Everything You Know About Genesis is Wrong

Over on Best Syndication, there is an article by Herman Cummings. For those of us in evolution/creation issues, Cummings crops up from time to time, invariably to say the following things:

– Genesis has been misinterpreted by everyone.
– Only one person has figured out what Genesis actually says, and his name is “Herman Cummings”.
– Only one person is qualified and willing to tell others the truth about Genesis, for a fee.

This formula was not even broken when Cummings wrote his amicus curiae brief for the appeals court considering the Selman v. Cobb County case. Given the opportunity to overwhelm the appeals panel with the one, true interpretation of Genesis, all Cummings could do was hint at a possibility: maybe Moses was given visions of the first day of each geological epoch.

There is a sense of a relentless mercenary spirit in these messages, a willingness to plainly tell the world that nobody else either has, or can have, a clue about the interpretation of Genesis. Which makes me wonder whether Cummings insists upon a non-disclosure agreement with everyone who does pay that modest fee for his collected wisdom on Genesis, or whether he is still looking for his first student. Surely, any radical knowledge concerning Cummings and his view of Genesis would have leaked by now, unless we are dealing with the modern equivalent of “The Royal Nonesuch” from Twain’s Huckleberry Finn.

And the bulleted points above really are all that the Best Syndication article boils down to, as the final two paragraphs make clear:

This article is to inform all that a class on Genesis is available to science teachers. The title of the course is “Moses & Creation: Biblical Reality”. It is a 12-hour class that tells the truth about the first three chapters of Genesis, so that the teachers won’t be speaking in ignorance about what Genesis is saying to mankind. Neither theology nor secular science are anywhere close to knowing what advanced scientific knowledge is contained in Genesis.

Therefore, any attempt to formulate any “creation” curriculum without correct technical advice from the leading expert is foolhardy, and is distribution of misinformation.

Sorry, Herman, I’m not buying.

And to some extent, it appears that Herman is not selling, at least not effectively. I see no contact information to allow an interested party to sign up for one of the mentioned seminars. Nor is it apparent that there is any way to obtain the remaining chapters of his 1992 manuscript that are not yet online and which Cummings himself referred to as an “unpublished manuscript” in his amicus curiae brief.

Please follow and like us:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Falconer. Interdisciplinary researcher: biology and computer science. Photographer. Husband. Christian. Activist.

40 thoughts on “Everything You Know About Genesis is Wrong

  • 2006/06/26 at 4:47 pm
    Permalink

    In the 1950s such views where quite common. I own a little religious track by the Reverent George W. Wahlin, which was published in 1957. In it he synchronizes the epochs as seen in the Grand Canyon with the “days” of creation. It is quite nutty but in a delightfully naive way. As I said when I wrote a little post on it some time ago, “This effort to show that modern science and the Bible actually told the same story was very popular in some Christian religious circles at the time this track was written. In part it was an attempt to co-op science into the evangelistic mission of the church and in part is was an attempt to save religious revelations from the onslaught of scientific revelations. In the end, the effort was a failure.”

  • 2006/06/29 at 1:08 am
    Permalink

    Hello Mr. Elsberry.

    Your email address of welsberr@inia.cls.org doesn’t work.

    Please allow me to respond to “Everything You Know About
    Genesis is Wrong”. Your reporting was over 90% accurate,
    which is refreshing since the news media has proven to be very
    biased concerning printing my articles for the past nine years.
    However, I don’t know where you obtained “for a fee”.

    Here are the reasons my “radical knowledge” of Genesis has
    not leaked out to any great extent, in no particular order:
    1) I have sent queries to over 165 publishing
    houses twice over since 1992. Only two
    asked for the first chapter, PublishAmerica
    and Thomas Nelson. They both declined.
    2) I have conducted 12 seminars, four in Pittsburgh
    PA (1992), four in Charlotte NC (1994), and four
    in Columbus GA (2004). Behind radio and leaflet
    advertising, I reserved hotel meeting rooms in
    Pittsburgh and Charlotte, charging $7. No one
    came in Pittsburgh, six came in Charlotte. Behind
    radio and newspaper advertising, I reserved space
    at the downtown Convention Center, offering free
    seminars at 10:00 AM, 12 Noon, 2:00 PM and 4:00
    PM. None of the public came.
    3) Over 2,600 churches and synagogues from Virginia
    to Texas have been given flyers concerning my seminar.
    None have hosted my seminar, even those that have
    hosted “Creation Science” seminars that charge $30
    or more. They throw my leaflets away.
    4) When hearing of the pending district case of the Cobb
    County “sticker trial” in GA, I wrote the school board but
    they ignored me, and the inept law firm they hired also
    ignored me, and lost the case which they should have easily
    won.
    5) I first wrote the Kansas State School Board in late
    November 2004, concerning dropping Intelligent
    Design and teaching the “Observations of Moses”. Only
    one member of the ten responded with any amount of
    sincerity. Bobby Henderson writes that same group
    about the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, and it makes
    national news with “gospel” books being published.
    6) I offered a movie script to Hollywood which explained
    the origin of Satan….., but every producer and director
    passed on it.

    The only other news medium to publish my most recent article was
    http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/5884/. Best Syndication chose
    not to print my contact information, however I’m just glad that they
    decided to print the article. In the past month, I had submitted it to 68
    newspapers around the world.

    Humanity has a history of believing a lie, and refusing to learn the truth.
    Nicolas Copernicus revealed the true view of the solar system (universe)
    about a hundred years before Galileo invented the telescope, and even after
    that the Catholic regime still refused to accept reality.

    I read the response by Duane Smith, where he compares my “doctrine” with
    that of the Reverent George W. Wahlin. Mr. Smith knows nothing of what
    I teach. I first revealed part of the truth in October 2002, in a science class
    at North Georgia College & State University in Dahlonega, GA. I’ve written
    every college, university, and theological seminary I could find on the internet,
    offering my seminar. Only one seminary in the Philipines (which I couldn’t go
    to), and North Georgia invited me.

    Below is a link to the only news medium to recently publish one of my articles:
    http://americandaily.com/article/12649

    (For Publication)
    Herman Cummings
    PO Box 1745
    Fortson GA, 31808
    (706) 662-2893
    Ephraim7@aol.com

  • 2006/08/16 at 1:33 pm
    Permalink

    Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?!

