Quantcast
Published On: Fri, Jun 14th, 2013

Creationism is a misrepresentation; science is insane!

 Current Creationism is in a delusion, refusing to learn the truth of Genesis.  Secular science is mired in the idiocy of Atheism, to the point of withholding the truth from the public, because they can’t come up with a natural explanation for certain “phenomena” in our universe.

donkeyhotey  donkeyhotey.wordpress.com

donkeyhotey donkeyhotey.wordpress.com

First, let’s deal with “young Earth” Creationism.  In Genesis 1:2, it begins the description of the first day revealed to Moses, on Mt. Sinai, in 1598 BC.  In that first segment, God says “Let there be light”.  Why did God say that?  It’s because there was no light, but only darkness.  But “God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all”.  Where did God have to go in order to find darkness?  How did it get there in the first place?  While we’re at it, why didn’t God say “Let there be a planet covered with water”?  It’s because that at the time God said “Let there be light”, in the vision given to Moses, the water covered Earth was already there, showing the results of a previous global flood, more than 9 million years ago.  The flood of Noah, which was in 2611 BC, was only the most recent of multiple global floods in Earth’s history, and is insignificant as far as explaining the fossil record.  The folly of YEC’s refuses to acknowledge this.

In order to make their premise more plausible, YEC’s claim that Noah took infant species of the many large animals into the ark, in order to have room for them all.  But that is a lie. 

In Genesis 7:2, it says:

 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

The above verse reveals two things; 1) no infants were taken into the ark, because they don’t have mates, and 2) there were seven pairs of the clean beasts, and one pair of unclean beasts.  Were there fourteen indricotheriums and fourteen brontotheriums (which died out 24 million years ago) in the ark?  Brontotheriums were eight feet high at the shoulder, and sixteen feet long.  Indricotheriums were fifteen feet high at the shoulder, forty feet long, and their heads were twenty-six feet high.

If you take all of the land animals that ever lived, both modern and prehistoric, clean and unclean, there was not enough room in one ark to hold them all.  In the book of Leviticus, God gives a list of clean and unclean animals, which Moses referred to when writing in Genesis.  Young Earth Creationism misrepresents the Genesis text, and is both foolish and deceitful.

I often wonder which is worse: the foolish “young Earth” believers, or the infidel “old Earth” believers?

Old Earth teachers deny the literal truth of scripture, and call both God and Moses a liar.

In the Fourth Day, Moses records God as saying “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:”.  Old Earth teachers claim that there was cloud cover, and God just removed the clouds so Moses could see the cosmos.  So did Moses make that stuff up?  So why would God say “let there be lights..”, if He could have said “Let the clouds fade away”?  Also, a “sign” is pointless unless there is a human on Earth to see it.

Genesis chapter one tells us that in the sixth vision given to Moses, God made the land animals from the ground, and human male and female, before the day was gone.  Each vision given to Moses was only twelve hours.  How can you justify theistic evolution from scripture?  Aren’t they just “grasping for straws”?  It is so sad to see the failed attempts of false teachers to explain the scriptures, such as “the framework hypothesis”, progressive, day-age, theistic evolution, and the gap theory.  These infidels do not believe God, nor have respect for God’s Word.

Finally, when are people going to start questioning the “lame” explanations that science gives us concerning our universe?  Take Shoemaker-Levy-9 for example.  The comet was a “string of 21 pearls”, stretched out for about 2 million miles, which poses an obvious problem.  Since science surmised that the comet broke apart in July 1992, on its last orbit around Jupiter, why is it that the trailing fragment “A” (near side, in and out bound) of the comet, at the time of fragmentation, waited in space, while the fragment  “W” (far side, in and out bound) and others continued on with its orbital path?  In other words, how did the fragments form a near straight line, an average of about 98,000 miles apart, following each other, seven hours apart?   Did each fragment “wait in suspension” for about seven hours for its turn and the word “go”?  That’s ridiculous, and I challenge the world of science to explain this.  If it broke apart, it should have remained a cluster, not a near straight line.

Fragment “A” was always closest to (facing) Jupiter, and fragment “W” was always furthest away from Jupiter.  That means that the comet was like a marching line (squad) of troops, falling behind Jupiter at about a rate of (minus) one mile per second for about twelve months, then doing a “to the rear, march”, and overtaking Jupiter for the next twelve months at about a rate of  (plus) one mile per second.

The truth is, that God has given comets a guidance system, similar to what mankind has given to rockets and spacecraft.  Blow up a balloon, then let it go, a see what happens.  The Creator made the “string of pearls”, and commanded it to orbit Jupiter from the beginning of our creation, 4.6 billion years ago.  The impacts were a staged “sign”, given to mankind, to reveal an upcoming event on Earth.  If there were twenty-one impacts, expect a major event to occur on Earth (probably in Israel or the USA) in July 2015.

