Creation Museum Madness… 28 April, 2007
Posted by paralleldivergence in Brad & Phil, Earth, God, Life, creationism, heaven, hell.trackback
May 28, 2007: The intelligence of Man takes a giant leap backward, into the Middle Ages, with the opening of the “Creation Museum” in Petersburg, Kentucky where it seems not only is the Bible 100% correct, but so were The Flintstones. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Such incredible visionaries were Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera that they were able portray how life actually was on Earth just a few thousand years ago when Man and Dinosaurs co-habited the planet, living, breathing and working together. Who would have believed that more than 40 years after that pioneering cartoon series ended, that a brand new “Museum” would open that “confirms” a city like The Flintstone’s Bedrock probably actually existed.
According to this BBC News article, the Creation Museum is “the dream of Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry that promotes the idea that the Biblical book of Genesis should be taken literally in describing the creation of the world, life and humans as carried out by God over a six-day period a few thousand years ago“.
Ken Ham holds a university degree in Science and left Australia to come to the United States about 20 years ago to found his Ministry. He boasts about the imminent opening of the Creation Museum at his website. “…we’ll take guests on a journey through a visual presentation of the history of the world, based on the “7 C’s of History”: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation. Throughout this family-friendly experience, guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history”. The Creation Museum has embraced the dinosaur as one of God’s creatures, however not one that became extinct 65 million years ago. Its exhibits will depict dinosaurs together with humans, with even a select few dinosaurs gaining a cabin on Noah’s Ark - the rest washed away in the Great Flood that produced the Grand Canyon. All this, just a few thousand years ago.
Ham’s US$27M donation-funded Creation Museum has every right to exist, but not to be referred to as a museum. Princeton’s Wordnet defines a museum as “a depository for collecting and displaying objects having scientific or historical or artistic value”. It might scrape through for “artistic” value, but a more apt title would be Creationland to place it in the same category as Disneyland - a theme park. Mankind would be better served by a Religion Museum which takes guests on a journey through a visual presentation of the religions of the world, based on the ”7 B’s of Religion“: Blinkering, Belittling, Badgering, Bullying, Bludgeoning, Browbeating and Brainwashing.
Interestingly, Ham’s “Answers in Genesis” is even being refuted from within Creationist ranks. In one of a dozen Ken Ham rebuttals, the alternative website, “Answers in Creation” completely rejects Ham’s claims about dinosaurs. They include conclusions such as, “There is absolutely no geologic evidence for a global flood that killed all the dinosaurs“, and “There isn’t a single piece of evidence to show that dinosaurs and man lived together.”
Do our children really need or deserve such an education as Ham and others pump out through their ministries and through grand “authoritative” structures such as his new museum? Richard Dawkins’ article, “Religion’s Real Child Abuse“, highlights the real problem of how religion is propagated on unsuspecting, uncorrupted children - also discussed in “Which is Stronger, Manfluence or Godfluence?“. If you haven’t seen Jesus Camp, you really need to, to understand the motives and methods of those in religious power. To witness Ken Ham’s processes for yourself, have a look at this short clip from the HBO documentary, Friends of God.
Even Brad & Phil have found their way to Kentucky for the museum’s grand opening. Will you be going?
STORY UPDATE (27 May 2007) : It’s the day before opening and protestors are waking up to the dangers of this sham “museum”. “Rally for Reason” are organising a huge protest across the road from the site, a plane will fly overhead with the clever trailing banner, “Thou Shalt Not Lie” and hundreds of scientists in Kentucky/Ohio/Indiana have signed a Statement of Concern petition. Nonetheless, a cocky Ken Ham “thanks his critics” for helping make his Creation Museum twice the size that it was originally intended to be. May 28, 2007 will be a sad day in human history.
I’ll be laughing in Paradise while you’re burning in Hell boy. I got my tickets for the opening of the Museum. Maybe you should go to get your eyes opened.
That’s very Christian of you, Jim. If you have any useful comments, please add them.
Sweet! I’ve always thought that a Flintstones style theme park was a good idea.
Hi Jack. Maybe Ken Ham, being an Australian, got his idea from the now closed “Australia’s Wonderland” theme park which had all the Hanna Barbera characters, including The Flintstones! Take a look:
http://www.wonderland.com.au/85sb/
Well Jim
After taking into consideration the vast amount of gods and religions throughout history–god’s apparent complete lack of desire to communicate the correct version–and god’s apparent intolerance—I’d say odds are pretty good that you are screwed like the rest of us–a ticket to the creation museum won’t save you Jim–see you in hell.
25 years ago in another life I saw Ken Ham speak . He “proved” that humans hunted dinosaurs, and that Uluru was washed into the centre of Australia by the great flood.
Heck, people eagerly lap this stuff up just too easily. But you can’t expect them to be rational and question the whole premise, because that marks one out as a non believer, and as such, a threat to the stability of the other believers. Non believers end up in hell. The bible tells us this so it must be true.
In reality, rational thinkers have hell brought to them in this life by the “true disciples”. Family and friends are turned against the fool that turns from the way. How else can the straight and narrow way be kept pure. It only takes one scapegoat to ensure that other weak willed fools will not turn from the way. No more questions…good!
Seriously, if you want to understand these guys, look up “cult” and “cult survivors”
Hi Teetop. Thanks for your straight-as-it-is contribution.
Mark, thanks for the insight into Ken Ham. Sounds like he’s been at this for a long time. People think “cult” is a term for small “out-there” groups that brainwash people, but when you consider EVERY SINGLE BABY born on this Earth is born an Atheist, then the only way you can classify the way the children in the video are being raised is brainwashing. Organised religion = cult. What’s the difference?
It always amazes me how normally rational people–those who don’t believe in fantasy such as the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause etc would never question the reality of incidents recorded in the Bible. Don’t get me wrong-people have the right to believe in whatever blows their dresses up-but the frightening thing about these people here in the U S is–alot of them hold political office and are attempting to make laws based on their religious beliefs–starting with the President at the top
A nice video on The Creation of Life on Earth that I thought you’d enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1KGZSFmfs
Ha ha ha! Great video Ben! Says it all in just one minute.
Teetop, you are absolutely right. The abundance of “believers” in government office is a major concern. But the reality is the abundance of believers in the US in comparison to other countries (particularly those in Europe).
