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

[Calminian]

They just met their initial fund raising goal! Congrats to all involved.

$150,245 out of $150.
And still 26 days left.

 

[Calminian]

From watching a little of the trailer, I can see it's not actually accurate concerning the animals. I know the guys at AIG don't believe in "macro" evolution, but they do believe in "micro" evolution. Well, if that's the case, why do they have a modern lion existing with the dinosaurs?

Good point. I wondered about that myself. Actually the movie hasn't been made yet, and I know from their Q&A that they're actually going to consult AiG and their baraminology research. So that may be something they may have to change in the actual production which they just received enough money to make. But yes, that's a good observation.

Plus in all honesty, the dinosaurs are modern looking to in terms of micro evolution. If the fossils were buried during the time of the flood, that means the dinosaurs had at least 1600 years of evolution and adaptation before that time. Which means, we don't honestly know what the dinosaurs looked like before the fall, and we don't know what any animal looked like before the fall. Even Adam and Eve didn't look like we look today. (Adam and Eve were created to live forever, surely their bodies were designed for that. Our bodies break down, and we don't even live past a hundred years or so compared to Adam living almost a thousand years)

Yes, I agree, and Genesis 3 talks about physical changes being made to the animals immediately after the fall. The snake likely lost its legs and vocal cords. According to Josephus, jewish tradition holds that the snake was given venom under its tongue after the fall. It's also possible many other animals were given their defense attack mechanisms immediately after the Fall. So there are some things to consider.

So in all, this movie isn't accurate as they say, in YEC terms. Other than that, what do I think about the movie? There's nothing wrong with wanting to make the movie. Yet I feel this is nothing but Christian propaganda. These guys should be more interested in actually proving YEC, not making sensationalized movies to convince someone. Yet anytime AIG (Answers in Genesis) and Eric Hovind is involved in something, the project is never about proving YEC with actual evidence. Their whole thing is the Bible says it, that's the end of the discussion.

The movie hasn't even been made yet, and you're criticizing it? LOL. I know where you fall on this debate.

 

[Calminian]

I'm not Spong, I don't know what Spong actually believes, only what you say he believes and what you say he believes isn't what isn't what I believe.

Exactly. His beliefs are different but his hermeneutic is identical. He just holds to it more consistently.

I'll keep hounding you on this until you explain to me what is wrong with his hermeneutic.

 

[Calminian]

It's going to be amusing in a few decades when everyone has finally realized that Evolution and the scientific field were this era's heliocentrism and Galileo.

You know, seeing as certain segments of the church are making Christianity look like a bunch of cretins over the issue.

I agree. Back in Galileo's time, the church sided with mainstream science. They wanted to be on the side of science so they were geocentrists. The church is no different today which is why they've embraced evolution and million of years. Today's TE's are yesterdays geocentrists. They're afraid to go against contemporary science.

But yes, at some point, all the "experts on the past" are going to realize what fools they really are for doubting the Bible.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

The movie hasn't even been made yet, and you're criticizing it? LOL. I know where you fall on this debate.

It's not the movie itself, it's using the movie to convince someone Genesis is true history, instead of actual evidence saying it. AIG has been around for years, as well as other creationist organizations. All they do is try to poke holes in the accepted theories of science, but they never put forth any experiments of their own showing Genesis is true. They claim they are doing research, and yet you hear nothing concerning their progress. All you hear are things like this movie, or a creation museum, or that unfinished ark theme park project. All that is cool, but where are the experiments, evidence, etc?

 

[Dusky Mouse]

Fascinating. But will mainstream theaters carry it? I'd watch if they did.

I watched the two videos in the OP. I can see the affect rage is having on the face of the man in the still in the third video. I don't need to hear his testimony as to how he got that way. Hold him up in prayer instead. That'll really tick him off.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

It's not the movie itself, it's using the movie to convince someone Genesis is true history, instead of actual evidence saying it. AIG has been around for years, as well as other creationist organizations. All they do is try to poke holes in the accepted theories of science, but they never put forth any experiments of their own showing Genesis is true. They claim they are doing research, and yet you hear nothing concerning their progress. All you hear are things like this movie, or a creation museum, or that unfinished ark theme park project. All that is cool, but where are the experiments, evidence, etc?