 

Guest Author: Herman Cummings
Herman Cummings is a computer data analyst, who used his training to analyze the written text of Genesis. On EasterSunday, in 1990, a lady stood up in Sunday School and asked the pastor “How can I teach my children about Adam & Eve, when all they are taught is evolution in school?”. The pastor could only say “Just believe the Bible”. That was of no help to the lady.

So Herman Cummings began his research to resolve the issue, since the worlds of Creationism and Theology could not literally reconcile Genesis with scientific reality. After receiving the revelation of the first chapter from the Lord in December 1993, Herman Cummings became the world’s leading expert on the book of Genesis (Bereshit).

 

On the DISPATCH: Headlines  Local  Opinion

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter

* indicates required
/ ( mm / dd ) [ALL INFO CONFIDENTIAL]

About the Author

- Herman Cummings is a computer data analyst, who used his training to analyze the written text of Genesis. On EasterSunday, in 1990, a lady stood up in Sunday School and asked the pastor “How can I teach my children about Adam & Eve, when all they are taught is evolution in school?”. The pastor could only say “Just believe the Bible”. That was of no help to the lady. So Herman Cummings began his research to resolve the issue, since the worlds of Creationism and Theology could not literally reconcile Genesis with scientific reality. After receiving the revelation of the first chapter from the Lord in December 1993, Herman Cummings became the world’s leading expert on the book of Genesis (Bereshit).

Tags
Displaying 12 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Jeffrey Goodman says:

    Guest Author, You might want to check out “THE COMETS OF GOD-New Scientific Evidence for God: Recent archeological, geological and astronomical discoveries that shine new light on the Bible and its prophecies” by Jeffrey Goodman, Ph.D. I am an archeologist and a geologist who is also a Christian. In this book I show the recent scientific discoveries that support the catastrophic events in scripture. Once someone understands how certain words were used in the ancient Near East it becomes clear that scripture repeatedly says that comets are the Lord’s weapons of choice to bring judgment and that he programmed them when to come before the creation of the Earth. To the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians “the host of heaven” was a reference to their pantheon of sky gods who were mainly represented by comets. When scripture refers to the God of the Bible as the “ Lord of Hosts” we are being told that He rules in heaven not the pagan gods as led by the queen of heaven (Jeremiah 44:17-19 and 25). For example, see Isaiah 45:12, 40:25-26 and Daniel 4:1-3, 35, 37.
    Blessings,

  2. Brandt Hardin says:

    Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON says:

      TENNESSEE IS ONE OF THOSE STATES IN WHICH – IF YOU HAVE NEVER VISITED THE ENTIRE STATE – A PERSON CAN HAVE THE WRONG IMPRESSION ABOUT ITS PEOPLE. TO THE WORLD, TENNESSEE IS KNOWN AS A CONSERVATIVE-CAUCASIAN STATE – INDEED, MEMPHIS IS KNOWN AS THE HOME OF Elvis Presley; NOT, ONE OF AMERICA’S major black cities.

      MY POINT IS, State-Senator Bo Watson’s bill WILL NOT PASS BECAUSE OF MEMPHIS. ALTHOUGH NEGROES ARE EXTREMELY DEVOTED TO THEIR FAITH, THEY DESPERATELY WANT THEIR CHILDREN TO HAVE FULL ACCESS TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. EVEN, THE NEGRO CHURCH WILL TELL YOU THE TEACHING [AND, ENFORCEMENT] OF “Christian doctrine” IS THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENTS [IN THE HOME], AND NOT, SCHOOLS.

      CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON says:

      SO, I ASSUME Herman Cummings DID NOT LIKE WHAT I TYPED TO “Brandt Hardin;” YET, Mr. Cummings IS THE ONE WHO WRITES A DISCUSSION-FUELED ARTICLE – TO RELIGIOUS FANATICS WHO WANT TO CONTROL ONLINE DISCUSSION – AND, IS TOO AFRAID TO ATTACH HIS NAME.

      “Mr. Hardin” AND I LIVE IN TENNESSEE ….. DOES Mr. Cummings?

      CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON says:

        I WISH I KNEW THE MAXIMUM TIME IT TAKES Global Dispatch TO POST COMMENTARY. I WOULD HAVE HAD NO NEED TO “GO-OFF” ON Herman Cummings IF I HAD SEEN MY POST.

        I AM AT A TIME IN MY LIFE IN WHICH I WILL NOT ALLOW OTHERS TO THINK THEIR VALUES ARE SUPERIOR TO MINE. ATHEISTS ARE TIRED OF THIS “I love ‘god’-” CRAP.