So strange - like time running backwards. In elementary school I remember reading about the Scopes Monkey Trial and basically reacting with “Phew… glad that’s behind us!”
Was I ever wrong. The Christian far right has raised a generation of children who have no understanding of how science or even critical thinking works.
Firstly to Jim, I pity your bitterness and your blinkered life. ‘Nuff said. As to Ken Ham, I’m ashamed to say this sham of a museum is to open in MY STATE of Kentucky. I know I’m a tiny minority being an atheist in Kentucky, but I honestly don’t believe the majority of people in my state would believe what Ken Ham wants to force-feed us. It’s interesting there’s hardly a peep from the media here. Are they too scared of the religious-right? Great article.
When people say the far right what you are really saying is those that believe in “The Word of God” and trust in him. There is way to much
compromise going on . Science only reinforces the bible when one looks and uses some critical thinking. However today many people are teaching that evolution is a fact when in reality its a belief, and I am referring to goo to you not natural selection. NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN ANY ANIMAL TURN INTO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL(cat /dog) To believe this takes more faith then to believe what the bible teaches. And I must say that you are right when you say that a museum will not save you but the truth will….
Welcome Randy! Your uppercase statement “no-one has ever seen…” is absolutely right. We are not talking about miracles here. We are talking about evolutionary change which occurs over millions of years and hundreds and thousands of generations. But the religious right have problems with the concept of “millions of years”, let alone the reality of “billions of years” for both the age of the Earth and more for the age of the universe.
Belief in Adam and Eve as the first humans 6,000 years ago and the fact that incest must have occurred to breed more humans (between Adam and Eve’s children), only to see them wiped out by a flood and to start again with Noah’s children some 4,500 years ago and from their spawn to “somehow” produce white people, black people, chinese people, indian people, eskimos and scandinavians. To me that takes a lot more faith than evolution.
If your answer is “God works in mysterious ways” then that’s a cop-out. We need to ask questions if we are to progress - not just blindly accept what was and is still being written by men. Sure. Evolution is a theory. But you are stating that God and Creation and Adam and Eve and the Great Flood are all facts - without any evidence. The Bible is simply not evidence. It’s a book of flowery writings that contradicts itself all over the place that believers are happy to pick and choose from.
UPDATE: A man in the Netherlands has built a replica of Noah’s Ark!! Maybe Ken Ham should buy it for his “museum” as a new exhibit. Take a look at the images: http://www.nbc11.com/slideshow/news/13225852/detail.html
Back when I first saw Ken do his spiel to thunderous applause, (Lismore 1984) , the spiel where he proved that humans and dinosars lived togther, I was also exposed to an article in “Time” magazine. Time magazine was like a weekly rss feed on the goings on in the world.
The article was by a foreign affairs journalist who had spent some time with pentagon insiders. The insiders were publicly expressing alarm at the fact that extreme fundamentalist christians were poised to take power within the pentagon. These guys believed that it was their “calling” to hasten armageddon, so that JC would return and establish 1000 years of peace on the earth.
SCARY STUFF!!. These are the guys with their fingers on the button.
The article concluded that the biggest threat to US security (this was 1984) was the preponderance of right wing christian fundamentalists within the pentagon, and all levels of govt.
Fast forward 20 years and look what we get.
HI pardiv.
Thanks for posting this article - it reminded me I wanted to do more reading on CiG.
BTW I would like to apologize for Jim giving us Christians a bad name - He clearly needs to meditate on God’s Love - No one in paradise laughs when souls are lost to hell - it saddens God and His true followers that you reject the Lord who bought your soul by the sacrifice Christ Jesus made for you.
As for children being born athiests, True Christians believe their children are born with faith - I do - because faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God - therefore children can hear the Gospel in the womb (science HAS proven they can hear in there) and therefore can have saving faith before they are born.
There is no point in arguing the origin of life as neither you nor I can PROVE to the other that our BELIEF is true because we have no common basis of proof - you will not accept the Bible as proof and I will not accept Darwin’s OOL. You believe your bible and I believe mine.
I can sadly accept it when the Bible of my God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is not allowed in public schools, BUT then I must resent that the bible of your god, mother nature, is still allowed. That is not playing fair.
If your religion is so foolproof, why are you C.D. followers so afraid of the J.C. followers whom you consider to be fools? Why so much enmity toward equal billing with another Origin explanation?
I will always pray for you all (with my group of little believers).
Welcome to you Dave and thanks for your prayers. They can certainly do no harm. Diversity of race, belief and character is what happens over time and when you have very large numbers of “intelligent” people on any planet.
I’m never sure why Creationists think that it’s a case of black and white - Creationists on one side and Evolutionists on the other. But it’s the Creationists that fail to acknowledge there are many points of view in the world. What about the Bhuddists? The Hindus? The Muslims that don’t believe in a young earth? Why do you reject those religions out of hand? Is it because they pose no real threat to you, but Evolution does?
Why do Creationists refer to people who see logic and evidence in the Theory of Evolution as “Darwinists” and call Evolution a “religion”? In no way do we see it as a battle between Jesus and Darwin, but you seem to. Darwin was no Messiah who was passing on a message from God (nor even called himself God). Darwin was a scientist who discovered something himself and shared it. Other scientists saw more logic, reasoning and evidence in his proposal for the origins and development of life than they could see in the Bible. We have no “belief” nor blind faith in the theory of evolution - that’s why it’s still called a theory and we are willing to accept alternative points of view providing they are backed by evidence. We reject the Bible because it has failed the tests, despite the contant rejigging that Creationists try to push on the world - such as the concept of Intelligent Design, which has no place in our public schools.
Read Mark’s reply above yours for why we fear the influence of fundamental Christians (thanks for that Mark).
NEWS Update from May 4 2007: The bones of one of Ken Ham’s dinosaurs has been dug up virtually intact in southern Argentina of all places (a long way from Mt Ararat). Problem is, they reckon it’s 150 MILLION years old. But Ken will tell us that carbon and radiometric dating are totally flawed to the point where every age it determines is in reality less than 6,000 years old. It has to be, or else his whole Museum concept is a sham. Oh wait!…. It is!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070504/sc_afp/argentinapaleontology
Why have we found no dinosaur bones that are less than 6,000 years old Ken?
