Re: Special Creation

*First off, if the multiverse is true, then all possibilities exist out
there and your scenario does exist.*

As I understand it, multiverse theory doesn't necessarily require an infinte
set of universes, just a possible set (though in some permutations an
infinite set is proposed); and other related theories, like M-theory, could
allow for additional dimensions not in an infinite set. So, I'm not sure a
wacky theory involving quantum physics would have to be so wacky that every
theory about Noah would have to be true. Or that it would have to involve
me hitting a grand slam for the Yankees in the seventh game of the world
series, bottom of the 9th, down three runs to the Red Sox -- fun as that
would be.

On 3/2/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
> For Jack Symes, Michael Roberts, For David Opderbeck
>
> Jack Wrote:
>
> >>>I will have to look at what you posted over the past month later when I
> get home. And I dont have a copy of "Who was Adam" I was a subscriber to
> their message of the month for 2005 when they presented their human origins
> model over a span of 12 months. And the following is my understanding of
> their model, It is hard to go back over the old monthly messages as they are
> not indexed, so if any of you that have the book see anywhere that I am
> misrepresenting their model please correct me.<<<
>
>
> I will make it easy for Jack, here is a quote from the Fingerprint of God
> and he has not changed that position
>
> " Man is unique among all species of life. By
> 'spirit' the Bible means 'aware of God and capable of forming a
> relationship with Him.' *** *Evidence of man's spiritual dimension
> would include divine worship, shown by religious relics, altars,
> and temples.* *** From the Bible's perspective, decorating, burial of
> dead, or use of tools would not qualify as conclusive evidence of
> the spirit. Moreover, nonspirit creatures such as bower birds
> decorate their nests, elephants bury their dead, and chimpanzees
> use tools."
> "While bipedal, tool-using, large brained hominids roamed the
> earth at least as long ago as one million years, evidence for
> religious relics and altars dates back only 8,000 to 24,000 years.
> Thus the secular anthropological date for the first spirit
> creatures is in complete agreement with the biblical date.
> "Some differences, however, between the Bible and secular
> anthropology remain. ****The Bible not only would deny that the
> hominids were men, it also would deny that Adam was physically
> descended from these hominids.* *** Even here, support from
> anthropology is emerging. New evidence indicates that the hominid
> species may have gone extinct before, or as a result of, the
> appearance of modern man. At the very least, abrupt transitions
> between [hominid]species is widely acknowledged. ~ Hugh Ross, The
> Fingerprint of God, (Orange: Promise Publishing, 1991), p. 159-
> 160.
>
> I have bolded the relevant sentences and since the archive does not use
> bold, I have offset them with ***'s.
>
> Two points, the first bolded sentence is his criteria for spirituality.
> The second is his statement that the hominids were NOT men. And that is why
> Hugh Ross' view has been falsified from the day it was first written. He
> claims that altars and religious relics are evidence of spirituality and
> then denies that what actually seems to exist (religious altars
> (Bilzingsleben) and what possibly exists,religious artifacts (Tan Tan venus
> figurine and the Berekhat Ram venus figurine). The latter two items are the
> first in a series stretching to the Mesolithic of tiny figurines depicting
> the human form of which the later ones, when found with anatomically modern
> man are known to have been used in worship as late as this century. It is
> the mother Goddess religion.
>
> From their broadcast
> pnm://broadcast.reasons.org/rtbradio/cu20041102.rm?start=00:04:30.0
>
> Air date: 11-02-04
>
> Fuz says, speaking of H. floresiensis:
> "Fuzz: Right, I like to think of the hominids in an analogous way to the
> way
> I think about the great apes, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."
>
> And this:
>
> "****RTB's biblical creation model considers the hominids found in the
> fossil record to be animals created by God's direct intervention for
> His purposes. They existed for a time, then went extinct. These
> remarkable creatures walked erect They also possessed limited
> intelligence and emotional capacity. Such characteristics allowed them
> to employ crude tools and even adopt a low level of "culture," much as
> baboons, gorillas, and chimpanzees do. But while the hominids were
> created by God's command, they were not spiritual beings made in His
> image.* *This status was reserved for human beings*."***
> "Furthermore, the RTB model treats hominids as analogous to, yet
> distinct from, the great apes. For this reason, the model predicts