Your making good points there. Unlike old earth, and the ToE, the people trying to prove a complete historical/literal genesis, are not using scientific experiments/evidence to prove their case.

Though i think the reason for that, is because it can be argued that "creation science" isn't actual science, for it does not follow the laws that actual science has to follow to be science.

Also remember, that believers in YEC (generally speaking, im sure there are some YEC'ers who actually try to find "scientific evidence" to also prove their beliefs beyond simply accepting YEC because they think that's what the bible says) don't care about scientific evidence, to them, their interpretation of the bible trumps any form/importance of using/existing scientific evidence. They already believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, evolution false, Man began with 2 modern homosapiens, Global flood, etc, and unlike ToE and old earth, these concepts do not rely on scientific evidence to be considered true from a human perspective.

 

[Calminian]

It's not the movie itself, it's using the movie to convince someone Genesis is true history, instead of actual evidence saying it. AIG has been around for years, as well as other creationist organizations. All they do is try to poke holes in the accepted theories of science, but they never put forth any experiments of their own showing Genesis is true. They claim they are doing research, and yet you hear nothing concerning their progress. All you hear are things like this movie, or a creation museum, or that unfinished ark theme park project. All that is cool, but where are the experiments, evidence, etc?

What kind of experiment would prove a miracle like creation to you? Do you not realize that miracles are not repeating events?

BTW, do you need experimental evidence for the Resurrection as well? Can you explain what experiment helped you to believe in the Resurrection?

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

Your making good points there. Unlike old earth, and the ToE, the people trying to prove a complete historical/literal genesis, are not using scientific experiments/evidence to prove their case.

Though i think the reason for that, is because it can be argued that "creation science" isn't actual science, for it does not follow the laws that actual science has to follow to be science.

Also remember, that believers in YEC (generally speaking, im sure there are some YEC'ers who actually try to find "scientific evidence" to also prove their beliefs beyond simply accepting YEC because they think that's what the bible says) don't care about scientific evidence, to them, their interpretation of the bible trumps any form/importance of using/existing scientific evidence. They already believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, evolution false, Man began with 2 modern homosapiens, Global flood, etc, and unlike ToE and old earth, these concepts do not rely on scientific evidence to be considered true from a human perspective.

You hit the nail on the head there. Creation science is definitely not science. Nonetheless if Genesis is true history, then there should be evidence for it. It would be like a map pointing to a treasure chest. The evidence will be the chest.


Young earthers who disregard having evidence for what they believe are walking blindly, and it's plain wrong to try convince someone of something if they don't have valid reasons themselves. Of course they don't realize they open up the door for anyone to believe in anything.

What kind of experiment would prove a miracle like creation to you? Do you not realize that miracles are not repeating events?

BTW, do you need experimental evidence for the Resurrection as well? Can you explain what experiment helped you to believe in the Resurrection?

If Genesis is true history, it would leave behind evidence. For instance if the flood happened, that effected the whole world. We should be able to make hypothesis about the flood, and test those things out. Take for instance Walt Brown's "Hydroplate Theory" or it should be called "Hydroplate Hypothesis". I believe he was definitely on the right track, but I disagree on some of the things he state. (And I don't know where he got his numbers from, but I'm no expert concerning that) According to this hypothesis, the asteroids and comets we see out there has origins from this earth. We should be able to test that out. (Of course keeping in mind that these objects may have a somewhat different composition than what's found on earth today, due to a different atmosphere before the flood. All this stuff is worth looking into)


I myself have two thoughts of testing out the truthfulness of Genesis. One for testing the effects the flood would have on rock, and another for testing plant growth pre-flood. So these things can definitely be tested out because we are testing the history of Genesis, not the actual act of the creation of the world.