Hi PD,
If I may respond to your posts…
Thanks for the reply to mine, and I am glad to see in the last sentence of your second paragraph….
*But it’s the Creationists that fail to acknowledge there are many points of view in the world. What about the Bhuddists? The Hindus? The Muslims that don’t believe in a young earth? Why do you reject those religions out of hand? Is it because they pose no real threat to you, but Evolution does?*
…that you finally admit Evolution is another religion!
Re: the other religions… I have no problem with equal billing for all religions. If Darwinism is allowed, then Hindus, Bhuddists, Christians, etc, etc. should ALL be represented - and conversely, since they are not, neither should the Darwinists be allowed to propagate their origin doctrines.
In my opinion, there IS a battle between Jesus and Darwin because his OOTS stands in direct opposition to the Biblical creation account - and vice versa. I think Darwin’s essay has made him (perhaps unintentionally) the Goliath; the Mohamed; the Moroni; dare I say: the Pope; of the NewAge religions. As you say - he was not a messiah with a message from God, but certainly he fits the bill of a prophet preaching in support of his goddess (mother nature). Darwinian origin is not PURE science - hypothesis (fancy word for much conjecture based on assumptions) is based on a preconceived notion of how things are (fancy way of saying *personal beliefs*).
One’s religious beliefs both affect and reflect how one perceives and values the things that one observes and comes in contact with - which is why you and I are both biased against each other’s viewpoint.
Next… *Militant Millenialists* is a better term for the *Religious extremists* mentioned in Mark’s comment. I support them not. Were they orthodox Christians, they would acknowledge that Christ Jesus’ kingdom is NOT of this world - and that nothing mankind can do will ever hasten or hinder God’s predetermined time-line.
Oh…. and thanks for that link to the post about the new dinosaur - it would have been nicer though if they had reported scientific facts instead of the same stale Darwinistic propaganda.
Dave, it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest my statement “admitted” that Evolution is a religion! I was asking why Christianity rejects other religions in preference to a battle against the concept of evolution which by the definition of “religion” has nothing to do with supernatural anything. You are hung up on “Darwin” as being some sort of “prophet”. Scientists acknowledge that Darwin started the investigations into evolution, but evolutionary scientists have gone far beyond what Darwin discovered. AND THERE’S the difference. Evolutionary science has evolved and developed and progressed. Christianity is stuck in a time warp and wishes not to question, investigate and evolve. Why else is it called “blind faith”?
We need to leave behind the Jesus vs Darwin concept because that’s one cooked up by Creationists to keep their own on-side. Creationists want their people to believe it’s a case of us vs them - case in point the Ken Ham video in this article. They don’t want their people to look at the abundant evidence that the world is at least milions of years old because if their followers started to ask questions from within then they know they would not be able to stop their whole complex, money-making structure from imploding. Hence the brainwashing.
One the subject of the Argentinian dinosaur, what “scientific facts” did they omit? Please elaborate.
PD-They spout the same old rhetoric…
*dinosaur some 150 million years old*
*carnivorous dinosaur of the Middle Jurassic period*
… unprovable age estimates (likely based on the same unreliable tests as always) biased by a presupposed timescale based on Darwin’s unprovable theory.
YET PUT FORTH AS FACTUAL DATA! That is NOT true science.
I’m just saying: Report honestly and admit that it is a guess based on a guess backed up by a guess!
Thanks Dave. Is it a conspiracy that very few scientists in world in every country would dispute that the Earth is at least millions of years old? So you are saying the vast majority of scientists do not undertake true science? Why do you scorn on Darwin’s “unprovable” theory when the Bible theory is just as, if not more unprovable? Man has the potential to prove the theory of evolution over time. Man can never prove that a supernatural being created the heavens and earth during Creation Week some 6,000 years ago - unless that said supernatural being shows itself.
No comment on the other part of my last post?
Sorry… I didn’t intend to seem that I was ignoring the other parts of that post…
p1-s1: I don’t think it was a stretch. You mentioned other religions and evolution in the same context - perhaps unintentionally (but truthfully) comparing it to other religions. I was commending your *subconscious honesty*.
s2: If other religions were propagated in schools and Christianity still barred, I would be equally opposed to them as well. We are most at odds because Evolution is the only religion that IS allowed in schools because it passes itself off as *science* and forceably displaces all other religions. …And I disagree - astronomical odds of random chance causing spontaneous formation of life IS as close to *supernatural* as any miracle recorded in Scripture.
s-3ff: I do not see how Christianity is stuck in a timewarp (though cosmic quantum stuff is of great interest to me). If the timewarp you refer to is the lack of further revelation or ongoing modification of the writings, it is because it is not necessary. We believe the writings were completed over 1500 years ago. The revelations of the future that were given still apply and correlate well with many happenings of history since then. Some have not yet been fulfilled, so our beliefs are still *evolving* in the sense that, as more of the prophecies come true over time, the unchangeable basis of faith is confirmed.
p2: If Darwin had been a Christian seeking to prove creation by science there likely would not be a problem, but since he was an atheist seeking to DISprove Scripture, he instigated the controversy.
No one has ever PROVEN that the abundance of evidence is in FACT millions of years old! That is the whole point! The testing methods are based on the supposition that your beliefs are correct, discounting the many possible variables that might result in such an outcome, and all the *evidence* is then labeled in accordance with your flawed dating system! That it NOT true science!
(sorry for shouting)
Many of us Christians do question things. God made me with a rational thinking mind and a thirst for knowledge - I question nearly everything and search for answers (from both sides of the issue) inasmuch as I have time and rescorces to do so.
Re brainwashing: what do you call it when you REQUIRE the teaching of only one unprovable viewpoint and disallow (dare I say *outlaw*) all other views as *supernatural and therefore impossible*?
(Um……the epitome of brainwashing!)
(I think I replied to all the parts this time.)
—
Then, to your last post:
I believe that man does not have the potential to ever prove evolution as an origin, because there will always be another *…and what caused that* or *…and where did that come from* to answer for.
What seems to me irrational and illogical is that anyone can believe (and state as a fact, no less) a theory based on a totally random chance occurrence against astronomical odds over an unfathomable amount of time -resulting in us…
…but yet firmly discount ANY chance of us resulting instead from the carefully laid plans of a super-intelligent engineer who exists beyond the scope of our conceptional limits of time and space?