    I wonder if Herman Cummings is familiar with Argumentum ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam.

    I’m sure he is….

    Herman Cummings is the type of person that doesn’t care about anything but his religious agenda. He can’t reconcile with evolutionary science because it proves without a doubt that the Genesis account is nothing more than mythology.

    In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, people like Herman Cummings act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts.

    These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them.

    Then they become 6 to 4 pro-creation on a state board of education and risk a child’s future for their religious agenda.

    Good going Herman. You’re a real humanitarian.

  • 2007/03/24 at 9:45 am
    Permalink

    I respond to Beemer’s post. I was a geology major at Ohio State University. Try as I might, I could not find the science behind the dating of geologic strata. It went round and round in circles using fossils to date the strata and strata to date the fossils.

    As I pursued my science education I realized the folly of adopting a viewpoint and then trying to make scientific theory fit in. I also realized the issue of origins is not proveable because it is not observable, measureable, and repeatable. So all of evolutionary science is based on faith as much as is creation science.

    It reminds me of the scientists who once unanimously agreed that the earth was flat and chastised the ignorants who thought otherwise.

    Scientific study has flourished through the years by vigorous research and testing of that which is observable, measureable, and repeatable. If you oppose creationism, prove it wrong. Don’t take the lazy man’s way of denigrating your opponent and blindly accepting suppositions not supported by fact.

  • 2007/03/24 at 8:37 pm
    Permalink

    I seem to be in a snarky mood tonight, Julienne. If you are the sensitive type, you probably want to go looking at something else now.

    Travelling last week, I was treated to a conversation between a nice older lady who was returning from Las Vegas, having gone there to learn about pitching some South Pacific-originated fruit drink concoction. She was regaling a couple of other travelers with the wonderful health benefits this new beverage had. I just stayed quiet. When she started going on about the second-hand testimonials concerning the recovery and remission of cancer in people drinking the stuff, I should have called bullshit on it, loudly and rudely. Because pseudoscience is killing people. Pseudoscience today, whether it is the peddling of snake-oil nostrums like my fellow traveler pushed, or the denial of HIV as the causative agent behind AIDS, or evolution denial, kills people. It encourages people to ignore medical advice or to forego treatment that has had some testing in favor of junk that may be worse than a simple placebo. It encourages governments to take up faith-based responses to epidemics. And it historically has been responsible for famine and resulting large-scale starvation when agricultural practice is de-coupled from evolutionary science. My silence on the aircraft was, in retrospect, complicity in the advancement of pseudoscience, and thus a bad thing.

    Still here, Julienne? OK, here it comes.

    I was a geology major at Ohio State University. Try as I might, I could not find the science behind the dating of geologic strata.

    What, is OSU’s library too chintzy to carry G. Brent Dalrymple’s book?

    The Age of the Earth

    It went round and round in circles using fossils to date the strata and strata to date the fossils.

    Since this is so obviously wrong, it calls into question that whole “I was a geology student at OSU” statement. OSU geology instruction, I’m confident, is better than that. Of course, maybe Julienne was a geology major for a few milliseconds to a few days. It surely couldn’t have been much longer, or she might have, heaven forbid, learned something about the subject.

    The objection is a common one, included in the Index to Creationist Claims.

    So all of evolutionary science is based on faith as much as is creation science.

    Bullshit. Why do you think that completely ass-backward statements like that could be considered, much less accepted?

    This is yet another common claim found in the Index to Creationist Claims.

    If you oppose creationism, prove it wrong.

    What makes you think that this hasn’t been done?

    Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy

    Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism

    Scientists Confront Creationism

    TalkOrigins Archive

    Antievolution.org

    TalkDesign.org

    Don’t take the lazy man’s way of denigrating your opponent and blindly accepting suppositions not supported by fact.

    Right… have you castigated the ID advocates for this poor behavior?

    It would help if you first took up St. Augustine’s advice:

    Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, …and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

    That’s only been out there for, oh, 1600 years or so… seems like more people should have heard about it by now.

    Given that you obviously don’t know squat about geology, evolution, philosophy, or even creationism, why is it that we should be paying attention to what you say?

  • 2007/05/25 at 8:27 am
    Permalink

    The Coming End of Current Creationism

    Creationism, as the world knows it today, will soon come to an end. One by one, each creationist faction, which did not understand the Genesis text, is expected to “fall by the wayside”. On or before August 15 2007, the book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!!: is scheduled to be published. It is expected to “blow out of the water” all other creationist doctrines, which have not represented Genesis correctly.

    Herman Cummings
    PO Box 1745
    Fortson GA, 31808
    Ephraim7@aol.com

  • 2007/05/25 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    Which publisher is debuting your book, Herman? I’ll write their media relations office and ask for a review copy.

    That is assuming, of course, that you have a publisher rather than going the vanity press or print-on-demand self-publication route. If the latter, you can send a copy to me at

    Wesley R. Elsberry
    Visiting Research Associate
    Michigan State University
    Lyman Briggs School of Science
    E35 Holmes Hall
    East Lansing, MI 48825

  • 2007/07/25 at 12:01 pm
    Permalink

    Hi.

    They will let me know as soon as it completes the
    “Cover Design” phase. About every three days, take a look at http://hometown.aol.com/ephraim7/myhomepage/index.html
    to keep abreast of the book’s progress.

    Yes, the “wave of rebellion” has called me uncomplimentary names.
    There are those that do not want Genesis to be true.

    Herman

  • 2007/12/23 at 12:06 am
    Permalink

    Hmmm. I just checked my mailbox a couple of days ago, and there was still no review copy.

  • 2008/04/06 at 8:45 pm
    Permalink

    Hi austringer,

    I’m just a dumb-ass Christian, but can you explain to me why the finder of the the carbon dating method assumed that the c14 c12 ratio in the atmosphere is at equilibrium, when it’s actually not? (actually, I probably know the answer, because, like all evolutionists, they leave out results which don’t fit the results they want to acheive – wow that’s really scientific). You evolutionists just all dribble crap – give me some specific examples of species evolving from one into another, (not just variation within one species).

    Hmm there seems to be an awful lot of c14 still present in coal samples these days, isn’t that supposed to be millions of years old? Funny that.