> that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities
> existed among hominids and human beings to varying degrees. But
> because the hominids were not made in God's image, they are expected
> to be noticeably different from humans, as reflected by their
> cognitive and communicative capacities, behavior,"technology," and
> "culture.""
> "The RTB model maintains that while human beings reflect God's image
> in their activities,hominids did not. The model asserts that humans
> are uniquely spiritual and hominids were not. The archeological record
> associated with hominid fossils supplies key data to evaluate this
> prediction." Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam?, (Colorado
> Springs: NavPress, 2005), p.50
>
> ***
>
> For Michael Roberts:
>
> I had written: " There is absolutely nothing in the Plio-pleistocene that
> even remotely matches a flood as described by the Bible. The latest is the
> infilling of the Med and that actually would begin to sound a bit like the
> Biblical flood. IMO, there is little reason to remain literal believing in
> Adam and Eve if one has no flood. One might as well go
> allegorical/accomodationalist all the way to Genesis 12. "
> Michael replied
> >>That's your only solution Glenn, it is better than stretching genesis
> like an elastic band as Adam Sedwick said in 1858<<<
>
> No, actually Michael, you are so limited in laying out the options. There
> is most assuredly the option that the whole account is utter fiction and
> utterly false and that there is no truth in the Bible. Why is it that you
> forget that is the ultimate option? Indeed, If going accommodationalist is
> the only viable solution to save the truth of the Bible, I won't do it.
> That approach is logically inconsistent because it has to exclude the Great
> Green Sluggists from every using accommodationalism because if we allow them
> to use accommodation to solve their nonsense problems, it becomes crystal
> clear how utterly ad hoc the accommodationalist approach is. Anything one
> finds as nonsense, one proclaims it is accommodation to the culture of the
> day. This approach is a self-delusion which always maintains that whatever
> nonsense the holy book says, it is really true if only one can find the
> right allegory/accommodation.
> Holy Book says leprechauns exist???? Ok, it is an accommodation to the
> Celtic culture of the day. problem solved.
>
> Holy Book says Alien Grays sit on everyone's shoulder but we can't see
> them? Ok, it is an accommodation to the cultural beliefs that there are
> aliens. Problem solved.
>
> Holy book says that pigs can fly? Ok, it is an accommodation to the
> culture which believes that pigs can fly. Problem solved.
>
> Holy book says a Great Green slug created the world? Ok, it is an
> accommodation to the culture of the day. Problem solved.
>
> Holy book says that there is waters above? Ok, it is an accommodation,
> problem solved.
>
> Holy Book says that the earth was created in 6 days? Ok, it is an
> accommodation to the culture of the day, problem solved.
>
> Holy book say that the trees were created before the sun? Ok, it is an
> accommodation. Problem solved.
>
> Such profundity! So easy and mindless!
>
> And at heart, that is why I think you refuse to answer the question about
> the Great Green slug. You know that if you have to acknowledge that GGS can
> use accommodation to save their view that the GGS created the world (when
> science is against it) it means that it is a self-delusional ad hoc approach
> which makes one unwilling to answer perfectly logical questions.
> ***
> For David who wrote:
> >>And/or could Noah have experienced some kind of relative time aboard the
> ark, such that the Flood was ~5MYA but Noah experienced it as a year? Could
> the ark have been travelling through "Planck space"?<<<
>
> First off, if the multiverse is true, then all possibilities exist out
> there and your scenario does exist. However, If someone thinks I am saying
> that there was a 5 million year LONG flood, that is not true. It was a year,
> and it happened 5 myr ago. It is shortly after the hominids appeared (For
> Jack S. I do believe that one could make a case for the hominids being
> human, the case that Ross refuses to make) and it is the only even in earth
> history during the time of the hominids which matches the biblical
> description (not that matching descriptions seems to have an traction
> whatsoever when we have accommodationalism to solve our problems so easily).
>
> By the way, if the multiverse is true, then there was a 5 million year
> LONG flood as well as a puny one like Dick has. If the multiverse is true,
> then we are ALL right. Nobody is wrong and we all get one of those trophies
> we hand out to our children even when they have the worst losing record in
> the little league. Lets hear it for the multiverse! :-)
>
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 2 20:34:46 2006