On that note, I’ll check back with you later.
I have to go do some more research on quantum physics.
Thanks for your detailed and considered response Dave. I think that whilst ever you are not prepared to accept that we are talking about evolution over hundreds of millions or billions of years, then yes, a species changing in the scope of 6,000 years could be classified as a “miracle”.
You say “No one has ever PROVEN that the abundance of evidence is in FACT millions of years old!”. Please have a careful read of this and if you can dispute it WITHOUT resorting to a “super-intelligent engineer wanting to make everything look really old (for some unknown reason)”, then that’s great - but even the AiG people refuse to enter into this debate:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=1
Thank you for the reply and the link - it will be helpful to me - I’m cataloging all this information that I come accross.
Strange that I did not come across that site in any of the serches that I ran - but then, I didn’t look through all the 100,000’s of hits on every search either - remember I don’t acknowledge anything over 6,000!)
Just kidding!
I may be reading for a while, so don’t stay up waiting.
Glad to see you’re open-minded about this Dave (at least I think you might be). In the meantime, I don’t know how many other articles you might have read here - eg. “How Saddam Killed the Death Penalty” and “How Hubble Killed God” and “Which is Stronger, Manfluence or Godfluence?” All are interesting reads and have some great comment discussions.
I have enjoyed reading this discussion between Dave and Paralleldivergence. I don’t have a lot of time to sit around reading through web comments as a homeschooling mom of 6, but I did find this interesting enough to stick with it! Thanks to you both and others for all of the thought-provoking comments.
Just a couple of comments of my own. I am a Christian creationist and I am teaching my children to think critically about life and the many opinions offered out there. I have not been brainwashed. I came to believe in creationism after a life-changing personal experience and then careful examination of various viewpoints and scientific evidence. Up until that time I believe I had had a “brainwashing” in evolution. To Paralleldivergence and other creationist critics - I understand your reluctance to think there is anything scientifically rational in creationism because of your presuppositions. I have had many of my own. But I encourage you to try to open your mind to a “divergent” viewpoint that you seek to critically pull apart but may not have really examined objectively.
One other comment - I enjoy the exchange of ideas - but not the exchange of hostilities. If I am responded to in a hostile way from this post I will probably shy away from any further discussion as I have enough stress and challenge in my life and don’t have the emotional energy to deal with being treated as an imbecile because of the opinions I hold. However, from what I’ve read above, there is room here for mutual respect and I would enjoy this kind of exchange of ideas.
Hi joabema. Firstly thanks for your comments. Secondly, please feel free to have a read of the other articles at this site and particularly the comments. They are all related to critical thinking and cover a wide variety of topics - certainly not just religion. I try to interact with people who take the time to comment here. My aim is never to put people down - I see no reason for this. Of course, others comment here as well and sometimes there are side-discussions. As long as people stick to the subject, I have not problem with that. It’s all about sharing ideas and discussing issues. Your view is different to mine and there is nothing wrong with that. Where it can go wrong is when people “views” are forced on others.
I suggested religion is “brainwashing” children. Children are born without religion. If it wasn’t for missionaries, most islanders and Africans and South Americans would today not be following Jesus for they would never have even heard of him. If Jesus or God wanted individuals to know about Him and worship him, He would have made Himself “visible” to them. But He didn’t. Instead, Man chose to spread this word. Why is it Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah and Muhammad all came from the same general vicinity? Why do you reject the Norse God, Thor? Or the many Greek Gods? Why are Hinduism and Buddhism wrong? Very few children being born on the subcontinent are being raised in Christianity. Why are they wrong and you right?
You suggest you were brainwashed by schools to believe evolution was true. Should schools teach Science at all in school? Should we teach children that the Earth and the planets go around the Sun or that the Earth is the centre of the universe as many Christians believed until they were proven wrong?
They’re all very interesting questions. I’m happy to talk with you more. As a Home Schooler, you’ve taken on a great responsibility to your children that most people simply give away and you are to be admired for that. But if you are prepared to question then at least it shows you have an open mind and that’s important.
As for Dave, he’s been doing my Enigma Challenge (see top of site), so we’re buddies now.
I’m finally getting back after an electric storm knocked out my modem while I was away from home.
I appreciate your polite and friendly response. It is refreshing. There is so much hostility out there . . .
You say that religion brainwashes children. What do you mean by religion, exactly? If you consider religion a system of beliefs then I agree, brainwashing happens all of the time. Pervasive within our western culture is a brainwashing that feeds people all kinds of beliefs that fuel their natural tendencies to be unthinking, self-gratifying and self-centered.
But there are all kind of religions out there and systems of beliefs that people have adopted (and adapted). For those systems of belief that you seemed to be referring to and that many would tend to classify as “religion” - Christianity, buddhism, hinduism, etc., they obviously integrate some kind of belief in a higher power outside of oneself. This is what I’m assuming you find trouble with, that people tend towards this kind of “brainwashing”. First, I would ask why?? Why do people seem to need to believe in a power greater than themselves? I have met and talked with people from all over the world - and I would have to say that even in some of the most atheistic people I have met from China, there was still some kind of hunger in them and desire to believe that maybe their was a God. (But it seemed to me they were too scared to really face their own need because it might lead them down a road they did not want to journey.) I have the opinion that each and every person is created with a God-given need to believe. It is at the core of our very natures and I think is actually most evident in children who haven’t yet been brainwashed to not believe (which I think happens as they are taught to think they are descendants of primordial materials). But this need really goes way beyond belief, and particularly a system of belief (which only partially fills that need), to a need to know and be known by their creator. It is a need for relationship and acceptance at the deepest level of our being.
I have studied various religions. I see many Christians who are merely living out a system of beliefs. But I believe that true Christianity gives us not a religious system of beliefs but the opportunity to have this divine relationship and acceptance. I did not grow up in a home that taught this, nor did I blindly follow and accept what other Christians told me. I tested and I found it to be true for myself - that Jesus Christ offers all of the riches the world cannot - true peace, joy, contentment, love, etc., all through a dynamic, life-changing relationship.
I did not grow up in a love or acceptance-starved home. I am not an unintelligent person (I am no rocket scientist, but I have a master’s degree and continue my life-long pursuit of growth as a person, intellectual stimulation and additional knowledge in numerous areas of interest.) I am mentally healthy and not ultra-needy emotionally. But, I have come to the place that I am in my faith in Christ despite this! And it is the most wonderful place I can imagine being.