        WHEN I REPLIED TO “Brandt Hardin” [WHO MADE A COMMENT AT 9:45 AM], IT WAS 5PM; AT THAT TIME “Mr. Hardin” WAS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST – NOW, I SEE COMMENTARY BY “Jeffrey Goodman” WHICH HAS A POST-TIME OF 4:24 PM ….. HMN, I DID NOT SEE “Mr. Goodman’s” post WHEN I REPLIED TO “Mr. Hardin” AT 5PM.

        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

  3. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON says:

    “Guest Author,”

    FIRST, SIR/MA’AM, PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS A PERSONAL ATTACK – IT IS NOT MY GOAL TO OFFEND YOU. BUT, THE FACT YOU WOULD NOT PUBLISH YOUR NAME IN ATTACHMENT TO AN ARTICLE WITH CONTENT WHICH SERVES AS THE SOLE FOUNDATION FOR WHY GLOBAL WARS – INCLUDING THIS “war on terror” – HAVE CONSUMED THIS PLANET, HAS DESTROYED YOUR POSITION BEFORE THE READER READS YOUR FIRST WORD.

    NOW – YOU TYPE – “Current Creationism is in a delusion, refusing to learn the truth of Genesis. Secular science is mired in the idiocy of Atheism, to the point of withholding the truth from the public, because they can’t come up with a natural explanation … ;” “Guest Author,” I ASSUME YOU HAVE “Christian tendencies.” YET, YOU DESTROYED YOUR OWN ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH BY UTILIZING THE WORD, “truth,” IN REFERENCE TO THEISM AND THE PHRASE, “withholding the truth,” IN REFERENCE TO ATHEISM.

    “Guest Author,” YOU JUST TOLD THE WORLD YOU BELIEVE IN NOTHING BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE WILL NOT GIVE YOU CONCRETE ANSWERS.

    THE QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE DICTATES SCIENCE. HUMANS ARE THE ONES WHO BELIEVE ANSWERS ARE NEEDED TO EXPLAIN ASTROLOGICAL/BIOLOGICAL/CHEMICAL/GEOLOGICAL/PHYSICAL PHENOMENA. THEISTS AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME ATHEISTS ARE “KEEPERS” OF SCIENCE BECAUSE THEY [WE] WANT TO TEAR-DOWN RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. [Atheists could care less about why things exist; but, theists, on the other hand, believe their destiny depends on it].

    “Guest Author,” WHY DID YOU EXPOSE YOURSELF WITH, “withholding?” – USE OF THAT TERM STRONGLY IMPLIES Y-O-U BELIEVE “Genesis” IS NOT “QUITE RIGHT.”

    “Guest Author,” I ASSUME YOU ARE A COLLEGE GRADUATE. YOU ARE TRYING TO “MARRY” YOUR INTELLECT WITH TEACHINGS – PROBABLY, PARENTAL IN ORIGIN – ON THE SUPERNATURAL. THIS TOPIC IS, “ABOVE” YOU.

    CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

  4. theot58 says:

    I disagree with this articl. It misrepresents the arguement by focusing on the “religious” component of “creationism” (which is unproveable) and ingnoring the scientific component.
    Also, there is an inference that if “creationism” is not true then this somehow proves the Darwinian/Macro evolution myth.

    From a scientific persepective:
    – There is clear evidence of design which is “proof” of a an intelligent designer
    – We see evidence of abrupt appearance which cannot be plausible explained by natural forces/agents

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!
    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.
    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

    I have examined the so called “mountains of evidence supporting Macro evolution” and found that it was mountains of cow dung.

    Go to the Academies of Science website and examine the evidence they put forward supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution – see how pathetic it is.

    Read Darwins book Origins… then ask yourself what observable scientific evidence does it put forward to support the core assertion that all living things had common ancestor.
    Making the ambit (but falacious) claim that there is “mountains of evidence” s
    upporting Darwinian/macro evolution DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON says:

      “Theot58,”

      YOU ARE “BOGGLED-DOWN” WITH THE ASSUMED IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD. YOU HAVE THE SAME OBSTACLE THEISTS HAVE – A NEED FOR ANSWERS.

      YOUNG PEOPLE NOT GOING TO CHURCH IN LARGE NUMBERS IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE IT WILL (HOPEFULLY) FREE FUTURE GENERATIONS FROM THE FEAR OF DEATH.

      CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    • Al Cibiades says:

      Theot58,your conventional creationism and simply doesn’t stand up.

      You write:
      “From a scientific persepective:
      – There is clear evidence of design which is “proof” of a an intelligent designer”
      Really? What evidence? How do you have “evidence” of design? If you know something is the sort of thing which is intentionally built you have good reason to think it’s designed. Otherwise,you need observation it being designed. Indeed, none of the supporters of intelligent design have come up with any evidence; only supposition based on incredulity.