  • 2008/04/06 at 9:08 pm
    Permalink

    Well, as a Christian with a terminal degree in the sciences, I can point you to some resources.

    In general, one of your first stops in looking up information on creation/evolution issues should be the TalkOrigins Archive. There you will find Mark Isaak’s Index to Creationist Claims.

    There is a whole section there devoted to listing and rebutting creationist claims about radiometric dating. While that covers a lot more than C14, the following snippet shows several entries relevant to the arguments concerning C14:

    CD0: Geochronology

    * (see also CD241: Varves can form quickly.)
    * CD000: Radiometric dating makes false assumptions
    o CD001. Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
    o CD002. Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
    o CD004. Cosmic rays and free neutrinos affect U and Ar decay rates.
    o (see also CF200: Radiometric dating)
    * CD010. Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
    o CD011. Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.
    + CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating.
    + CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates.
    + CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
    + CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old.
    + CD011.5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33,000 years old.
    + CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.

    And again concerning speciation there are several relevant entries:

    CB900: Evolution

    * (see also CB102: Mutations don’t add information.)
    * CB901. Macroevolution has never been observed.
    o CB901.1. Range of variation is limited within kinds.
    o CB901.2. No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared.
    o CB901.3. Darwin’s finches show only microevolution.
    * CB902. Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.
    o CB902.1. There are barriers to large change.
    o CB902.2. Small changes do not imply large changes.
    * CB904. No entirely new features have evolved.
    o (see also CB101.2: mutations don’t produce new features.)
    * CB910. No new species have been observed.
    o CB910.1. Fruit fly experiments produce only fruit flies.
    o CB910.2. Peppered moths remained the same species.

    Just for example, here’s the text that goes with the item on “No new species have been observed.”

    Claim CB910:
    No new species have been observed.
    Source:
    Morris, Henry M., 1986. The vanishing case for evolution. Impact 156 (Jun.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=260
    Response:

    1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

    * A new species of mosquito, isolated in London’s Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

    * Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

    A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker’s sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

    * Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

    2. Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

    * Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
    * The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
    * Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

    3. Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

    * the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California’s central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
    * greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
    * the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
    * many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
    * the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
    * the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

    4. Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
    * In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
    * Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
    * A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

    There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

    5. Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah’s ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer “kinds” aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)

    Links:
    Kimball, John W., 2003. Speciation. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html

    Stassen, C. et al., 1997. Some more observed speciation events. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
    References:

    1. Beheregaray, L. B. and P. Sunnucks, 2001. Fine-scale genetic structure, estuarine colonization and incipient speciation in the marine silverside fish Odontesthes argentinensis. Molecular Ecology 10(12): 2849-2866.
    2. Bordenstein, Seth R. and John H. Werren. 1997. Effection of An and B Wolbachia and host genotype on interspecies cytoplasmic incompatibility in Nasonia. Genetics 148: 1833-1844.
    3. Brown, Charles W., n.d. Ensatina eschscholtzi Speciation in progress: A classic example of Darwinian evolution. http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
    4. Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.
    5. de Wet, J. M. J., 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon 20: 29-35.
    6. Fanello, C. et al., 2003. The pyrethroid knock-down resistance gene in the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali and further indication of incipient speciation within An. gambiae s.s. Insect Molecular Biology 12(3): 241-245.
    7. Filchak, Kenneth E., Joseph B. Roethele and Jeffrey L. Feder, 2000. Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature 407: 739-742.
    8. Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch and Trevor D. Price, 2001. Speciation in a ring. Nature 409: 333-337.
    9. Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch, Jessica H. Irwin and Trevor D. Price. 2005. Speciation by distance in a ring species. Science 307: 414-416.
    10. Lehmann, T., M. Licht, N. Elissa, et al., 2003. Population structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa. Journal of Heredity 94(2): 133-147.
    11. Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.
    12. Mayr, E., 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.
    13. Mayr, E., 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
    14. Murgia, Claudio et al. 2006. Clonal origin and evolution of a transmissible cancer. Cell 126: 477-487.
    15. Nevo, Eviatar, 1999. Mosaic Evolution of Subterranean Mammals: Regression, Progression and Global Convergence. Oxford University Press.
    16. Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467.
    17. Nuttall, Nick, 1998. Stand clear of the Tube’s 100-year-old super-bug. Times (London), 26 Aug. 1998, 1. http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
    18. Schilthuizen, M., 2001. (see below)
    19. Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.
    20. Wake, David B., 1997. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7761-7767.
    21. Whitehouse, David, 2001. Songbird shows how evolution works. BBC News Online, 18 Jan. 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm
    22. Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah’s Ark: A Feasability Study, El Cajon, CA: ICR.
    23. Zimmer, Carl. 2006. A dead dog lives on (inside new dogs). http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/09/an_old_dog_lives_on_inside_new.php

    Further Reading:
    Callaghan, Catherine A., 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher 49: 34-36.

    Schilthuizen, Menno., 2001. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: the Making of Species, Oxford Univ. Press, esp. chap. 1.

  • 2008/04/08 at 1:25 am
    Permalink

    Hmm, interesting, I will have a read.

    So you’re a Christian, but you don’t take Genesis in the literal sense?

    What about the Gospel? Are you into that?

    Cheers, Tripa.

  • 2008/05/20 at 10:07 pm
    Permalink

    I have read the material you posted, and I have concerns with it.

    To add to my initial comments about C14, this isotope has been found in diamond – the hardest material known. How the heck did it get in there? (ie, how would it somehow get contaminated from an external source?) This external contamination is the explanation given for C14 presence by evolutionists.

    But this argument is a real thorn in the side of other radiometric dating methods used by evolutionists, which apparently independently “support” their carbon dating ages. The assumption for these radiometric dating methods is that the system is a closed system, ie, the quantity or presence of radio isotopes in something are not a result of contamination – it is assumed to be a closed system, as it has to be for these dating methods to come up with a meaningful “result”. So if evolutionists argue that C14 presence is likely due to contamination (even in diamonds???), surely contamination is quite likely in the other radiometric dating methods, where parent/daughter isotope concentrations can be influenced by other environmental factors! But evolutionists wont make any mention of contamination here – it is quite detrimental to the results they are aiming to get!