Anyways - onwward- I do not have a sufficient answer to the question that if we have an all-knowing, all-loving God, why would so many fall into false systems of belief? That question kept me from faith and has continued to perplex me. I would like to know why. I do believe, though, that the God I know is just and even when circumstances from our human perspective seem unjust or disturbing, I choose to trust that their will be a reckoning someday.
As far as people all over the earth not believing in Christ if missionaries had not taken word of Him to them - how do you know that for sure? There are actually stories from all over the world of people who were introduced to Christ in a dream and sought out people who could tell them who He was. I’m sure you would say that these stories may not be credible - but can you prove that they’re not? I personally know people in Turkey, Uzbekistan and China who have told me they know people to whom this has happened. Also, there is an amazing book, titled Eternity in Their Hearts, by a man named Don Richardson. In this book he documents various cultural beliefs and happenings in various geographical locations around the world through which people were prepared to understand the message of Christ and who He is. In Don’s first book, Peace Child, he himself tells about how as a missionary he went to a very primitive culture (I can’t quite remember where - maybe Irianjaya or somewhere like that.) Anyways, the people there had a rarely-practiced yet very seriously-taken cultural practice in which one village would give one of their babies to another village in order to stop the murderous revenge that was regularly interchanged. The Peace Child was a sacrifice, a sort of atonement for sin. Anyways, he had been praying for a way to introduce this cannabilistic, violent culture to the love of Christ and then he witnessed the offering of this “peace child”. Through this he was able to explain to the people in a way they could understand what Jesus did for them. It transformed these villages.
I am getting very long-winded but I just wanted to comment real quick on the teaching of science in school. Of course science should be taught - and honestly, I think even evolution should be taught. However, what is your definition of science? From what I understand, science (and I am married to a physician who repeats this all of the time when I talk to him about various alternative treatments for medical problems) is the repeated testing through observation and experiment of various hypothesis. When a hypothesis is tested and the same result is proven over and over, there is scientific law.
Logically, we can not test our hypothesis about the origin of the earth or any of it’s species. It is impossible to go back to the beginning of time repeatedly to try to test and prove how things came to be. Of course we can theorize about origins and collect various “proofs” of how we think that life began. However, it remains and will always remain theory.
Evolution is taught as if it were law. Not just in our schools, but all over in our culture. Believe me, when you start to try to be aware of how often you come across it, it is everywhere. I think evolution should be taught in schools - but as theory, for that is what it is. I recognize that in a public setting creation from a bibilical perpective, or even from an intelligent design perspective would be considered far to “religious” to ever even be considered to be taught at this point in time. However, there could certainly be a mentioning of the fact that there are other theories of origins and leave it at that. However, even this option seems to be very threatening to some. Even the slightest recognition that evolution is not completely proven fact seems to make many uncomfortable. Why do you suppose that is???
Well, that is all for now, and I’m sure you’re glad! I will plan to read up on some of your other posts as you suggested.
Thanks. -Joabema
Thanks for the considered and detailed reply joabema. I think we both acknowledge that the argument is based on “unprovable” points on either side. I find it easier to accept for myself a more logical and rational possibility for the origins of life over Billions of years.
I’m not suggesting your point of view is illiogical or irrational, but by restricting (or blinkering) your understanding to only a Young Earth concept, you automatically reject old Earth arguments.
Stephen F. Roberts once said:
“I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why YOU reject all OTHER gods,
You will understand why I reject YOURS as well.”
I look forward to more discussions with you on the other articles.
I believe the origin of life ought to be investigated. Biogenesis is scientifically proven and means that life comes from life. As a Christian, I certainly believe life came from our living God (life). This is consistent with both science and the Bible. After all, God is the author of all scientific truths.
Yet, many who reject God will uphold Abiogenesis even though it is not scientifically proven. This means that life comes from non-life. So, who really is holding to a ‘myth’? When will those who uphold abiogenesis admit it is not even based on a scientific truth? Yet, this is their common argument — that they rely on facts! Really?
I believe it takes much more faith to believe that everything came from nothing (abiogenesis) rather than that life came from the life-giver, God (biogenesis). I don’t have that much faith!
Just when it appeared that God may have delayed his response to evolutionists, enter THE QUEST FOR RIGHT, a masterful work on creationism.
The great gulf of ambiguity that once separated Intelligent Design from legitimate scientific discourse has been abolished. It is a fact: The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between forces advocating creationism and those promoting evolution.
The Lord has heard the cries of His people and responded with a scientific resource on creationism that will stop these onslaughts against Christianity. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena that will ultimately replace the Darwinian view.
For example, the investigation dismantles the hocus pocus responsible for the various absolute radioisometric dating techniques by which rocks and other materials are supposedly dated. Absolute-”perfect, complete, definite; without a prospect of being incorrect.” On these incalculable formulae— and they are incalculable—rest the science council’s claim that the earth is of great age, accreting some 4.6 billion years B.C. Upon publication of The Quest for Right, the council’s choice of the superlative absolute will be assessed to be a scurrilous invective, an “abusive, offensive, even vulgar, connotation.” After all, who would question an absolute? It is a matter of record that these dating systems are the tools by which evolutionists have attempted to rip apart the validity of historical documentations, specifically, that the account of creation as recorded in the Bible is mythology. The Quest for Right has changed all of that: the scientific record of creation has stood undaunted against these attacks and has proven to be an invaluable asset to the in-depth investigation.
The first three volumes of the seven volume set will be published early fall ‘07. The Quest for Right is all new from the get-go and is destined to make headlines that will reverberate within the halls of academia throughout the world. Coming soon to bookstores and online merchants such as Amazon.com, Barnes and Nobel.com, Walmart.com and questforright.com. Author, C. David Parsons, biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare.
Thanks Vaughn and Linda for your comments. The “Quest for Right” appears to be a fabulous companion resource for the “Creation Museum”. More of Man trying to squeeze the square peg into the round hole. Through the “truth” of the Bible, you determine that the Earth and all creation is 6,000 years old, so you then you make up explanations for all the evidence around us that shows our Earth and the Universe are vastly greater than 6,000 years old.
You may want to review the Scientific American’s “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” here: http://tinyurl.com/6w62
Intelligent Design is not science. Public schools are right to shun it.
