Genesis Veracity Foundation!

[onager]

Go get a sammich and something to drink. And some aspirin. We may be here awhile.

I first heard of the Genesis Veracity Foundation on the local Fundie radio station in Los Angeles, (K)KKLA.

The GVF runs many radio spots, claiming "rock solid evidence that Genesis is the ONLY real history." The pitchman then orders everyone to get a paper and pencil, and write down "genesisveracityfoundation.com."

Yes, I am mean enough to note this - he's making the rather large assumption that an audience of right-wing Fundies can spell "veracity." Or "foundation." Or ".com."

Well, OK. OMGGENESISISREAL!1! is a standard enough Fundie claim. So I moseyed over to the website.

Argh! It's like the offspring of a weekend orgy involving Ken Ham, Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken. (And you're welcome, for that lovely mental image.)

This guy throws everything into the mix - numerology, Atlantis, the Great Pyramid of Giza, Crackpot Climatology, Young Earth Creationism, ancient occult knowledge, astrology and I don't know what all.

It certainly isn't the usual boring YEC website.

A couple of examples:

Demonstrating Science Bible Mutually Inclusive

(That's the very first...sentence? on the website. WTF does it even MEAN?)

We all know that the book of Genesis as real history is not treated seriously in our public schools nor in the media, so the Genesis Veracity Foundation is an effort for grassroots dissemination of rock solid proofs of the scientific and historical truth of the Genesis account; that the ice age must have been caused by a warmer ocean, heated from below, that the ice age ended much later than we've been led to believe, evidenced by the submerged "bronze age" ruins worldwide, and certainly that the ancients gave meaning to the word geometry, earth measure, by accurately calculating distance and direction by the earth's wobble rate, what the darwinists are having a hard time digesting, so we must take the message to the people, help us guide them here.

Earth Measure Geometry

Mainstream science received a hot potato as I have determined the methodology for the math which prescribed the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Please enjoy, and note that it relates to the 72 conspirators against Osiris, to the 72 virgins of Islam, to the Hindu yugas of time that are multiples of 432,000 years, to the 432,000 warriors of Valhalla, to the 432,000 years of pre-Flood Babylonian kings’ reigns, to the 360 year Babylonian period of time called the sari, to the 360 pre-Islamic Arab gods, to our 360 degree mapping system, to our base 60 timekeeping system, and to astrology. I hope that you send this message far and wide, as it reveals the ancient mapping and navigation underpinnings for the numerology of much of the occult world.

Here, have fun! My brain hurts...

http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/

[Kurmudgeon]

1. Pointless, worthless and not needed. Believe or don't on your own decision.

[onager]

4. Thanks for the rave review!

So why did you bother to read it...and kick it to the top by responding?



I would give you a Valentine heart for that. But I'm all out, so...

[Kurmudgeon]

6. Thought I was agreeing with you. Oh well.....

I don't take these folks serious, in case you haven't figured it out yet.

[Silent3]

9. What does "on your own decision" have to do with any of this?

The craziness of that particular web site aside, what's wrong with reading what other people have to say as a part of making "your own decision"?

Just how much of an isolated vacuum from the thoughts and ideas of other people do you think is optimum for making a decision your own decision?

[cleanhippie]

10. You are talking about your post, right?

"Pointless, worthless and not needed."


At least we agree on something.

[LeftishBrit]

74. I think that Kurmudgeon was referring to the Genesis Veracity Foundation, not to anyone's post.

[cleanhippie]

77. I'm not convinced.

You may be right, but considering his view on anything critical of religion and being supportive of a theocracy...

[Enrique]

2. if someone believes the creation stories are literally true

are they going to know what "veracity" means?

[Kurmudgeon]

3. Disprove one first.

[DCKit]

5. C'mon, even if you're a creationist, it's clear that this site was created by an insane person.

This guy throws everything into the mix - numerology, Atlantis, the Great Pyramid of Giza, Crackpot Climatology, Young Earth Creationism, ancient occult knowledge, astrology and I don't know what all.

It's analogous to the way the 2012 Mayan prophecies have been integrated into so many of the Xian sects - grasping for any substantiation of their beliefs and worldview.

Jeebus is coming!!!