    This is what I mean about evolutionists being selective about what they use as “evidence”. They will use one thing like contamination to negate creationist views on C14, but discount this phenomenon when it suits them (like when putting forward ages calculated by other radiometric methods), because it could render the results completely meaningless.

    So please don’t tell me you have “evidence” of your views, because I, unlike a huge proportion of the population who just accept what you say because the news reader reads it out, actually am not afraid to look further and challenge what you say.

    I am very much unconvinced by the plethora of “evidence” you posted to answer my initial comments.

    Tripa

  • 2008/05/21 at 3:57 am
    Permalink

    “So please dont tell me you have evidence of your views, because I, unlike a huge proportion of the population who just accept what you say because the news reader reads it out, actually am not afraid to look further and challenge what you say.”

    Yes, there is evidence for evolutionary science. What you are practicing is not challenge, but rather denial.

  • 2008/05/21 at 1:07 pm
    Permalink

    I thought of an analogy that I think is apropos. “tripa”‘s objections to all of radiometric dating based upon certain claims about C14 amount to the same thing as saying that because sometimes people take inaccurate measurements despite using rulers and tape measures, that the concept of linear distance is scientifically problematic, and that some things that appear to be miles away really are only a few feet or inches distant.

  • 2008/05/21 at 8:26 pm
    Permalink

    “Yes, there is evidence for evolutionary science. What you are practicing is not challenge, but rather denial.”

    No! There is evidence of microevolution (adaptation and natural selection), but NOT macroevolution.

    There is no evidence where genetic information has been ADDED, only re-sorted or reduced (as in adaptation or natural selection). Decreasing the gene pool, not expanding it.

    I’ll tell you what denial is – the ‘swatting gnats and swallowing camels’ mentality of evoutionists, who argue over lesser issues like which reptiles birds “evolved” from, but ignore insurmountable gaps in their “theories” such as conversion from non-living to living, which logically need validation before lesser issues are discussed. These large fatal flaws are skipped over, because there is nothing for you to put forward in argument. Me in denial?? Denial of what!!! What evidence of mud turning into molluscs am I in denial of???!!

    Re analogy – how do you know it’s linear if you can’t measure it??? Oh that’s right, I forgot you would have made that assumption before you started.

  • 2008/05/22 at 12:01 am
    Permalink

    Every speciation event is evidence of macroevolution by definition. And I already provided a number of references documenting speciation.

    I think denial fits admirably the antievolutionist tendency to equate incomplete knowledge with inability to know anything at all. Certainly science has made the case that the earth is old, hundreds of thousands of times older than the oldest age young-earth creationists will admit. Even Paul Nelson, IDC advocate and third generation YEC, has stated that science teachers need not equivocate in science classrooms about the state of science supporting an old earth.

  • 2008/06/09 at 9:18 pm
    Permalink

    tripa-“So if evolutionists argue that C14 presence is likely due to contamination (even in diamonds???), surely contamination is quite likely in the other radiometric dating methods, where parent/daughter isotope concentrations can be influenced by other environmental factors! But evolutionists wont make any mention of contamination here – it is quite detrimental to the results they are aiming to get!”

    Don’t get me wrong I’m just a high school student, but wouldn’t contamination with carbon-14 make artifacts appear younger rather than older?

  • 2008/06/09 at 10:49 pm
    Permalink

    Matt, yeah, the maximum age of carbon-14 is about 50,000 years. Contamination would make something seem younger, if it was assumed the carbon-14 present resulted from when the object was created, when infact it was added at some later stage by contamination. The question is, is contamination even possible? Even in diamond? which is the hardest material known, ie, how would an external source get inside it? If you accept the carbon-14 present in diamond arose from when it was formed, then the diamond can only be around 50,000 years old – not millions of years old.

  • 2008/06/10 at 6:30 am
    Permalink

    Let’s see, could it be [Option 1] that everything we know is wrong, or maybe [Option 2] the antievolutionists don’t have a clue how things work?

    My take on their problem is that they [RATE creationists] apparently have little or no understanding of operational details involved in AMS technology and the nature of how ion sources and AMS spectrometers work since, as far as I know, none of these people have any direct research experience in this field. They are thus not aware of the many potential sources of trace amounts of radiocarbon in the blanks and how a detector can register the presence of a few mass 14 events that are not radiocarbon.

    Regards, Ervin Taylor

    Taylor would be the guy to convince as a (1) radiocarbon expert who has (2) done research on radiocarbon in diamonds, and it sure doesn’t sound like Humphreys has managed it, does it?

    I’ll go with Option 2.

    The diamond industry woulda liked it if they coulda used C14 as a means of distinguishing between diamond sources, something that should be easy to do if all of earth history fit in the 6 to 20K history of YEC. Instead, they found that all diamonds have the same C14 characteristics:

    The underlying thought was that since diamonds come from different geologic times and regions on the Earth, it might be possible to discover some kind of “fingerprint” that would absolutely identify a diamond’s source.

    With emeralds and rubies, for example, their more complex chemical structures make such identification feasible. With diamonds, however, the best are pure crystalline carbon, with absolutely no chemically identifying features. As you move down the value scale, diamonds begin to take on some color and to have small inclusions. At some point, these become sufficiently present to enable a kind of geological fingerprinting. Unfortunately, these gems are not the kind used in the Conflict Diamond trade.

    Another approach is based on carbon 14 dating. Since Diamonds are pure carbon, and since carbon comes in at least two isotope forms, C13 and C14, and since at different times in the Earth’s past, the ratio of these isotopes was different from today, it is possible to identify the time of origin for anything containing carbon. The thought was that diamonds coming from different areas might exhibit different ratios of these isotopes. To date, unfortunately, this method has not proved practical, since most diamonds seem to exhibit essentially identical ratios.

    That’s not surprising when one considers that C14 has been reduced to trace amounts by the passage of time.

    If one puts something with carbon into C14 analysis, the resulting number is going to be somewhere between the present and around 50K years old. This doesn’t mean that older material doesn’t exist; this is a limitation of the technique.

  • 2008/06/10 at 9:47 pm
    Permalink

    Jim, just because the bacteria can now do something different, doesn’t mean it’s more complex. What about not being able to do what it used to be able to do? Is that an advantage? Has it really improved? You might say that’s not the point – it has still changed and can now do something it couldn’t do before, as a result of mutation. Well that IS the point!!!! It has to be better!! If it’s not incrememtally better on a tiny scale, then how in hell is it ever going to be better on a massive scale!!! ie, “evolve” from simple creature into something intelligent.

