Perhaps a reading from the Good Book is in order?
GENESIS 3
Praise be the Word of God.
I was just commenting on Ken Ham’s idea that the election somehow lent legitimacy to his crackpot ideas. If I were a rock-ribbed Republican firmly convinced of the virtues of the president, I’d still be embarrassed that a yutz like Ham would be on my side. I’m not going to talk about Bush (Praise Be Unto Him) beyond Ken Ham’s statements in the article.
:dubious:
I think that if you connect the dots on the walk-through map you get a big “WTF”.
Then I did misunderstand you. Again, I apologize.
But isn’t Ham Australian? I do cringe a bit that he takes Bush’s re-election as some Sign from God. :eek:
From the tour in astro’s link:
Ummm…if you say so. :dubious:
Perhaps it’s a cheap shot, then, to point out that this is the same individual who also believes weather phenomena are signs from God, if what little I saw on the web page was any indication. I have a hard time not seeing that as a form of intellectual sloth.
[sub]Or I could just be totally midinterpreting the thrust of your remark.[/sub]
Here’s a better link to a critical examination of a similar “creation science” park. It really shows the limited imagination and scopew of creation science. Sure, they can tell their deluded followers that dinosaurs and humans were comtemporaries, ignoring the findings of geology and paleontology, but they can safely count on their flock not to ask difficult questions about protein homology or microbial antibiotic resistance that creationism just can’t answer.
I wonder which of the 2 creation stories from Genesis 1-2 Mr. Ham subscribes to…
Btw, I’m going to see if something can be done about having RickJay’s version of Genesis 3 added to the next new translation of the OT. (It doesn’t take many more liberties than, say, The Message “translation” does… but it’s a helluva lot funnier.)
Well, gobear, that Pensacola park only gets about 50 visitors a day. Hopefully this AIG park will be equally “successful.”
At least there’s some progress. Remember the old “Got put those fossils there” days? :rolleyes:
Oops. I meant “God”, not “Got”. :smack:
I’m always doing that… Geez, I hope the Christmas card made it…
Two? There’s two?
if not, they could wash it down with some of this.
Yup.
Genesis 1:1-2:3
[ul]
[li]Day 1: God creates light[/li][li]Day 2: God creates the heavens to separate the waters below (oceans) from waters above the skies (where rain comes from)[/li][li]Day 3: God creates dry land and vegetation[/li][li]Day 4: God creates the sun, moon, and stars[/li][li]Day 5: God creates sea life and birds[/li][li]Day 6: God creates land animals; God creates man and woman[/li][li]Day 7: God finishes his work and rests[/li][/ul]
Genesis 2:4-25
[ul]
[li]A mist goes up from the earth and waters the ground[/li][li]God forms man from the dust[/li][li]God plants the Garden in Eden, puts the man in it, and gives him commandments[/li][li]God creates land animals and birds, lets the man name them[/li][li]God creates a woman from the man’s rib[/li][/ul]
Compare Genesis 1’s record of man and woman being created to that of Genesis 2.
Yes. One appears to be a general overview, the other has Man as the main focus. Not neccesarily contridictory, but neither are they homogenous.
On preview, I see that I will post anyways, because it adds a little bit to the discussion.
Not sure if you’re kidding, but if you’re not, check out the first two chapters of Genesis. You’ll see that Genesis 1 has a creation story, then Genesis 2 has a completely different one (starting at Gen. 2:4). The second one actually contradicts some of the details in the first one (not the order of creation in both stories). In Hebrew, the stories use different words for “God” (YHWH for one Elohim for the other) and this gave rise to what is known as the “Documentary Hypothesis” of the the Pentateuch. Literary and lingusistic analysis shows that the Torah is actually a compilation of several previously independant literary strands (called J, E, P and D for “Jahwist,” “Elohist,” “Deuteronomic” and “Priestly.”) There are several stories in the Pentateuch which are “doubled” or even tripled- stories told twice with slight variations. Those variations probably came from previous independent oral traditions (e.g. two different tribes told the same story a little differently and the redactor of Genesis included both versions).
They are necessarily contradictory. They cannot be reconciled.
They’re most definitely contradictory.
When one reads early Genesis as allegorical metaphor, there is no problem. Many thinking believers do just this. When one tries to put specific dates or time perioods to events, as Creationists do, then we see major points of conflict with accepted and/or proven Science.
Genesis 1 & 2 look pretty good to a nomadic tribe of hunter/gatherers, which is where they likely come from.
This is one of the points I will be hammering on in my correspondance to them.