[Kurmudgeon]

7. I already stated I thought the site was bunk.

And speaking of throwing everything into the mix, you're the first I've heard that thought that "Xian sects" believed the Mayans.
Christ said, ""But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
So for any Christian to say they know when the end time is coming, they are going directly against what Christ says.
I couldn't take any sect that was purportedly Christian that believed such tripe very seriously.
You're supposed to live each day like Christ could come at any moment, but nobody knows when that will be.
I've got post-2012 plans, I'm more concerned about not getting ran over in the street than about any end time prophecy.
Be sure to look both ways before crossing!
BTW, I don't really belong to a sect or church. I believe on Christ's Testimony alone.
I'll go to a church building, but what the members believe, may or may not coincide with what I do except in general.
Attend where you feel comfortable.

[DCKit]

8. Given your eloquent reply, I'm not (and never) going to fight with you.

I couldn't possibly convey my respect for your views.

However nice you are, however Christian you are, there are sects that appeal to "teh crazy". This is one of them.

Some people don't deserve that respect.

[James I. Nienhuis]

37. What's Crazy?

Please try to refute whatever of the material you say is crazy.

[mr blur]

12. You really believe in a historical Jesus?

Despite the absense of any historical evidenc, contemporary accounts, eye-witness accounts, Roman records, etc?

And btw I' m not attacking you personally in any way.

(Am I allowed to say the word "attack" on the new touchy-feely, happy-clappy DU3?)

[James I. Nienhuis]

70. Historical Evidence Jesus

There is much more historical evidence for Jesus than Plato or Buddha, so you have no point really.

[darkstar3]

71. More historical evidence for Jesus than Buddha? Really?

Are you counting the fact that I just said "Jesus fucking Christ!" out loud when I read that as evidence that he's real?

[dmallind]

72. Horsecrap

Plato: A huge number of confirmed writings, and some spurious and dubious ones that show he was a popular attribution during his lifetime and after; contemporary praise and criticism from coevals such as Aeschines and Phaedo; Direct reference from people who knew him as a teacher (a goodly chunk of Aristotle).

Jesus: No writings at all; not a single contemporary reference from anyone who saw him in life (and how much more noteworthy should have been a man raising the dead and healing lepers than an old man prattling about ideal forms 350-400 yrs earlier?).

I think you have your dribbling fundy talking points wrong. The usual Greek philosopher thrown up as a red herring objection to criticism of a historical Jesus is Socrates, whom we mostly know FROM Plato.

Yes it's certainly possible Socrates was, just like Jesus, an amalgam of idealized stories from multiple sources given a single name as they were written down much later. However, the number of people who base their real life and bet on an imaginary one based on the words put into the mouth of the cipher called Socrates is zero. Even his greatest philosophical fans are fans of the reasoning method and style he, possibly apocryphally, embodied. Not people who think he is their closest imaginary friend who will helo them cosy up to his dad and snuggle forever in the long sleep with the biggest Teddy Bear in the universe.

[James I. Nienhuis]

35. Day nor Hour

"No man can know the day nor the hour . . . .," so obviously the month and year can be known, maybe the holiday Rosh Hashana in the year 2017?

[cleanhippie]

11. Prove one first.

Thats right, you can't.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

13. It's not up to skeptics to disprove a fantastic claim

The onus for proof lies completely and directly on the one making the extraordinary claim. Saying, "you can't disprove it" isn't a valid reason to believe in an idea. I can't disprove the claim that a giant pink unicorn lives at the center of the earth, spewing lava from volcanoes every time he farts. That doesn't make it true or even remotely possible.

[James I. Nienhuis]

36. Why Darwin?

Since you can't prove darwinian evolution, that swamp goo supposedly morphed into you, then why shamelessly believe it?

[darkstar3]

41. Study some microbiology.

You'll see evolution happen as part of your experiments.

[James I. Nienhuis]

43. No Experiments One Syngameon Changing to New One

There are no experiments were one syngameon is changed into another (a new one).

[darkstar3]

45. Two problems there.

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

1. That's a long way to travel up the biological taxonomy in order to avoid talking about species, which just shows that you're trying really hard to deny the truth.

2. You lose. I have 3 examples for you of evolution at work, two from microbiology, and one from the mammal world which even blows away your "syngameon" canard.