    My thoughts are summed up in this quote from someome who read the linked article.

    “By Peter Sung

    Tue Jun 10 21:30:41 BST 2008

    That is really funny. A bacteria can eat “synthesize” something that it couldn’t eat and use previously.

    Er didn’t need this guy to prove that bacteria mutates. Its a common fact. Thats what got a lot of doctors worried these days because of the mutations of bacterial strains.

    Everything undergoes mutation. Even human beings. You do know that “cancer” is a mutation of rogue cells that starts doing something other than what it is supposed/programmed to do.

    To call this “evolution” and say it shows proof that monkeys evolved into human beings is plain ludicrous.

    Did the bacteria grow legs and start walking? Did it grow fins and start swimming?

    Did it “evolve” even to a form of life that would equal a multicellular ogranism like a worm? slug? or even a phyto-plankton?

    geez get off your rockers “evolutionists”. When the bacteria starts to grow legs or form gills, then I’ll pay attention ok?”

    I know you would scoff at the above – claiming the time frame is way too small for such massive jumps. Well your the one saying that’s what happened NOT US!!! So provide some freakin’ evidence that it can happen!!!!!!! That is just as much evidence that mutations are useless or bad (it can’t do what it used to be able to do) than it is that they are good!!! Come on!!!

  • 2008/06/11 at 1:02 am
    Permalink

    Tripa, denial is not a river in Egypt.

    Fortunately, convincing the committed evolution denialists is not the needed aim. Convincing the reasonable people who haven’t gotten acquainted with the evidence and who don’t have a precommitment to a particular religious doctrine is the aim.

    It worked a treat in Dover, PA. We didn’t need to convince Michael Behe or Scott Minnich that they were wrong, we just needed to convince Judge Jones.

    The study demonstrates that a particular argument used to promote antievolution is wrong. It corroborates evolutionary theories. It certainly is evidence for evolution, even if it isn’t evidence that delivers proof beyond unreasonable doubts, such as those spewed above by “tripa”.

  • 2008/06/11 at 2:13 am
    Permalink

    Austringer,

    “Tripa, denial is not a river in Egypt.”

    Nice joke, that’s hilarious.

    Also, why do you keep putting “tripa” instead of just tripa? is “Austringer” your name?

    Getting back to your option 1 or option 2, while option 2 may be true for some creationists, it is arguably not the case with Baumgardner, who responded to a paper by Bertsche criticising the RATE findings. Baumgardner makes mention of the work of Taylor, whom you have quoted saying the RATE scientists dont know what they’re talking about.

    Well that’s interesting that Taylor would say they don’t know what they’re doing, considering they got the same results when testing diamonds as Taylor did!

    From Baumgardner;
    “Taylor and Southon report results from eight individual natural diamonds and from six separate fragments cut from a single diamond. The 14C values ranged from 0.005 to 0.021 pMC for the eight individual diamonds and 0.015 to 0.018 pMC for the six fragments, with typical uncertainties of 0.001-0.002 pMC. Note that a value of 0.015 exceeds the AMS system background value by a factor of 30.”
    and then;
    “What about the RATE diamond measurements? Bertsche alludes to the fact that the RATE team also tested diamond by placing diamonds directly into the AMS sample holder. Our tests were done in 2006 after the RATE book was published in 2005. We obtained results quite similar to those reported by Taylor and Southon in 2007. Our ten diamond samples displayed 14C values between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC.”

    You are trying to discredit RATE or people like Baumgardner, because they expose nasty little evolutionary unexplainables (the camels you try to swallow I mentioned earlier), such as “in situ contamination” which has never been suitably explained with reference to AMS lab measurements.

    Baumgardner explains;
    “When researchers employ this term, they generally mean that the 14C they are detecting was already inherent to the sample when it reached their laboratory. Just how it got there, they generally refuse to speculate. Their job is to measure the 14C in the sample. Just what the sample history may have happened to be before the sample reached their lab, they say, is not their concern.”
    and;
    “For several labs, this standard background is about 0.8 pMC, corresponding to a radiocarbon age of 40,000 years. This standard background value is subtracted from the 14C value the lab actually measures in each sample. If the resulting 14C value is zero or less, the lab reports an infinite radiocarbon age. Since vast majority of samples for materials that ought to be 14C-free, because of their location in the geological record, have values less than 0.8 pMC, this procedure saves the laboratory the awkward difficulty of explaining to a customer why a coal sample, for instance, has a non-zero level of 14C.”
    and re-iterating;
    “one needs to understand what this terminology means to an AMS insider. To an AMS insider, contaminated in situ means simply that the 14C measured by the AMS system was intrinsic to the sample before it arrived at the laboratory; in other words, such 14C is not a result of laboratory procedures.”

    Once again, conveniently subtract away the “in situ” c14 so the result is…..WELL, LOOK AT THAT EVERYONE!! It’s zero!! No way this rock is young!

    Again, Taylor should be mindful before he criticises RATE, etc, as they have referred often to his work. ie, are they stupid for quoting his work? Obviously they recognise him as up there in peer-reviewed type manner.

    Again, with help from Baumgardner, I make my point about the impossibility of contaminating diamond. Furthermore, evolutionists and creationists get the same results!! Evolutionists just choose to ignore what is plainly in front of them;

    “Finally, Bertsche seeks to dismiss the 14C we measured in diamonds also as contamination. He cites a 2007 paper by Taylor and Southon. The paper describes the techniques the authors recently applied to measure 14C levels in natural diamond. As part of the background of their paper, Taylor and Southon list six potential sources of contamination for samples analyzed in AMS laboratories. At the very top of their list is 1 Pseudo 14C-free sample: 14C is present in carboniferous material that should not contain 14C because of its geological age. By placing this item first, they acknowledge what has long been known by AMS radiocarbon specialists: namely, that the vast majority of samples that ought to be completely 14C-free because of their geological context display 14C levels far beyond what can be accounted for by sources attributable to laboratory procedures or equipment design.