The so called evidence you refer to needs to be interpreted. it just so happens that you choose to interpret the evidence as proof of millions of years whereas creationists, starting from a different axiom, interpret the evidence as proof of a (relatively) recent creation.
There is plenty of evidence around that completely contradicts the theory that the earth is billions of years old, but long agers dismiss any of that as ‘bad science’.
At the end of the day, operational science can’t confirm for us whether evolution is true (i mean the theory of evolution not natural selection which can be observed) or the creation account is true because we can’t observe either happening. therefore it is simply a matter of faith either way. do you put your trust in scientists, with their continually contradictory findings, or the bible which has remained the same for 2,000 years, yet to be proven incorrect.
Thanks michael!
Can you disprove any of this scientifically? So far nobody seems to have been able to…
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=1
The human mind needs to put things into categories. Dogs and cats are mammals, lizards are reptiles and motorbikes are two-wheeled vehicles powered by an engine. Religion is the category that many people use to explain things that they don’t or can’t understand. I’m the first to admit that there are many things in this universe that I don’t understand, but using an excuse like “it’s the will of God, Buddha or Allah” is weak. I find it easier to believe that the world we live in has evolved over many hundreds of millions of years, rather than the Earth & universe being created 6000 years ago by a “magician”. Also, I would much rather put my belief in the “continually contradictory findings” of science, because of the fact that people can prove or disprove various theories. The bible hasn’t changed in 2000 years, our world has.
paralleldivergence, The Quest for Right will PROVE all it says and disprove Darwin and quantum science. And as to there being dinosaurs on the ark, there were none. The dinosaurs died out before the Great Flood. If there had been dinosaurs on the ark, they would still be here today. So the Creation Museum is wrong on that one point. You will just have to wait and read the book (to be released in the fall of 2007…first three volumes with four more to come). God will ultimately have the last word in this debate since He was and is the Creator of the Universe and Savior of mankind.
Atheist: Data data, logical argument, data data, evidence, reason.
Creationist: There is no data, *plugs ears*, Bible Bible.
Liberal theist: Some science, Creationists are wrong, hope, belief.
Me: Sigh…
Although I must admit, “Babies can hear the Word in the womb and have enough mental power and verbal comprehension to believe before they are born” is certainly one I haven’t heard before! Thanks, that gave me a good chuckle. I’m waiting for the next bestseller to be “Fred the Faithful Fetus.”
Thanks Jeff. I think we’re in total agreement on this one.
Linda, I look forward to the “Quest for Right’s “PROOF”. I’m even happy to write a special article about it here. If you disagree with Ken Ham’s ancient city of “Bedrock”, then how do you feel about his “Museum” and the falsehoods it passes as “fact”? If it’s wrong on that point, why couldn’t it be wrong on others?
globalizati - they’re some excellent definitions you’ve come up with. Thanks for sharing them. The “babies in the womb” comment was definitely out of the strike zone, so was happy to let that one through to the catcher.
I cannot comment on the Creation Museum’s falsehoods or truths since I have not visited same. But it’s nice to know that someone out there is trying to bring some proof of creationism even though I do not think God needs anyone to vindicate Him. All men know in their hearts there IS a God and a Creator of what they see around them according to the following scripture:
(Rom 1:18 KJV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
(Rom 1:19 KJV) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
(Rom 1:20 KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Rom 1:21 KJV) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Rom 1:22 KJV) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Michael, you are absolutely right about the “unprovability” of either creation or evolution.
ParellelDivergence, I don’t think you have really responded to joabema’s very intelligent post
“I am getting very long-winded but I just wanted to comment real quick on the teaching of science in school. Of course science should be taught - and honestly, I think even evolution should be taught. However, what is your definition of science? From what I understand, science (and I am married to a physician who repeats this all of the time when I talk to him about various alternative treatments for medical problems) is the repeated testing through observation and experiment of various hypothesis. When a hypothesis is tested and the same result is proven over and over, there is scientific law.
Logically, we can not test our hypothesis about the origin of the earth or any of it’s species. It is impossible to go back to the beginning of time repeatedly to try to test and prove how things came to be. Of course we can theorize about origins and collect various “proofs” of how we think that life began. However, it remains and will always remain theory. ”
So to globalizati’s categorization of evolutionists being fact-based and creationists being faith-based, I have to disagree.
A fact is a fact. We establish through our senses that the Grand Canyon sits there. We then interpret the fact and see it as support our models or worldviews. An uniformitarian geologist will say, “look, the Colorado river has over millions of years cut through these many layers of sedimentary rock deposited over billions of years” and uses this as evidence for evolutionary time frames. A catastrophe geologist will say, “We know that large lakes created by melting glaciers from the ice age were dammed up and then burst created a tsunami of water nearly a kilometer tall, these drained toward the Pacific ocean and cut through the sedimentary rock in a relatively short amount of time. The sedimentary rock was also deposited by a previous large flood in which turbulent water carrying large amounts of sediment deposited it in layers as we see happening under controlled experiments today. The fact that the division between layers is so smooth and the surfaces of layers that were supposedly 10,000 years apart accord uniformitarian dating method, show no sign of any weathering or erosion, indicate they were laid down in quick succession.”
So now we have the same fact interpreted in two different ways using completely scientific approaches. Same facts, same science. Different conclusions. We did not use the Bible in the second scientific analysis. The conclusions just happen to be consistent with the Bible. Therefore that scientific analysis is no less valid.
It is dishonest to say that scientific analysis that supports creation is unscientific just because it ends up supporting a model that is consistent with what the Bible would predicts. To be dismissive of this science is to betray your own naturalistic presuppositions. To be reasonable is to objectively assess the viability of your opponents position. You can say “I disagree” but that is your decision to hold on to your faith in another model. But you have to acknowledge that there are thinking Christians, whose faith is not blind, who are objective scientists and have concluded that the Bible is a realiably true.
It is impossible to go back to the beginning of time repeatedly to try to test and prove how things came to be. Of course we can theorize about origins and collect various “proofs” of how we think that life began. However, it remains and will always remain theory.