Behold: the mule.
For those who don't know, syngameon actually refers to a population of organisms. Organisms are said to be a part of the same syngameon if they can combine genetic material (breed and produce offspring). Horses and donkeys, for example, can breed. This makes them part of the same syngameon. But their offspring, (a mule or hinny depending on the combination of parents used) cannot breed. There have been nearly no viable offspring from hinnies, and there are never viable offspring from mules. This means that the mule and the hinny are not part of the same syngameon as their parents. Evolution at work!

Behold: methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus
Over the course of thousands of generations, this bacteria has evolved to the point where it is actually capable of resisting almost every drug we throw at it.

Behold: Influenza
Do you know why you have to get a flu shot every year if you intend to remain protected? It's not because the immunization that you received last year "wore off". It's because the virus itself has evolved, and is now so different that your immune system will not recognize it properly in order to defend your body.

These are 3 examples from countless more that are available to you. If you would like to learn more about the facts of evolution, then I suggest (and I'm not kidding because these books serve as starting points) "Evolution for Dummies".

[James I. Nienhuis]

48. You're Wrong Three Times

That those animals can breed at all to produce offspring proves they came from a common ancestor, the opposite is true of cats and dogs for instance, if you could ever get them together, hahaha.

It's still bacteria.

It's still a virus.

[darkstar3]

51. Not only did you just move the arbitrary goalposts you set up, but

you also invoked the phrase "common ancestor", showing again that you appear aware of the facts and are interested in actively denying them.

So you've denied the truth three times in one post. Did you hear a cock crow? You might want to check on that.

[James I. Nienhuis]

53. Crowing Cock Out Your Door

Of course the common ancestor pair of for instance the liger is a lion and a tiger, so you have no point.

[dmallind]

15. Gen 1:25-27 and 2:18-22 cannot both be true. Hence one disproves the other. nt

[Thats my opinion]

20. Give it a rest.

Neither of them are true if you mean historic. They are both stories that were produced by different traditions. You keep beating this dead horse because it is still an easy target, instead of dealing with what contemporary theology is really saying. These stories are about what never happened but is always true. Jews have always known the difference. Christian fundamentalists do not, but Christian progressives do. If you want a rational conversation deal with religious people who take scientific evidence and mythology seriously.

[darkstar3]

21. And YOU keep claiming that your version is actually "contemporary theology.",

when clearly you are not only in the minority of believers with your "process theology", but you are also incredibly insulated away from the majority of American believers. It's like my old friend from New York, who doesn't actually accept there are people in the US who believe in the "Rapture."

Funny stuff...

[dmallind]

23. You'd be better served answering the actual literal challenge then, surely?

He's the one telling us sneeringly to disprove a Biblical creation myth. He's the type pf believer you close your blinkered eyes to. You talk a good game about challenging primitive beliefs and then you jump on me when I do. Put up or shut up about challenging literalism - but for God's sake deal with the ones pushing it for once not me. I've never seen you actually use your learning to snipe at Christians who actually promote the myths I attack. Now;s your chance. Strut your theology stuff and DO ehat you talk about so much - taking on believers who push primitive religion. Follow the post I made to the one it responded to. Ther's your (supposed and claimed) target, not me. I truly want to see this....

[Thats my opinion]

24. Of course!

I have spent half a lifetime taking on fundamentalists. While I hate to mention it, I have written books about it. But this is the religion bit on DU, and they are not here. Why should any of us spend our time and effort on DU taking on ideas that nowhere surface here. Let's deal with each other and what we say here. if you want to debate what I say, and other theists who post here, well and good. But come on, fighting a perspective that is elsewhere and ignoring a perspective that is here is a waste of time.

[dmallind]

25. How are they NOT here when we were challenged to disprove a Genesis creation story HERE?

Did you misread the post or what?

[Thats my opinion]

26. I guess I missed that post

Give me a number where we were asked by a true believer to disprove the Genesis story.

[dmallind]

27. There's only 26 to look at and this one was #3

How do you manage to find my rebuttals so much more easily than the Christian lunacy they rebut?

[Thats my opinion]

28. It is a pretty wide jump to get that out of #3

when you look at what the poster says elsewhere--like #6.
If you claim there are literalists here you have to do better than #3.

Even if you are correct, they certainly are a very minor minority voice---very--in this group.

[darkstar3]

30. Deny. Move goalposts. Marginalize.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[dmallind]

31. Really? What the FUCK do you think "disprove one" means?

That is the most desperate and absurd rationalization I have EVER seen here. You piss and fucking moan every time I PROVE to you that believers have far more primitive beliefs than you pretend but this takes the biscuit. It's right in front of your eyes and your absurd pretense here proves you to be nothing more than yet another fundy-defending enabler despite your big talk.