In the same way, evidence for our belief that Jesus rose from the dead is partly from circumstances and accounts from people who knew Jesus. From the likelihood that if Jesus is what is said of Him, that this belief could have survived. There were many people in that time that had things said about them, what made Jesus' claims so special that it spread as it did before people were forced to become christian that is. Even if the sayings about Jesus spread by chance (because that can happen, in fact, it happened a lot for different reasons), I argue there was so much going against it, that in and of itself it most definitely should have not spread past Jerusalem. (The Jewish leadership was against it, and there was no real appeal for foreigners to receive it considering people were dying for their affiliation)


Yet besides all that, the number one evidence for the resurrection, is the affects the Holy Spirit has had on our lives. This isn't just some positive change that we see in chrisitan lives, because anyone can make a positive change. I'm talking our lives being radically different than anything seen on the earth. That we are almost considered aliens when people look at us. For instance, the apostles did many miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, just like Jesus did. If they did miracles by the same power Jesus did, then logically Jesus did miracles as well. If all that is true, then it's most likely the sayings of Jesus are true, and Jesus truly rose again. Today, you don't see many, if any, miracles. That is the number one evidence for Jesus resurrection. (The miracles are repeatable, because they happen throughout a believers life on this earth.)

 

[Smidlee]

What kind of experiment would prove a miracle like creation to you? Do you not realize that miracles are not repeating events?

Including science miracles like Frankencell and Boobzilla.

BTW, do you need experimental evidence for the Resurrection as well? Can you explain what experiment helped you to believe in the Resurrection?

There has never been any evidence that Darwin's tree of life ever existed especially in the fossil record yet it's preached as truth by evolutionist.
I'm amazed how quickly evolutionist tries to point to creationist as anti-science when science has never been on Darwin's side from the very beginning. The evidence that Agassiz used against Darwin theory has been ignored or dismissed even today.
If evolutionist can speculate what happen in the past even when it goes against what is known to be true today then why attack YEC for doing the same thing. They attack YEC not realizing they are guilty of the very same thing.

 

[1Feather]

I'd watch this movie. I don't like 3D but it may be worth it.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

There has never been any evidence that Darwin's tree of life ever existed especially in the fossil record yet it's preached as truth by evolutionist.
I'm amazed how quickly evolutionist tries to point to creationist as anti-science when science has never been on Darwin's side from the very beginning. The evidence that Agassiz used against Darwin theory has been ignored or dismissed even today.
If evolutionist can speculate what happen in the past even when it goes against what is known to be true today then why attack YEC for doing the same thing. They attack YEC not realizing they are guilty of the very same thing.

There's more observable evidence to suggest common descent is right than any other thing. Now it's because of our limited observation, that no theory in science explains everything perfectly, but from what we have, I wouldn't argue that common descent is some worldy conspiracy or anything like that. It's definitely more than what we have concerning YEC. (Remember, we have loads of observations that absolutely contradicts YEC. Even if there were problems with common descent, it's the best explanation from what we see today. There have been plenty, and I mean plenty of experiments to test common descent. How many have been done to test the history of Genesis?)


By the way, when it came to scientific history in the western world, everyone believed in the literal history recorded in Genesis for the most part. That was the assumption going in, until our observations changed that. So ultimately what I'm saying, creationists shouldn't even focus on trying to poke holes in accepted scientific theories. Yes there are some holes to be poked, but in comparison, there are gulfs in YEC beliefs. So if our main focus is poking holes in common descent, we are the only ones who are going to be exploited beyond measure in that attack.


Our focus should be completely on our work to provide evidence for why Genesis is history. Stop focusing on what is accepted science, as though it was a conspiracy. They are right concerning what we derived from our observations of the world, or better yet common descent is the best answer. If we have a better answer, the accepted science will change. Let's stop making scientists into crooks trying to convince us of something that's not true because again, in the western world it was accepted Genesis was true history at one time. Let's give them a new reason for why it's true the right way.

 

[Assyrian]

Exactly. His beliefs are different but his hermeneutic is identical. He just holds to it more consistently.

I'll keep hounding you on this until you explain to me what is wrong with his hermeneutic.

So not just a slippery slope fallacy but a straw man fallacy too.
You are hounding me with shaggy dogs

You have to resort to fallacies because you cannot address my scriptural arguments. I showed you what the Gospels say and the gospel message preached by the apostles but you could not answer me. Nor could you answer my charge that you are hiding behind behind man made doctrines because you fear to search the scriptures and understand what they say.