Your definition of science and how the scientific method works is excessively narrow. There are many fields (astronomy is an excellent example) where the things being studied are too large or too distant for direct experimentation. That by no means means that one cannot determine which theory is the best. To do this, scientists develop theories, and then try to gather evidence that would either prove or disprove their theory, and then propose more refined versions of their theories that jive with the observed facts. There are two problems with the various forms of creationism you ascribe to; 1) the evidence does not support them, and 2) they aren’t science. Allow me to explain.
So-called flood geology is rejected by all respectable geologists, and the fact that you find it convincing makes me think we’ll have a difficult time having an objective dialogue about the well-proven fact and theory of biological evolution. Talk Origins has a nice FAQ on Flood Geology here.
You’re right. That would be dishonest. What is honest is saying that the evidence does not support a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that those who say it do are considered to be crackpots by that majority of scientists who have considered the evidence without the bias of having to prove one’s religion correct.
But the main reason Creationism–whether it’s in opposition to evolutionary biology or reputable geology–shouldn’t be respected or given equal time to true science is that they don’t propose a naturalistic explanation that is testable. That is the definition of science. You said:
Certainly. Science is a methodology whereby one assumes methodological naturalism to better understand the natural world. If you want to belief whatever you want without good evidence, then fine, but don’t call it science, because it isn’t naturalistic. That would be bad science, and very bad theology as well.
I would acknowledge that there are many more thinking Christians who look at the evidence and conclude that the earth is very old and that evolution is a well-proven fact in addition to be a hugely successful theory. Based on the evidence I’ve read, I would question the objectivity of those who conclude otherwise.
I forgot to make that first paragraph a blockquote. Oops.
Welcome edmundreinhardt. I’m very happy to agree with globalizati’s excellent response to your comments. Basically, there are very few scientists that regard your “science” as anything more than trying to make sense or reality of the stories written in the Bible. Scientific practice does not start with the conclusion and work it’s way back to the process.
I have some questions about the things I see in the natural world that I would like to have explained. I also have a commentary on the Evolution/Cration Debate.
1- Natural Selection always results in a loss of genetic information.
Mutations, although may benefit a creature, are always a loss of genetic information. These two natural accurances or the base line for the theory of evolution. Why haven’t scientist, as much as they have tried, been able to find one example of genenic iformation being increase within an species? If Evolution is correct where did the new genetic info come from that turned a single cell creature into a human? Or a two celled creator for that matter?
2- If man and dinosuars never existed together, can some please explain why cave drawing of dinosaur have been found all over the world?
3- Why does almost every people group have a global flood story?
4- Why does the Chinese language, which was written 1000 years before the first book of the Bible, have the story of the flood and the need for a redeemer woven into the character of the language?
5- Scienist tell us it takes millions of years for diamonds to form in nature, however,we know for a fact, diamonds can be created in a lab in months. The same for opels and many other gems. Why do we do we assume it takes millions of years?
6-We can observe the formation of fossil in as little as 6 months, but we assume it takes millions of years for most fossils to from, why is that?
The crux of the debate is this:
If there is a Creator, than we are His creation, and He has authority of His creation. That is an idea an evolutionist can not allow ! Read the following quote from a leading evolutionist.
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997
Sounds like his religion is materialism.
The Bible is very clear, there was no death before Adam sinned. Without Adams sin, there is no need for a Savior!
1 Cor. 15:21–22 states:
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Read this quote from a leading athiest of his day.
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30
I will continue to tell people that the account in Genesis is to be taken literally, because I have found the hope that is Jesus Christ, and I want everyone to have the hope I have. I can not sit by and let the belief on millions of years keep some from know the Hope that is found only in Christ.
I have some questions about the things I see in the natural world that I would like to have explained. I also have a commentary on the Evolution/Cration Debate.
Funny, it sounds more like you’re making unequivocal statements than asking questions. I don’t have the time to respond to all of your points, but I’ll go ahead and point out how the very first one is false, and use that as an example to say that you don’t seem to be very interested in the scientific evidence for anything that you disagree with. If you did, you would take the time to do a very quick search on these subjects, and you’d realize your errors and possibly formulate more educated, more complex arguments.
On the first one–this is undeniably false. Have you looked at the evidence? There are links to a whole bunch of published sources here.
To anyone passing by reading this: the fact that ‘walkingbyfaith’’s first point so egregiously overlooks widely-known data should be a good indication that the other points are of similar nature. Do a little independent reading and you’ll see what I mean. It seems walkingbyfaith is doing just that, instead of demanding evidence.
Thanks again globalizati. I’ll take on walkingbyfatih’s (his typo, not mine) second point.
“If man and dinosuars never existed together, can some please explain why cave drawing of dinosaur have been found all over the world?”
It’s easy to make a throwaway statement without any evidence to back it up whatsoever. “All over the world”? Where? Why are they not mentioned in any real museums? I Googled for cave drawings of dinosaurs, and sure, they are mentioned - ONLY on creationist websites. Several of these creationist websites referred to cave drawings made by Australian Aborigines. Isn’t it ironic that the Aborigines themselves say they have been in Australia for the past 40,000 years? - and there is skeletal and fossil evidence to back that up. Enough said.
If your only evidence is the Bible, then there is no science in anythiing you say. It’s all walking by faith.
All the answers are here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NBZQfAYfH7s
Thanks for this Jeff. I don’t suppose Family Guy is a favorite in the Bible Belt.
Thank globalizati, for you civil and reasoned response.
I agree that we can compare theories by determining which one fits the facts better. Your final point about developing theories and seeing whether the observed evidence supports them or not, is a reiteration of the definition that I gave. I disagree that my definition is too narrow. Although stars are distant and large, we observe light coming from them over periods of time and can infer position orbit, from the red shift we infer movement perpendicular to our position, etc. All of these involve are repeatable experiments. I think what you really want to say is that my definition does not contain a precommitment to naturalism.
Both you and paralleldivergence object to creationism because it assumes that the Bible is true and is therefore biased.
From globalizati
From paralleldivergence
It is true that we need to follow the facts. Taking the Bible as my working hypothesis, I can see that the facts in the world around me support this hypothesis and that it has excellent verifiable predictive power in many dimensions, not only the physical. I would not believe the Bible, if it did not seem to be best explanation for the observations I see.
However I see that you are both holding a double standard here.
You have defined science to include a precommitment to naturalism. Therefore you have your own worldview embedded in your definition. While you discount out-of-hand the science of those who believe in a different worldview.