    Indeed, they implicitly acknowledge this in the first paragraph of their introduction by mentioning 14C ages of 47.9 ka for a marble sample and 52.1 ka for a Pliocene wood sample, both far beyond the AMS 100,000-year detection limit they mention in their first sentence. It is astonishing that these authors never attribute this discrepancy to any one of the six possible explanations they list later in the article. In fact, they are completely silent as to just what the correct explanation might be. This silence is all the more noteworthy since the 14C level in the marble sample is 546 times the detection limit of their AMS system.

    The main point of their paper is that by using diamonds and mounting them directly in the sample holder, they are able to exclude items 2 through 5 in their list of six potential sources of contamination. These items are 2 Combustion/acidification background, 3 Graphitization background, 4 Transfer (to the sample holder) background, and 5 Storage background. The last item in their list, 6 Instrument background, involves a 14C signal registering in the detector circuitry when 14C-ion [is] not present. This item is routinely and reliably tested by running the system with no sample in the aluminum sample holder. This test is the basis for the value of the ultimate AMS detection limit, about 0.0005 pMC, corresponding to about 100,000 14C years. Therefore, by process of elimination, what these authors are measuring and reporting is their item (1), namely, 14C intrinsic to the diamonds! This is precisely what we claim for diamond samples we measured using the same technique.”

    What ever other arguments you guys have, ie;

    “It worked a treat in Dover, PA. We didnt need to convince Michael Behe or Scott Minnich that they were wrong, we just needed to convince Judge Jones. The study demonstrates that a particular argument used to promote antievolution is wrong. It corroborates evolutionary theories”,

    you are pretty screwed when it comes to C14.

  • 2008/06/11 at 7:09 am
    Permalink

    “Also, why do you keep putting tripa instead of just tripa? is Austringer your name?”

    “Tripa”,

    There is a way that one can read this very page and work out the information about who I am. It’s not that difficult, but it does require some minimal cognitive acumen on the part of the reader. That same situation does not appear to be true for linking the pseudonym “tripa” to a real name using just the information on this page. Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken on this point.

    “Again, Taylor should be mindful before he criticises RATE, etc, as they have referred often to his work. ie, are they stupid for quoting his work? Obviously they recognise him as up there in peer-reviewed type manner.”

    Citation of an authority does not confer validity to the argument. The authority, as noted before, disagrees with them. That isn’t overcome by mere citation.

    Nor does Baumgardner explain, rather than merely assert, how contamination factors (4) and (5) have been eliminated. Perhaps there’s something in the full RATE report that has more detail, but then again, perhaps not.

    The same group of folks who proclaim paradigm-overturning validity for anecdotal 14C dating at the margins of the technique routinely dispute its validity well within the calibrated main operational region of 14C technique, as when the topics of dendrochronolgy, varves, ice cores, and the Shroud of Turin come up. Get back to us when there’s something approaching consistency in how antievolutionists deal with the evidence.

  • 2008/06/11 at 10:57 pm
    Permalink

    Well, I am known by this name by people that know me, if that’s what you mean, so it’s not realy a pseudonym.

    “Citation of an authority does not confer validity to the argument. The authority, as noted before, disagrees with them. That isnt overcome by mere citation.”

    They’re not citing Taylor to use his authority to validate their argument. Just because they recognise him as an authority among his peers, doesn’t mean they consider him an authority. They are citing him because they disagree with how he interprets the same results.

    “Nor does Baumgardner explain, rather than merely assert, how contamination factors (4) and (5) have been eliminated. Perhaps theres something in the full RATE report that has more detail, but then again, perhaps not.”

    Come on, how hard is it to dig something up, seal it, crack it open and test it? This detail is in the report, but I can’t be bothered cutting and pasting it. The contamination from 4 or 5 would be very small trace amounts, and sizeable samples are deliberately used, to counter this means of contamination. Claiming 4 or 5 could as possible contamination sources is clutching at straws a bit I reckon.

    “The same group of folks who proclaim paradigm-overturning validity for anecdotal 14C dating at the margins of the technique routinely dispute its validity well within the calibrated main operational region of 14C technique, as when the topics of dendrochronolgy, varves, ice cores, and the Shroud of Turin come up. Get back to us when theres something approaching consistency in how antievolutionists deal with the evidence.”

    That’s Bull…t! Unless of course by ‘calibrated’ you mean after removal of “standard background” values of c14. Tell me where the argument is about numbers or quantities?? It’s about what the numbers mean.

    Anyway, this has been fun, but this could go on for years and years at this rate. So by way of a closing remark, and in no more than 4 words, I’ll leave you with all the proof that I need that God designed and created the animals, world and universe (in it’s natural state, untainted by modern mankind) as described in Genesis;

    it’s all too perfect

    Cheers, Tripa :)

  • 2008/06/17 at 10:52 pm
    Permalink

    “That is really funny. A bacteria can eat synthesize something that it couldnt eat and use previously.

    Er didnt need this guy to prove that bacteria mutates. Its a common fact. Thats what got a lot of doctors worried these days because of the mutations of bacterial strains.

    Everything undergoes mutation. Even human beings. You do know that cancer is a mutation of rogue cells that starts doing something other than what it is supposed/programmed to do.

    To call this evolution and say it shows proof that monkeys evolved into human beings is plain ludicrous.

    Did the bacteria grow legs and start walking? Did it grow fins and start swimming?

    Did it evolve even to a form of life that would equal a multicellular ogranism like a worm? slug? or even a phyto-plankton?”

    The funny thing is that if a single bactrium (or a group of bactiria within even a few thousand generations) did any of the things you said it would blow evoultionary theory out of the water.

    Also, cancer is sestemic (body cell) mutation, not a gamete (sex cell) mutation. Only gamete mutations can be passed on (however one can have genetic risk factors for cancer).

    Finally no one with half a brain thinks that humans evoulved from monkeys, we evoulve from a common ancester to monkeys

  • 2008/06/19 at 9:01 am
    Permalink

    “Anyway, this has been fun, but this could go on for years and years at this rate. So by way of a closing remark, and in no more than 4 words, Ill leave you with all the proof that I need that God designed and created the animals, world and universe (in its natural state, untainted by modern mankind) as described in Genesis;

    its all too perfect”

    If you have even a cursory knowelge of biology you would realise that the design of living organisms if far from perfect for instance: if people where specailly created why do we posses a spine built for walking on four limbs when we are a bipedal species? Why do we have a non-functioning piece of digestive system that is prone to infection? Why are our eyes “wired” in a way that leaves us with a blindspot that requires an optic trick in our brain just so we don’t see two holes in our vision (octopus eyes are “wired” without such a disability)? If we did evoulve from a tailed animal, why do we have the bone for a tail to attach to our spines?