 

[Assyrian]

I agree. Back in Galileo's time, the church sided with mainstream science. They wanted to be on the side of science so they were geocentrists. The church is no different today which is why they've embraced evolution and million of years. Today's TE's are yesterdays geocentrists. They're afraid to go against contemporary science.

But yes, at some point, all the "experts on the past" are going to realize what fools they really are for doubting the Bible.

Were they wrong to side with science after Galileo and change their literal interpretation of passages like Joshua's miracle? Or should the church have stuck with the traditional literal interpretation that the sun really stopped moving when Joshua commanded it? Should the church still be saying science is wrong and the sun and heavens really go round a stationary earth?

 

[Calminian]

You hit the nail on the head there. Creation science is definitely not science.

This seems to be the technique of anti-creationists. Just say over and over, creationism is not science, and hope people will believe it. The truth is, creationists use science to show that naturalism is not science. You see, LK, you are a religious naturalist, and you are trying to pass that off as scientifically valid. The truth is, it's a religious philosophy that you choose to apply to the book of Genesis selectively for some reason.

If Genesis is true history, it would leave behind evidence. For instance if the flood happened, that effected the whole world.

And boy do we! Fossils galore! Fossils are rare events, only caused by things getting buried very suddenly. We also see separated continents that look like they once fit together, but were catastrophically separated. Seashells in mountains. Yep, I would say that if a flood really happened we should see these very things.

In addition to this, I would expect to see legends of floods in ancient cultures. And lo and behold, we see these legends everywhere, from the americas to Australia to small islands like Hawaii. I would also expect to see historical legendary evidence of humans wiping out the dinosaurs very early in postdiluvian history. And what do we see? Countless dragon slayer legends of famous men killing killing ostensibly invincible dragons which are described to look a lot like the fossils we find.

Yes, I agree the evidence is abundant and any real seeker would be satisfied. On the other hand, for the religious naturalist who will only accept evidence that supports their won religious view, none of this evidence will sink in. They'll endlessly search for ways to dismiss it.

In the same way, evidence for our belief that Jesus rose from the dead is partly from circumstances and accounts from people who knew Jesus. From the likelihood that if Jesus is what is said of Him, that this belief could have survived. There were many people in that time that had things said about them, what made Jesus' claims so special that it spread as it did before people were forced to become christian that is. Even if the sayings about Jesus spread by chance (because that can happen, in fact, it happened a lot for different reasons), I argue there was so much going against it, that in and of itself it most definitely should have not spread past Jerusalem. (The Jewish leadership was against it, and there was no real appeal for foreigners to receive it considering people were dying for their affiliation)

This is not scientific experimental evidence. It is historical testimonial evidence. So you're willing to accept this yet dismiss what the same Bible says about creation and the Flood. So you switch methodologies. At least guys like Bishop Spong are consistent.

If the flood never happened, then these flood legends around the world should not have survived either. Yet you won't accept this line of argumentation for Genesis. Why is this?

 

[Calminian]

So not just a slippery slope fallacy but a straw man fallacy too.....

You are still stonewalling. I've challenged you over and over to explain what is wrong with Bishop Spongs hermeneutic. You refuse, and keep referring to the slippery slope fallacy. Yet I have note cited this argument. I'm merely asking you to explain why Bishop Spong is wrong and why you hermeneutic is different and more logical.

By refusing to answer you are admitting you have no criticisms against Spong's actual hermeneutic. The truth is, he's doing exactly what you're doing. Changing the subject citing a fallacy for an argument no put forth wont change this.

Assyrian, I do believe you're afraid to answer the question I've posed to you.

 

[Assyrian]

You are still stonewalling. I've challenged you over and over to explain what is wrong with Bishop Spongs hermeneutic. You refuse, and keep referring to the slippery slope fallacy. Yet I have note cited this argument. I'm merely asking you to explain why Bishop Spong is wrong and why you hermeneutic is different and more logical.

By refusing to answer you are admitting you have no criticisms against Spong's actual hermeneutic. The truth is, he's doing exactly what you're doing. Changing the subject citing a fallacy for an argument no put forth wont change this.