[hfojvt]

32. I took it as a challenge

Something I have done continuously. "Disprove one" does not mean necessarily that "I believe it" but it does mean that "I believe it cannot be disproven."

How, for example, would you, or anyone, disprove the Theory of Fred?

The theory of Fred says that the Universe was created in 1997 by a cosmic entity known only as Fred.

Go ahead, try to disprove it.

In somewhat the same way, I have asked people to prove the theory of evolution. Not because I, myself, do not believe in evolution. But because it seems to me that these people believe "the theory of evolution is proven and there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support it" not because they have examined the evidence and been convinced, but rather because they were told "the theory of evolution is proven and there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support it" and they basically accepted that statement on faith. Yet they mock the faith of others without applying nearly as much scrutiny to their own.

[LeftishBrit]

75. Fair enough...

but there is someone arguing for the creationist view right on this thread.

[jeepnstein]

14. Wonderful.

Another theologian trying to ram all his square pegs into round holes.

Christianity is supposed to be simple. I didn't say easy but it is pretty simple. Problem is men have added all sorts of rules to it to the point that it is seemingly impossible to grasp or practice.

[Thats my opinion]

16. Why should we be spending time and effort kicking at a straw man?

It would be like throwing snide comments at Ptolmey. Why not give our attention to serious new ways to understand religion? As Jesus said, "Let the dead bury the dead." Or is this sort of stuff just an easy target?

[dmallind]

17. Because a sizeable plurality if not outright majority of believers take this crap seriously

If we want to reach the manmillions who watch Jersey Shore, will we do it by talking about Proust?

I was at a restaurant in the most affluent suburb in town yesterday, and overheard two well-presented couples in young middle age discussing Ash Wednesday, Lent and so on. One of them said she went to Mass every week and liked "our" religion because it was simple and easy to understand as opposed to what she named "oriental" faiths. She then asked her husband what the whole idea of fish on fridays was about and all four of them spent a few minutes talking in garbled ways about what little they knew of the miraculous catch of fish, the feeding of the 5000, etc, without getting close to the idea of penance or the importance of Friday.

It's certainly possible that they were just dumb, but their speech and deportment did not imply this. It's possible only 1 of the four was a regular chutchgoer, although nobody protested the "our religion" part or was even politely contradictory about its simplicity. They were almost certainly not ill-educated or ill-informed illiterates overall.

Do you really think we should frame religious arguments to these average believers in terms of Kung or Spong?

[Thats my opinion]

18. You bet we should!

And we had better get about the task.

[dmallind]

19. And when they just look blankly in return, can we converse on their level then?

I'm pretty sure somebody who thinks fish on Fridays is to do with the feeding of the 5000 is not going to really respond well to a discourse on Weltethos.

[onager]

22. Straw man? He's a real person with an audience.

You seem to seriously misunderstand the phrase "straw man." Though I can't imagine why, since we see it used at least once a day in the Religion group.

It would be like throwing snide comments at Ptolmey.

Do you mean Claudius Ptolemy, the ancient astronomer? Funny you'd mention him. Back before Xianity discovered "new ways of understanding" post-Copernicus, throwing snide comments at Claudius Ptolemy could have gotten you burned at the stake. His geocentric system was official dogma.

Or maybe you meant Ptolemy Soter I, founder of the Graeco-Egyptian dynasty. He also had some neat "new ways of understanding religion." He created his own brand new god out of whole cloth (Serapis). And successfully peddled that god to the masses.

Or is this sort of stuff just an easy target?

This particular loon is a sub-set of the bigger loonery, "Fundamentalist Xianity." And no matter how much you beat the drum for your own brand of Contemporary Xian Thought, the fact remains that - currently in the USA - the Xian Fundamentalists have the money and the numbers.

I'll believe differently when I see Santorum, Gingrich and Romney seriously fighting for the Lib'rul Xian vote. And that idea is even funnier than the Genesis Veracity Foundation.

[Thats my opinion]

29. Ptolemy (ism) was also orthodox science.

Both science and religion have found new insights. While you celebrate the scientific side of things, I ask you also to celebrate the religious side--even if you are not religious. Or is prejudice against the latter just too strong?