  • 2008/06/22 at 8:33 pm
    Permalink

    “The funny thing is that if a single bactrium (or a group of bactiria within even a few thousand generations) did any of the things you said it would blow evoultionary theory out of the water.”

    As you admit, your theory of evolution can’t even explain if a single bacterium DID make some jumps into something more complex like a phyto-plankton. So how the hell does your useless theory account for something as amazing as a bat catching a moth in flight using sonar, or an athlete intercepting a ball in flight, and not falling over? Evidence of amazing design. Tell me how our spine could be better designed for walking on two feet than it is now?

  • 2008/07/03 at 8:50 pm
    Permalink

    Tripa your right evoultion couldn’t explain if anything like that happened, but that hasn’t happened. The evoultionary model (which pridicts gradual change) has been shown several times (Austringer pressented a very good list of actual examples of maco-evoultion).

    Tripa can you explain why the any of the problems with human “design”?

  • 2008/07/07 at 1:23 am
    Permalink

    Matt,

    When you say “but that hasn’t happened.”

    How do you know what happened? Were you there? Was anyone?

    What you mean is that your theory doesn’t predict that massive changes occurred, it predicts small changes (like the list Austringer provided, which I looked up) over massive time frames.

    I accept that mutations have lead to other functions being enabled. But I don’t accept that it has lead to a more complex organism; I don’t accept that it is macro-evolution.

    Even if the mutations are beneficial, do you know what the chances are of even getting 2 related beneficial mutations in a row is? (Let alone the amount needed for one organism to change into something else). The maths doesn’t even add up, it’s way way off the mark. I’ll use a quote to put it more eloquently,

    “If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms. The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [i.e., by mutation and selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?” (Denton)

    As to the problems with human design – earlier you mentioned the appendix as evidence of a lack of design, as it’s obsolete. Says who? Maybe in times gone by, it was considered obsolete, along with a number of other organs, which was an attempt to bolster evidence that we’re evolving. This list of apparently ‘functionless’ structures has gradually declined to almost zero. (while removal of an appendix may be surviveable, removal of most of the others on the list is definitely not surviveable!)

    These days the appendix is recognised as having a function, and serving a purpose – a member of the lymphatic system. It is possible to live without it only due to the body’s ability to compensate after it’s removal. Gall bladder also has a function, but can also be removed and again the body compensates – kidneys, thymus (in adults) etc.

    So why would have it been designed in the first place? I don’t beleive the world we live in is as it was supposed to be when it was designed. Although we are perfectly designed, the world is definitely not, and so we’re constrained by that.

  • 2008/07/07 at 3:18 am
    Permalink

    Wow, “tripa”‘s quoting of Denton’s passing along of Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger’s false assertions gives me a feeling of nostalgia. I used the antievolutionist fondness for M-PS’s stuff as a case study in my 1997 presentation at the NTSE conference. M-PS was, in fact, corrected right at the conference he presented at, as documented in the proceedings, but the antievolutionists have clung to the deluded notion that he had a point that withstood more than a couple of minutes’ scrutiny.

    Genetic programming is a tough field, but people other than M-PS managed to succeed where M-PS simply declared his personal failure a universal attribute of Reality. I work day in and day out evolving programs on the computer. So Denton’s quote actually goes the other way: given that evolution in fully analogous systems does happen, we have greater confidence in our other findings that show that biological evolution is well-supported.

    Thanks for the great demonstration of shooting yourself in the foot, “tripa”.

  • 2008/07/07 at 6:29 pm
    Permalink

    Hey “Austringer”

    “I work day in and day out evolving programs on the computer.”

    That’s great, it makes a lot of sense…”I work” doesn’t really amount to random processes – what did these computer programs just write themselves? And I suppose if it’s not working, you might stop it, and start it again with some changes? Now who’s shooting themself in the foot??

    Do the math, man.

  • 2008/07/08 at 5:48 am
    Permalink

    I use the Avida artificial life platform. There’s no shooting in the foot going on on my part. Look it up, “tripa”, you might learn something.

  • 2008/07/10 at 11:59 pm
    Permalink

    Yes, that’s all very interesting – of note is that in order to get an evolving self-replicating program to not end up dead, it took a human’s design skills to limit randomly generated code from randomly and prematurely killing off digital organisms. To me it seems it needed to be helped along to the stage where it could then follow processes of selection and adaptation. (which is basically what I eluded to above, before I read up on it).

    I’m not really interested in defamatory argument with you – all I’m saying is that the product of the probabilities of the required beneficial mutations enabling evolution is infinitely, immeasureably and unacceptably expansive.

    “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness””(1 Corinthians 3:19)

    Seeya.

  • 2008/07/11 at 12:13 am
    Permalink

    Yes, the digital organisms in Avida start as a self-replicator, and evolutionary processes do the rest of the programming. You do realize that that is what was at issue for Schutzenberger, that he declared that it was impossible for genetic programming to work at all?

    Nice attempt to shift the goalposts. That sort of thing gets noticed, though.

  • 2008/09/20 at 6:44 am
    Permalink

    Interesting thread, yet we examine the intricacies while ignoring the obvious large-scale conundrums?

    Why would God create an expanding universe? What need is there for a universe which grows unchecked? If it’s true that nature abhors a vacuum, then surely intellect, much less a Grand Intellect, must abhor waste. And the greatest waste of space in the universe is the universe.

    My book is called “the Secular Apologist,” available nowhere as of yet. It contains many more challenging questions to the supernatural, mystical universe primitive minds have fabricated over the centuries; addressed to the simple minds who embrace these out-moded concepts. If evolution is ever proven wrong, the proof cannot prove the Bible right.

    There is more to this life than science or religion can ever possibly offer, but these two theosophies make for intriguing diversions. Please don’t go to my website unless you have a mighty crass sense of humor. I could have written a better bible than the one we ended up with. I would tend to surmise the creator of the universe got stuck with sub-standard scribes. I am not cowardly enough to meet Pascal’s wager. The energy expenditure to keep a paradise and an inferno maintained should be enough to occupy two deities, much less one.

