Re: Acts & Facts, April 2005

Carol or John Burgeson wrote:

>ICR Vol 34, No. 4 April 2005
>
>Notes on the ICR ACts & Facts for April, 2005
>
>1. Opening blurb on enticing vacationers to the ICR museum. :A testimony
>to truth." Video available.
>
>2. Article on the ICR radio ministry. Now on over 600 stations; expanding
>to Spanish stations.Each broadcast is "bathed in rayer" before airing.
>
>3. Ad for England tour 9/20 to 10/2, 2005. "Why did England so readily
>accept Darwinism?" is the theme.
>
>4. Article on Tsunamis. Application to Noah's flood. It was a big one.
>
>5. Article bt Sherwin on evolution and malaria. No major changes
>(macroevolution).
>
>6. Evolution teaching at the root of same-sex marriage is clearly
>understood.
>
>7. ICR museum to participate in SMITHSONIAN magazine's "Museum DAy." It
>is already listed on the Smithsonian web site.
>
>8. New Guinea corresopndent reports that evolution is becoming more
>popular (the "Asian influence" is blamed.
>
>9. ICR to initiate a GENE project this year. "If radioactive decay rates
>were accelerated by orders of magnitude during the time of the Genesis
>Flood (as the RATE project indicates), it is likely that mutation rates
>were also greatly increased ... ." (Dan Criswell)
>
>10. Should a "Darwin Day" be observed? ICR says "yes." April 1st.
>
>11. Henry Morris has an article on theinerrant ible. Preserved forever
>(in heaven). KJV we have is the nearest to it. But even it is flawed.
>Example: Gen 1:28 the Hebrew word "male" is translated as "replenish"
>instead of "fill," thus allowing "compromisers" to accept the geological
>ages.
>
>Henry also claims that the Ark was also taken directly by angels to
>heaven; the biblical originals are probably kept there.
>
>Burgy
>
>
I concur with the proposed ASA position statement on science/faith
issues, it is quite good. However, after reading the ICR excerpts
provided by Burgy, it's a shame we non-YECs have to dance on eggshells
so as not to offend our fellow Christians who actually accept this kind
of risible nonsense. Isn't the nasty rhetoric as well as the
intentional inaccuracies (scientific and scriptural) so obvious in these
11 snippets that we shouldn't be embarassed to oppose (at least this
brand of) YEC straight up?

Thanks for continuing to bring this kind of info to our attention, Burgy!

Roger
Received on Thu Mar 31 13:58:58 2005