Decreasingly fundamentalists have the numbers and the money, while their current strength cannot be denied.. I know of no progressive Christians who take Santorum seriously--just the opposite. Someone has said he is a good 13th century religionists. Increasingly many of us are hardly there. You better be happy that we are around. We will need each other in November. Continue to write us off is like clobbering a brother because you don't like the suit he is wearing.

[cleanhippie]

33. Just what "insights" has religion found?

You make these equivalencies, yet fail to ever produce a single example.


What insights? Celebrate exactly what about the religious side.

[James I. Nienhuis]

38. Fountains Deep for Ice Age

That the Ice Age could have been caused only by a warmer ocean, having been geothermally heated (from Noah's Flood), is a great insight derived from holy writ.

[darkstar3]

40. No, that's a supposition carved out of wholecloth solely to support a ridiculous myth.

[James I. Nienhuis]

42. How Dense Global Cloudcover?

Then how do you propose that the dense global cloudcover for the Ice Age came about?

[darkstar3]

47. You'd have to be more specific about which ice age you're talking about,

[James I. Nienhuis]

56. Any of "Them"

Pick any of "them."

[darkstar3]

60. No, I really can't "pick any" ice age to answer your question.

Why? Because weather conditions during each of those ice ages, and the causes for those ice ages, were all different.

If you have no grasp of geological or climatological history, don't try to invoke them in order to support sadistic crap legitimized by florid prose.

(I think at this point I appear to be the victim of Poe's Law.)

[James I. Nienhuis]

61. How Were "They" Different?

So how were "those" ice ages different from each other, do you really know, or do you just say so?

[darkstar3]

63. I could summarize this post as NTS

(which is a little on the nose, I think you're out of practice), but really, it's not that I don't have time for silliness, it's that I simply don't have the time to compile the massive level of information that is available for free on the internet regarding this topic.

Education is not your enemy, and curiosity doesn't kill you. Give it a shot.

[James I. Nienhuis]

65. I See

Oh, I see.

[cleanhippie]

44. Ahahahahaha!

That's funny!

[James I. Nienhuis]

49. What No Answer?

No, your lack of a refutation is funny!

[darkstar3]

52. I'm sure he's busy posting to FSTDT.

[James I. Nienhuis]

54. Really?

Really, is that good?

[darkstar3]

55. Why don't you Google it and find out?

[James I. Nienhuis]

57. NTS

No time for silliness.

[darkstar3]

58. Oh I beg to differ. :)

[James I. Nienhuis]

59. Beg On

You can beg, that's fine.

[darkstar3]

64. Thanks for the laughs.

[James I. Nienhuis]

66. Good For You

Glad you can laugh at yourself.

[darkstar3]

67. You're killin' me smalls!

[James I. Nienhuis]

68. Funny Retreat

Funny that you've retreated on everything, now this, rather pathetic.

[James I. Nienhuis]

69. Now Ice Age Please

Let's try this again, explain to us how dense global cloudcover happened for any Ice Age.

[LeftishBrit]

76. Because these 'straw men' have influence on education and politics.

A recent survey in the UK showed that 32 per cent of the population believe that the world was created by God in the last 10,000 years. There are some surveys that give lower estimates, but it's at least a quarter. In America, probably quite a bit higher.

In some parts of America, parents and school boards demand that creationism be given equal time with evolution in science lessons. Fortunately, that's unlikely to happen in the UK (there are advantages in having a National Curriculum); but there is some association in both our countries between creationism and the promotion of religious-right policies.

And there is a real live 'straw man' right on this thread!

[James I. Nienhuis]

34. Why No Refutations?

Notice that Onager and the others make no attempt to refute any of the material, very instructive!

[James I. Nienhuis]

39. Listening to What Why?

Hey Onager, what where you doing listening to the "local Fundie radio station in LA?" How many hours per week do you listen?

[cleanhippie]

46. I think he was hoping to hear your call in to the show.

Welcome to DU.

Enjoy your stay.

[James I. Nienhuis]

50. Thank You I Guess

Glad to be here.

[onager]

73. Well, since you asked...

1. Comedy - stuff like Focus On The Family and "The Intersection of Faith & Reason" are hilarious.

2. Recreational Xianity - www.weirdcrap.com/recreational/​recmenu.htm

3. Reconnaisance - know the enemy and all that.

Any other questions?