen and in need of salvation does not require the genesis creation story to be complete historical fact in everyway.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Is this the part where you pretend Christians who don't deny basic biology don't believe in the Fall or the Book of Genesis?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But the Fall was the event when death and struggle entered into the world, through the sin of Adam. If you believe the naturalist's beliefs of millions of years of death and struggle and disease and suffering before the Fall, then yes, you are a denier of the Biblical Fall.

I don't think this will excluded you from the Kingdom, but you're missing a tremendous blessing by not trusting God about the origin of sin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
...Though i wonder why the fall for some can only come about through a literal/historical first man and first woman, eating a literal fruit, from a literal tree of life, because a literal talking snake told them to.

Conversely I wonder why it's so hard to believe for others. According to Paul, Adam was the first Adam, and Christ the Last Adam. He spoke about them literally. Through one man, sin entered the world, and through another (Christ) the world was redeemed.

However the interpretation that everything in Genesis is completely literal, is not as important as Jesus's teachings and the fact he died on our cross for our sins, and is the son of God.

Well actually there are "theologians" like Bishop Spong who makes the case that neither the gospels nor Genesis should be taken literal. He's actually very popular and influential in the world today. Many so called christians look up to him, and I feel this is the result of christians willingly giving up the foundation of Genesis.

And no i don't want people to forget about the fallen nature of Man. But to teach people that human's are fallen and in need of salvation does not require the genesis creation story to be complete historical fact in everyway.

If it didn't God would't have included it in the Bible. It is an essential part of the story. The Gospel is built on the foundation of the creation account. Why are you so willing to dismiss it?
 
Upvote 0

AmericanChristian91

Regular Member
May 24, 2007
1,068
205
32
California
✟12,446.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm not sure what you're referring to. But the Fall was the event when death and struggle entered into the world, through the sin of Adam.

Physical death existed before Man fell.

Of course sin made physical death worse (because of sin, horrible things happen, people die all the time through various means besides natural death, or dying of old age), and because of sin, physical death can also now lead to potentially being separated from God (hell). Spiritual death is sure a lot worse then physical death.

So yes sin does affect Physical Death, makes it worse, but death existed for a LONG time before Man ever came about and began to sin.

Though im probably wasting my time arguing with you.......
 
Upvote 0
K

kellhus

Guest
Conversely I wonder why it's so hard to believe for others. According to Paul, Adam was the first Adam, and Christ the Last Adam. He spoke about them literally. Through one man, sin entered the world, and through another (Christ) the world was redeemed.

It's hard to believe because some of us have taken science and history coursework. For starters, snakes don't have vocal cords capable of spoken language.


If it didn't God would't have included it in the Bible. It is an essential part of the story. The Gospel is built on the foundation of the creation account. Why are you so willing to dismiss it?

Because your literal interpretation of that creation account is silly. You really need to get over your tiresome assumption that people who aren't Creationists don't believe in Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

AmericanChristian91

Regular Member
May 24, 2007
1,068
205
32
California
✟12,446.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Conversely I wonder why it's so hard to believe for others. According to Paul, Adam was the first Adam, and Christ the Last Adam. He spoke about them literally. Through one man, sin entered the world, and through another (Christ) the world was redeemed.

Certain figures who are not historical can be talked about as if they were real/historical people to make a point.

By the way, saying, "through one man, sin entered the world" does not always mean that the author of said phrase is using it to state historical fact. He could be using it as a reference to the fact that in the genesis creation story, sin came into the world through Adam, and then comparing said allegoric way sin entered the world, to an actual historical thing, that being Christs death and resurrection, and what that brought.

Other people have compared mythological stories intended for metaphoric/allegorical reasons, to actual historical events, to make a point to others, so i wouldn't be surprised if that is what Paul did.

And i wonder......what if Paul saw Adam as an historical first man......does that mean Adam must be a historical first man?

Think about it. There are parts in the bible that are based upon how people viewed the earth. Views that are not accurate according to later scientific findings (im sure people back the bible times did not think the earth was a globe, or that the earth revolved around the sun, etc).

Though God still allows certain misconceptions to exist within the bible.

I also know people even now do not always have the correct interpretation on things in the bible.

So what if some people has a misinterpretation of the genesis creation story at that time, and thought it was designed to be historical fact? Perhaps Paul being one of them.

Now personally i really don't know whether Paul saw adam as a historical man, though it is a topic of debate for some Christians.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Physical death existed before Man fell.

Of course sin made physical death worse (because of sin, horrible things happen, people die all the time through various means besides natural death, or dying of old age), and because of sin, physical death can also now lead to potentially being separated from God (hell). Spiritual death is sure a lot worse then physical death.

I learned recently that they actually find cancer in the dinosaur fossil record! Physical death, struggle, suffering and disease are now all part of God's very good creation according to you. I find that incredible that you can believe that.

Yet God said he looked on everything He had made and it very good. I choose to believe that and frankly find it easy to believe.

So yes sin does affect Physical Death, makes it worse, ...

Worse than cancer? Worse than having your neck ripped open by a predator who begins to consume you while you are still alive? Believing that just for the sake of appeasing naturalists is not my idea of good faith nor good science. But looking at those events of the past with biblical glasses within a biblical timeline makes perfect.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's hard to believe because some of us have taken science and history coursework. For starters, snakes don't have vocal cords capable of spoken language.

LOL. You're in the CARM site sometimes, aren't you. That's an argument I don't think 2 people in the world would use.

Yes, snakes today, don't have vocal cords. But Genesis tells us that in the past they obviously did. These must have been removed at the time of the curse. Seems easy enough to believe, since God also took the snakes legs away.

But again, if you believe in an all powerful God, this is a no brainer. If you believe in a limited God confined by the laws of science, it's a bit of a stretch.

Because your literal interpretation of that creation account is silly. You really need to get over your tiresome assumption that people who aren't Creationists don't believe in Genesis.

I guess then you need to admit that people who don't take the gospels literally are still believers in the gospels. I'd be curious how you respond to Bishop Spong's arguments against a literal reading of the Gospels. He believes they are all allegory, even the Resurrection. What you say to him, just out of curiosity. Or do you agree with him??
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Certain figures who are not historical can be talked about as if they were real/historical people to make a point.......

Exactly the point Bishop Spong makes about the Gospels. He things by in large all the miracles of the Gospels are allegory, including the Resurrection. Please tell me how you would respond to such a claim. Or do you agree with him?
 
Upvote 0

AmericanChristian91

Regular Member
May 24, 2007
1,068
205
32
California
✟12,446.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yet God said he looked on everything He had made and it very good. I choose to believe that and frankly find it easy to believe.

You know....what if what God thinks is "Good", is not always the same thing as what you view something as "good"?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AmericanChristian91

Regular Member
May 24, 2007
1,068
205
32
California
✟12,446.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Exactly the point Bishop Spong makes about the Gospels. He things by in large all the miracles of the Gospels are allegory, including the Resurrection. Please tell me how you would respond to such a claim. Or do you agree with him?

Now this may come as a shock to you, that a man....who accepts modern scientific findings......also accepts the fact that Jesus historically lived, did miracles, and died on the cross for our sins.

I'm a christian after all, and apart of being a christian is accepting the foundations of our faith.


By the way, above you have quoted this..

"Because your literal interpretation of that creation account is silly. You really need to get over your tiresome assumption that people who aren't Creationists don't believe in Genesis."

and for some reason it says i posted that....which i didn't.
 
Upvote 0