    That is all. Thank you for your attention.

  • 2011/05/09 at 5:03 pm
    Permalink

    I wanted to send this to Mr. Elsberry, but couldn’t find an email address. Littel did he know how close he was to hitting the bullseye.

    * * * *

    The Truth of Genesis: A Challenge Given to the Pope!

    A while ago, there was a website article someone wrote called Herman
    Cummings Challenges the Whole World. It related to the twin exposal
    articles (“The Hypocrisy of Young Earth Creationism”, & The Infidelity
    of Old Earth Creationism”), which identified both the false and foolish
    doctrines of current Creationism. I challenged all creationist groups
    around the world to come together, learn the truth of scripture, and unite
    in the fight against the atheistic scientific conclusion of the evolution
    theory.

    Unfortunately, no one accepted the challenge. Therefore, my next article
    issued an Indigenous Galactic Network Challenge (“Termination Notice:
    The End of Evolution”), proclaiming the coming end of the monopoly of
    the evolution theory in our human culture. Since none of the creationist
    groups wanted to repent, and forsake their false teachings, I decided to
    launch out into battle without them, inviting the world of evolution to a
    public face-off, armed only with the truth of Gods Written Word. No
    evolutionist entity accepted my challenge, not even the National Center
    for Science Education. They have been ducking me for years. Their motto
    is Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.

    Afterwards, there was a challenge to La Sierra University, after they were
    in the news concerning their curriculum. They were supposed to be
    associated with the Seventh Day Adventists, but they were apparently only
    teaching evolution in their biology classes.

    I first had written to them in April 2010, and no one responded. I now wrote
    to them a year later (the admin office and 15 science professors), once again
    challenging them to host the 62 minute PowerPoint presentation named the
    Observations of Moses, which removes all confusion between what
    Moses saw and what science has discovered. It was an opportunity for
    them to again get into good standing with their parent organization. But I
    received only one weak response, from a professor that said he didn’t
    remember my first letter. Yet regardless, they refused the challenge, along
    with Texas Tech University, whom I had forwarded the same letter.

    Next, I issued a challenge to the Jews, in both America and Israel.

    Over a year ago, in February 2010, I sent the presentation to the Sanhedrin
    in Israel. I had told them that their planned Jerusalem Temple Mount
    sacrifices would be just a big joke if they themselves didnt believe the
    scriptures. In fact, my exact words were If you, and the rest of the
    Sanhedrin, do not embrace the historical truth of Genesis, and refuse to
    correctly convey that truth to the nation of Israel (and the rest of the world),
    the Sanhedrin is unfit to govern and judge the people. You are no better
    than a glorified council of the ungodly, denying the truth of Moses and
    the Prophets. Do you want legitimacy, both at home and abroad? Then
    stop hiding under the bed of ignorance, and resolve this (evolution) issue.

    So, they asked for the presentation, and it blew them away. They
    thought it was impossible to reconcile the literal reading of Genesis
    chapter one with scientific reality. Yet there is was, right in their lap.
    But just like hypocrites, they saw it as a problem, rather than an opportunity.
    After they calmed down, and saw if they now embraced the truth, that they
    would now have to admit to the world that the venerated rabbi patriarchs of
    yesteryear did not understand the scriptures, and had been misleading the
    people. So in order to save the dead, theyd have to let the living die in
    ignorance. Therefore they tabled the issue.

    Now, coming back to the present, I issued another challenge (Who Do
    You Believe, Darwin or Moses?) to rabbis & Jewish organizations, and
    sent it to synagogues and Jewish publications, both in the USA and Israel.
    I got one response, from a rabbi who said to take me off your mailing
    list. I wrote back and said Why? Is it because you dont believe in God?.

    It is actually embarrassing that Gods Chosen People fail to even consider
    that Bereshit is literally true. Its so sad, that the leadership of the Jews is so
    cynical of the sacred scriptures. In Exodus 32:9, it says And the LORD
    said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked
    people:. In Isaiah 30:9 it says That this is a rebellious people, lying children,
    children that will not hear the law of the LORD:. Can you imagine being
    married to such a spouse? Its no wonder the Jews are now a widow.

    So, who is there left to challenge? Ive already written the White House,
    Congress, US Dept. of Education, every state Governor, state legislature,
    and state boards of education, along with state science education organizations.
    Lets not forget the colleges, universities, seminaries, various local school boards,
    high schools, middle schools, churches, synagogues, secular and religious
    publications,and the list goes on.

    Well, it seems that the Vatican tries to tell the people to believe the Holy
    Scriptures (Creative Reason), but not to believe in them literally. What? In
    1st Corinthians 14:8, is says For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who
    shall prepare himself to the battle?. In the game of basketball, there is
    whats called a double dribble.

    So, now leaving the region of our network of galaxies, I offer this Universal
    Challenge!! The term Catholic, basically means “the Universal Church”.
    So its only fitting that the Vatican (the Pope) should be the object of this
    challenge. The leadership of the Jews failed (or were too scared) to accept
    my earlier taunt. I now publically announce this new ultimatum. Yea, let
    Gods (Written Word) be true, but every man a liar;.

    To Pope Benedict XVI, in Vatican City!! Come to America, where
    mankind first learned the truth of motorized flight. Leave the confounds
    of the Holy See, and visit the USA, where mankind first learned of the
    truth of our Moon, and bought back rock samples from an alien world for
    all mankind to view. Now, amend your schedule, and journey to the fruited
    plain. Let God mend your every flaw. Confirm thy soul, in self control,
    thy liberty in (God’s) Law.

    Come to America, and see for yourself, that the Word of Genesis is
    literally true, and the conclusions of science (and doctrines of current
    Creationism) are false. Come and see the Observations of Moses, so
    that you can then declare to all the people, that God created all, in just 144
    hours, and that repentance is now in order.

    Herman Cummings
    ephraim7@aol.com

  • 2012/07/08 at 5:15 pm
    Permalink

    J’ai enfin trouv un article intrssant sur le thme de The Austringer » Everything You Know About Genesis is Wrong

Comments are closed.