      “- We see evidence of abrupt appearance which cannot be plausible explained by natural forces/agents”
      Again,what evidence. The “Cambrian Explosion” canard? There is no reason to think it “cannot be plausbily explained”. Again, this is argument from incredulity which is no argument at all. And, in fact, the Cambrian period was millions of years long and poses no particular challenge to evolutionary biology.

      You further opine:” When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.” Nonsense. Only those whose minds are corrupted by attachment to religious though have any problem seeing the increasingly compelling model.

      You then expose your scientific naivete:”The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation.”
      So all the millions of observations, the detailed examination of fossils, proteins, chemical sequences,crystalography etc. don’t consitute observation? Is there any reason you suppose these observations aren’t repeatable? In fact they are repeated and confirmed over and over. Competing scientists check and double check each fact and factoid. Every specimen, every observation is measured the the best precision available. And yet you, who clearly know little of science, claim that the thousands of evolutionary biologists “have none of these”? Isn’t that a bit arrogant?

      What you clearly don’t understand is that science is built around conceptual models of how the world we live in works. Evolution is the conceptual model of speciation. The model is constructed from facts, and confirmed by facts. Any factual contradiction to the model is used to refine and correct the model. Its not merely subject to interpretation. Oh, and the issue of the origin of life is not part of evolution, though it is an subject of biological research. It’s acknowledged we don’t have a good picture of that. But yes, somewhere along the line it appears that life started as a self replication molecule.

      What is evident from the rest of your post is that you are smugly ignorant of a vast area of knowledge and choose to expose your ignorance in posts such as these. It’s not the data on the Academy of Science website that is pathetic; its the arrogant ignorance displayed by creationists.

  5. Al Cibiades says:

    Mr. Cummings is a familiar commentator with unique and idiosyncratic views on science and creationism based on his notions that he alone understands Genesis (which he references as bereshit, the Hebrew name for the first book of the bible).

    I would agree that both young and old earth creationsism have no basis in fact, not because of interpretation of the text, but because they are merely traditional stories developed for ancient people by ancient people based on what little they knew and for religious reasons.

    Mr. Cummings suppositions regarding science is absurd and reflect his misconceptions, not only as to it’s findings but as to its nature. He, like many religiously absorbed people, thinks that science purports to present a complete explanatory story of the world. It does not. It seeks to find facts, propositions derived by procedures known to produce reliable, repeatable results; and dependable explantory models of what is observed.

    The notion that anyone suggests that calls “both God and Moses a liar” is simply absurd. A lie implies an attempt to deceive. More apt is that text in the bible, whether purported to be of Moses or God, is ancient writing of people whose intent an knowledge are unknown and, while having traditional and poetic value, is not reasonably to be viewed as a reliable source of fact, certainly with respect to matters regarding the physically observable.

    Mr. Cummings discussion of the comet breakup reflects his misperception of what science is, as mentioned above, and his inability to grasp the facts and models offered by science. Why discussion of the comet is relevant to the discussion is hard to discern. Even if the models offered by science of the comet breakup are wrong it would merel bear on a particular hypothesis on a particular set of data, correction of which is part of the scientific process itself.

    As to the actual explanation, the following text may be helpful:
    “Computer simulations show that if you pass an object made of small particles held together by gravity too close to a larger object, tidal forces will pull it out into a nice string of particles, just as observed. The pieces stay fairly close together as you expect — the gravitational forces are fairly similar so they don’t aquire too big a range of velocities. However, the gravitational forces on each particle are different — remember, it was the tidal force, a difference between graviational forces, that pulled them appart in the first place! Over time, they would have been separated by greater and greater distances, until that fateful day when they crashed”. (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=217)

    Mr. Cummings apparently doesn’t understand the physics so, like many fundamentalists, he supposes that what he doesn’t understand is wrong.

  6. vote 4 science says:

    At last, something that YECs, OECs, cdesign propenentsists, and those who accept evolution can agree on: Herman Cummings is one weird dude.

  7. Paul Burnett says:

    Herman Cummings’ grandiose claims are as delusional as those of the Young Earth Creationists he claims to despise, and just as scientifically illiterate.

    Here are some quotes from Herman Cummings:

    “I am the foremost terrestrial authority on the book of Genesis.”

    “I am the only person I know or ever heard of presently on this Earth that is qualified to teach Biblical Creation.”

    “I’ve already written the governor and members of the education committees of every state legislature.”

    “I have sent queries to over 165 publishing houses twice over since 1992. Only two asked for the first chapter, PublishAmerica (a “vanity” publisher) and Thomas Nelson (the world’s largest Christian publisher). They both declined.”

    Any guesses why nobody listens to this guy?

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Sign up for our Weekly Newsletter



Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

At the Movies


Pin It