Box Office Bomb

[deleted]

You are correct, reasons.org is an excellent site. Another equally good site is GodAndScience.org. Reasons To Believe is a great organization of scientists, philosophers and theologians who reconcile the Bible with a concordant view. I struggled with Genesis 1 since I was 13 until over a decade later I read a book by Dr. Hugh Ross that actually made sense. I am currently auditing my third online college course by RTB.

However, the writer of this movie doesn't agree with concordists. Reverend Wells explicitly says so at 1:35:50 into the movie: "The day/age or concordist interpretation is an attempt to rationalize the Genesis story and reinterpret the words that the original authors used when they presented the six days of creation." Marc Wells (his eccentric son) immediately chimes in with the dumbest line of an otherwise well-written script saying, "There is no science to back that up." The science that 'backs up' the concordant view is MAINSTREAM cosmology that dates the universe at 13.7 billion years and the earth at 4.5 billion years.

Us concordists recognize that the Hebrew word "YOWM" can mean 'a period of time (age / epoch / eon)' as well as a '24-hour day.' To say it another way, Genesis 1 is talking about "God days" which are millions or billions of years to us. And to clarify upfront, just because we believe in an old earth/universe doesn't mean we believe in macro-evolution. You can look at RTB's site for many good articles that provide scientific reasons not to believe in macro-evolution. (Or you can take their 8 week couse like I did called "Creation vs Evolution.")

This movie uses 'time dilation' to explain the difference between the days in Genesis 1 and the record of nature. However, time dilation has been proven wrong. We can see what happened billions of years ago by looking at stars billions of light years away from us. (It has taken billions of years for the light from those stars to just now reach us.) Supernova explosions in those galaxies occur almost at the same rate (time) as do those much closer to us. (They appear slightly slower as the galaxies further from us are expanding away from us at a faster rate.) However, the flawed theory presented in this movie is GREATLY superior to Young Earth Creationism (or what they like to call 'a literal reading' of Genesis 1.) That makes no sense, whatsoever.

If you see this as a "regular" movie, it is quite strange with a l-o-n-g science lesson in the middle. If you look at it as an entertaining way for someone to present a time dilation account of Genesis 1 as well as make some excellent apologetic points concerning many issues (one of my favorites points made exposed by the movie is that people who declare 'there are no absolutes!' are making an absolute statement), then it is a GREAT movie with acting superior to many Christian movies. Although the theory of time dilation has been proven to be incorrect, this is still a thought-provoking movie containing many truths.

Atheists have no interest in challenging their presuppositions; they only listen to those who confirm their fantasies.

They know they have access to all the knowledge of the entire Internet, but they will never use it to challenge their religious pretensions. Their fantasies are too fragile and the arguments against them are too weighty, as has been demonstrated in countless debates that they have lost. They know this; this is why they hide their eyes while raising the volume of their empty rhetoric.

Atheists are hilarious in their hypocrisy. They absolutely refuse to even consider that they are the epitome of the religious narrow-mindedness they love to define. I've heard it from them countless times. "Religion is believing something for which there is no evidence."

When it's pointed out to them that the very definition of science requires observation and replication they suddenly get glassy-eyed and pretend they don't understand the point. (They expect us to believe they're qualified to argue science on a university level but can't understand dictionary definitions written for children with single digit ages--yeah, right.)

When they're told that since no one has observed or replicated the evolution they dishonestly claim is "scientific fact," then it's not scientific fact AT ALL, they obfuscate and sidestep the issue because they do not have the character or integrity to admit they've been caught in their blatant hypocrisy by being exposed for being the "blind fools" of which they are accusing others.

Now, you'll see them "answer" this with deceit and obfuscation only but never admit it's the simple truth.

Why? Because they do not love the truth; they love their religion. (Please remember that I'm using their definition of "religion."