New Creation Museum

Post by **_TK** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:08 pm

Well, what do you guys think? (if you can tear yourselves away from the calvinism debates for a second!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00908.html

TK

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:25 pm

I believe the Genesis account literally. I think the Creation Research Society has done a great job in creating such a museum and exposing people to possibilities other than the dogma with which they have been brainwashed in the public schools of U.S.A. from kindergarten on.

The Washington Post reporter is obviously doing all he can to discredit creation as recorded in Genesis.

I was disturbed most by the following misleading paragraph:

But in this latest demonization of Darwinian evolution, there is a sticking point: For the biblical account to be accurate and the world to be so young, several hundred years of research in geology, physics, biology, paleontology, and astronomy would need to be very, very wrong.

The biblical account is accurate, and "several hundred years of research" are not "very, very wrong". What is wrong is the speculation and fanciful "theories" concocted by some of the interpreters of the research results.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:25 am

I believe the Genesis account literally. I think the Creation Research Society has done a great job in creating

I believe Genesis but i simply don't know whether the days are 24 hours each or ages of God's creation.

Post by **_mattrose** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:20 am

Was that an 'opinion' piece or a 'news' article? If the former, fine. If the latter, that was one of the most biased and unprofessional displays of journalism I've read in a long time, haha

Post by **_Seth** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:22 pm

I actually didn't find the article offensive. However, since I'm pretty much "Meh" on everything Ken Ham, that's probably not surprising.

$19.95 is way steep. If it's really about getting the YEC message out there, it should be cheeeeeeep. Of course, even at $0.25, I'd still probably skip it...

Post by **_schoel** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:56 am

Seth wrote:I actually didn't find the article offensive. However, since I'm pretty much "Meh" on everything Ken Ham, that's probably not surprising.

Made me laugh! I was picturing you in that picture with your son making a "MEH" face...Ok, so I'm an idiot.

We should find an emoticon for "MEH".

$19.95 is way steep. If it's really about getting the YEC message out there, it should be cheeeeeeep. Of course, even at $0.25, I'd still probably skip it...

Good point. Is this aimed just at Christians or the general public? Is promoting the YEC viewpoint, which is really one take on the question of origin, really going to convince skeptics? Wouldn't it be better to start with the Intelligent Design arguments?

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:03 am

Good point. Is this aimed just at Christians or the general public? Is promoting the YEC viewpoint, which is really one take on the question of origin, really going to convince skeptics? Wouldn't it be better to start with the Intelligent Design arguments?

It is not skeptics they are trying to convince.

They are trying to present an alternative to the concepts that are propogated in our schools with our children as captive audiences, and to the general public in magazines, TV, and other media.

We have been brought up to take evolutionary theory (both biological and astonomical) for granted and to regard creationism as it is depicted in Genesis as primitive, simplistic, and mythological. The Creation Research Society is trying to help the public to consider a different point of view ---- a view which is presently rejected out of hand and classified with false concepts from the past which have been clearly discredited such as a flat earth, or a geocentric view of the movements of the planets and sun.

People hold to evolutionary views with great tenacity in spite of evidence to the contrary. I am guessing the reason is so that atheism and agnosticism can appear creditable.

Evolutionary theory reminds me of the old phlogiston theory whose proponents clung tenaciously to the theory in spite of the oxygen explanation of burning objects. They simply altered the theory to accomodate the data. The same was done with geocentric theories of the solar system.

In cosmic evolution, the earth and the moon were supposed to have been broken off from the sun. So it was speculated that when the moon's surface was inspected, rock would be essentially the same as that on earth. It was found, in fact, that their chemical structure was much different.

Further, since the age of the universe was supposedly so great, it was thought that the level of dust on the moon would be hundreds of feet deep. In fact, the astronauts found that it was only a few inches deep.

Such discoveries do not result in evolutionary theory being rejected. All that happens, is that the theory is altered in such a way as to accomodate the new discoveries.

As to biological evolution, one of the most inexplicable facts is the "dance" of the honey bee workers to communicate to other workers the direction and distance of nectar sources discovered.

When a worker discovers a nectar source, it does a figure-8 "dance" on a frame within the hive. Other workers follow it around, and can determine the direction and the distance of the nectar source through pheromones coming from the "dancing" worker's body.

However, man has discovered that if the figure-8 is configured on the frame such that when the "dancing" bee is moving upward on the centre of the figure-8, then the nectar source is in the direction of the sun.
If the "dancing" bee, at the centre of the figure-8 is moving in a direction which forms a 23º to the left of the vertical, then (believe it or not) the nectar source is in a direction which is 23º to the left of the sun. The same holds true of any other angle.

So by observing the "bee dance" we can determine the direction of the nectar source by noting the angle formed by the direction the bee moves on the frame. However, the bees themselves don't do it this way. They have never been to school and learned geometry. They determine the direction by the pheromones.

So, how did evolution explain these angles as I have described above?
The fact of these angles do not help the bee to survive (the pheromones do that). Is there any way ---- any way at all, that the bee is benefited by its directional "dancing"? Apparently none! So did God create bees to "dance" in this way for no other reason than to communicate the wonders of His creation to man? It would seem so, at least for those whose minds are not closed to the possibility of a non-evolutionary explanation of life.

Post by **_mattrose** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:25 pm

Seth wrote:I actually didn't find the article offensive. However, since I'm pretty much "Meh" on everything Ken Ham, that's probably not surprising.

$19.95 is way steep. If it's really about getting the YEC message out there, it should be cheeeeeeep. Of course, even at $0.25, I'd still probably skip it...

I didn't find it 'offensive' either. I found it 'funny' how biased it was

As for the price, I don't think that is steep at all. Anyone willing to travel to the museum will certainly be willing to fork over 20 bucks to get in

I'm sure there is a couple of hours of interest inside.

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:26 am

As for the price, I don't think that is steep at all. Anyone willing to travel to the museum will certainly be willing to fork over 20 bucks to get in I'm sure there is a couple of hours of interest inside.

The price doesn't seem steep to me either. I spend that on gas in a week.

Post by **_thrombomodulin** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:45 pm

Like Paidion, I also believe the Genesis account is literally true. So of course I think the creation museum is great! The scriptural and scientific arguments put forth by the organization have in my opinion been quite well reasoned. I look forward to visiting it when my 8 mo. old daughter is at a better age to handle the drive.

Pete