Assyrian, I do believe you're afraid to answer the question I've posed to you.

I have said before I don't know Bishop Spong's theology I have only your word for it that we share the same hermeneutic. Forgive me for not taking your claims seriously since you haven't been able to defend you own hermeneutic of fear, nor have you been able to address what I have shown you of the meaning of the gospel from the Gospels themselves and from the gospel messages the apostles preaches. I have already criticised Spong's views twice (or at least your presentation of them).

Your argument is a Slippery Slope fallacy because you think (even though there are scriptures you take figuratively), that if you dare take any other scriptures figuratively you will slither all the way down the slipper slope and end up taking the resurrection figuratively. Whether you cite it or not, that is a Slippery Slope fallacy. It is also a straw man fallacy because instead of arguing against my actual hermeneutics (or defending your fear based hermeneutics), you attack Spong's instead and claim it is the same as mine. Straw Man.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

This seems to be the technique of anti-creationists. Just say over and over, creationism is not science, and hope people will believe it. The truth is, creationists use science to show that naturalism is not science. You see, LK, you are a religious naturalist, and you are trying to pass that off as scientifically valid. The truth is, it's a religious philosophy that you choose to apply to the book of Genesis selectively for some reason.

You're too defensive in your responses of my posts. I'm not attacking YEC, I'm getting on organizations like AIG for their lack of wanting to provide irrefutable evidence for their case. I don't know if you could tell by my posts, but I myself am a young earth creationist. Yet perhaps I'm too offensive when it comes to AIG. I believe there mission statement is pretty much to convince chrisitans that you can't have Christianity without Genesis being literal. That's something I agree with them on. Yet for actual evidence on Genesis being history, AIG won't help you. (Of course they will give you circumstantial evidence at best, yet there are many things that point another way)


Ultimately when I say YEC is not science, is because science is purely derived from our observations, and testing those observations. YEC mostly comes from an account about our origins. So evidence for YEC will be derived from the account and from our observations of the world. If the Bible is true, what we are doing would be another method besides the scientific method, that would go beyond what could be derived from the scientific method.

And boy do we! Fossils galore! Fossils are rare events, only caused by things getting buried very suddenly. We also see separated continents that look like they once fit together, but were catastrophically separated. Seashells in mountains. Yep, I would say that if a flood really happened we should see these very things.

In addition to this, I would expect to see legends of floods in ancient cultures. And lo and behold, we see these legends everywhere, from the americas to Australia to small islands like Hawaii. I would also expect to see historical legendary evidence of humans wiping out the dinosaurs very early in postdiluvian history. And what do we see? Countless dragon slayer legends of famous men killing killing ostensibly invincible dragons which are described to look a lot like the fossils we find.

Yes, I agree the evidence is abundant and any real seeker would be satisfied. On the other hand, for the religious naturalist who will only accept evidence that supports their won religious view, none of this evidence will sink in. They'll endlessly search for ways to dismiss it.

Those things are circumstantial at best. Things like legends also don't prove Genesis, because they just as easily prove other accounts as well. It would then come down to is the Bible right, or is this other book right? In fact I propose that all the legends are the result of the truth being distorted over time, as people moved about the earth. So again, you would have to show the Bible is the real truth. With all that said, there are many things that contradict YEC. You spend too much time combating with accepted science. Even if you proved common descent is false, that doesn't prove Genesis is true. Conversely if we proved Genesis is true, you won't have to spend any time showing common descent is false. So in essence it's a waste of time trying to poke holes in accepted scientific theories, because what's accepted will change based on evidence.

This is not scientific experimental evidence. It is historical testimonial evidence. So you're willing to accept this yet dismiss what the same Bible says about creation and the Flood. So you switch methodologies. At least guys like Bishop Spong are consistent.

If the flood never happened, then these flood legends around the world should not have survived either. Yet you won't accept this line of argumentation for Genesis. Why is this?

It's partly thought experiments. (Kind of like schrodinger's cat, or at least I could propose a thought experiment concerning Jesus' resurrection) Yet I've told you the number one evidence is actually repeatable miracles. Not so much in a lab, but in experience, repeatable experience. Right now on the other hand, YEC is like us saying Jesus rose from the dead, and yet we can verify Jesus body is still lying in the tomb. There are many observations that contradict YEC. One is the star light problem for instance. Another would be all the problems of common descent. We need to show why life didn't evolve from a common ancestor and we need to show evidence of seperate "kinds". (I mean we can lazily say stuff like dog kind and cat kind, but those aren't really distinguishable terms. What "kind" or category does the platypus fall under for instance?)


So that is the stuff I'm talking about. AIG, Eric Hovind, etc. don't have any answers to these questions. Perhaps that is because they aren't concerning themselves with that, but just trying to tell christians you can't have Christianity without a literal Genesis as I said earlier.

 

[Smidlee]

There's more observable evidence to suggest common descent is right than any other thing. Now it's because of our limited observation, that no theory in science explains everything perfectly, but from what we have, I wouldn't argue that common descent is some worldy conspiracy or anything like that. .

I disagree. There is little evidence even in the fossil record that evolution (UCA) is a fact. No conspiracy is required since human pride draws mankind to the wrong conclusion.

 

[Calminian]

You're too defensive in your responses of my posts. I'm not attacking YEC, I'm getting on organizations like AIG for their lack of wanting to provide irrefutable evidence for their case.

Not sure what you mean by defensive. I'm merely responding to the substance of your posts.

I don't know if you could tell by my posts, but I myself am a young earth creationist. Yet perhaps I'm too offensive when it comes to AIG.

Yes it would appear you have an ax to grind. Sounds emotional and personal.

Yet for actual evidence on Genesis being history, AIG won't help you. (Of course they will give you circumstantial evidence at best, yet there are many things that point another way)

AIG is perhaps the more important organization in the church today. They understand the nature of evidence better than most. You see, the origins debate is not at its heart a scientific one, and they will fully admit this. It's a theological/philosophical debate first and foremost. It's not even a debate over evidence per se, but what presuppositions you approach evidence with. Do you look at the evidence with biblical glasses or naturalistic glasses?

Those things are circumstantial at best. Things like legends also don't prove Genesis, because they just as easily prove other accounts as well.

No, on that I disagree. When you look at historical legends, they are very uncanny the way the show remnants of the accounts in Genesis. For instance when you look at Egyptian legends about origins, they speak of the Creator God Nun (who created all the other gods) and how He made the earth out of water. They even talk about the initial earth being formless and void. Then you have another god that was created from the land whom all other gods came from. Seems very obvious to me, this is a deification of Adam. Even the name of this god sounds similar to Adam.

Now do those prove the biblical account? Of course not. No account can be proven beyond doubt, which is why people still do doubt. Evidence is not for the stubborn and unbelieving, but the true seekers. For those, God has provided more than enough evidence, so they are without excuse.

It would then come down to is the Bible right, or is this other book right? In fact I propose that all the legends are the result of the truth being distorted over time, as people moved about the earth. So again, you would have to show the Bible is the real truth.

I would have to for what purpose? To create real proof? I think you completely misunderstand how the natural man works. If you're looking to come up with an ultimate proof for creation, you're going to be very disappointed in the results. God is the one who persuades, for He is the one who knows man more then they know themselves. The path to faith often very mysterious to us. But not to the mind of God.

With all that said, there are many things that contradict YEC. You spend too much time combating with accepted science.

Honestly I don't think you're paying enough attention to my posts. I think just the opposite. I don't think the debate is scientific at its core. I don't think you really understand AiG's philosophy on this issue either. You should research what say about presuppositions.

So that is the stuff I'm talking about. AIG, Eric Hovind, etc. don't have any answers to these questions. Perhaps that is because they aren't concerning themselves with that, but just trying to tell christians you can't have Christianity without a literal Genesis as I said earlier.

Actually I think they're just trusting God's lead, who is opening up amazing doors. God is the true evangelist, not men. We don't reason and persuade because all that men are missing is a good argument. God forbid! We reason and persuade because God is working in the world, and can use us as tools if we're are so fortunate. So we strive to make good sound logical arguments, not because they are efficacious in themselves, but because they can be affective if used by God.