Your precommitment to naturalism is very blatant here. I agree that we understand God’s world by discovering the natural laws of how he has designed things. I am very gratetful that things are predictable rather than random and allow such discovery. It was this belief that inspired the great God-believing scientists such Newton, Pascal, etc. We are not going to reject Calculus or F=ma just because Newton happened to believe in God. Just because we look for naturalistic explanations first, does not preclude possibility of the supernatural. If we are truly objective, would we not be willing to consider all possibilities?
To summarize:
A fact is interpreted as evidence with respect to a hypothesis.
Science is the process of validating or disproving theories using repeatable experiment.
Creationist start with the same set of fact and use the same set of natural laws, and experiments to come up with a falsifiable model. It so happens that these models are consistent with what belief in the Bible would predict.
This is not blind faith. It is valid science.
Secondly to say we that using naturalistic methodology you cannot observe the supernatural is to say that using my eyes I cannot smell a flower. You are preventing the conclusion by being selective in what you allow to be measured.
In terms of methodology, edmundreinhardt, much of what you say has merit - however, you still must resort to the supernatural in order to complete your “science” - which throws the science out the window. My argument is you cannot scientifically argue what cannot be tested. I’m not sure why you bother to question anything at all when your bottom line is, “The Creator” trumps everything.
Scientists cannot disprove your claims and you cannot prove them unless your Creator conclusively shows Himself to non-believers. Why doesn’t He? Would solve a whole lot of arguments.
To apply your testability criteria to evolution you have the same problems. You cannot test abiogenesis (creation of life from non-life) nor can you test the big bang. These are accepted on faith.
And to reiterate my starting statements, even if you could have God create a human being in front of you, or create life in a test tube that would not “prove” this is what happened in the past.
Of course if either of those things happen, that would be tremendous evidence that creation or evolution had occurred, but the individual would still have to choose whether to “believe” based on the evidence, that either process was actually the orgin of our existence.
Why cannot the naturalist surrender and admit that he/she is working out of a particular worldview and is interpreting the data according to that world view. There are alternate explanations that make a lot of sense, but each individual is making a choice what they believe.
What creation science does, is show that the natural world, using regular science with all of its rigor does support a model that is consistent with the Bible. The choice to believe the Bible is an independent one. But the science stands or falls on its own and is subject to all of the testability and falsifiability as evolutionary science.
But edmund, as a creationist, you are still restricting your view of the universe to less than 10,000 years when there is so much evidence that the universe is at least MILLIONS of years old and actually BILLIONS of years old. Can you dispute any of the science of this:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=1
…without referring to the supernatural trump card?
And how about answering some of these questions about the many discrepancies in the Bible? http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dennis_d_070614_questions_your_pasto.htm
Hi parallel
I have seen that discussion on long ages as well.
Personally I am not dogmatic about 10,000 years, but I am seeing lots of evidence that points in that direction.
Age of trees - consistent with young earth
Radio-isotope dating - see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp
Coral see - http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe
Note that this is also supporting the fact that the moon is receeding at a rate too fast for an old earth
Which brings up the issue that there are a number of other geo-chronometers that support a younger earth.
Not enough Helium gas - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/old_earth.asp
Naturalists choose an “index fossil,” one that is in a certain layer and date it by when they think it evolved - not by Carbon-14 dating, nor potassium-argon, nor by uranium-lead dating. They date the fossil by when they think it evolved. Then they date the rock by the fossil, and then they prove evolution by the date on the rock. This is circular reasoning.
Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth’s population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah’s Ark. Based on evolution’s claim for the origin of man, the same ½ percent growth calculation for the human race results in a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics.
Rivers pour tons of material every year into the Earth’s oceans. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element’s influx as well as the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the Earth even coming close to billion of years.
Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several “strata” of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them. At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.
When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date many different things including oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by this method revealed them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating oil and coal using this method.
Laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. Modern laboratories can duplicate the formation of coal formation in a matter of days - or even hours. Furthermore, massive seams of coal in the Earth remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken.
The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Oil is simply not as old as evolutionists’ claim.
It is well known that the interior of the Earth is very hot. For each mile you descend, the temperature increases by 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth is a thousand miles in diameter; the core is so hot that the rocks are molten. Yet as Earth passes through the extreme cold of outer space, it’s losing its heat. Even with the heat it receives from the sun, Earth’s net heat loss is 1027 calories per second. This means that if it started at 190 degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, Earth would have been frozen stone cold to the center in the first 40 million years. If it were four billion years old, it should have been a huge sphere of ice over 100 times by now.
Earth’s spin is slowing down at a rate of one third of a second every year. Extrapolating this back billions of years, we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the Earth.
Earth’s magnetic field has been measured since 1835. It is growing weaker and the rate at which it is growing weaker has been calculated. If we extrapolate backwards, even to 20,000 BC, the magnetic field would have been so strong Earth would have been like a star and nothing could have lived here. Extrapolating further back, it would have been so strong it would have crushed the surface of the Earth in on itself.
Evolutionists say that the magnetic field of the Earth has shifted from positive to negative at times - that’s how it keeps going. But observations of the sun’s magnetic field’s changing from positive to negative show it loses more energy each time instead of gaining energy. Applying the same criteria to the magnetic field of the Earth, we see is that it drops the age of our planet to about six to eight thousand years.
Like a giant vacuum cleaner, the sun sweeps up almost 100,000 tons of inflow per day. The sun’s radiation pressure also pushes small, dust particles outward into space. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. If the solar system is really billions of years old, then the solar system should have been swept clean by now. Unfortunately for evolutionists, tons of space dust remain in our solar system.
When spiral galaxies make one full turn they leave behind distinctive pairs of arms because the interior stars move around faster than the outer stars. These galaxies are supposed to make one full turn every hundred million years meaning they should have a pair of arms for every 100 million years. If the Earth is five billion years old, galaxies should have so many arms they couldn’t be counted. But astronomers haven’t been able to find a galaxy with more than three pairs of arms, meaning they haven’t been able to find one that’s even half a billion years old.
A star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving, as one author put it, “like a swarm of bees,” held together by gravity. But in some clusters, the stars are moving so fast that they could not have held together for millions or billions of years. Star clusters tell us that the age of the universe should be measured in thousands of years.
When big stars run out of fuel, they explode. Some of these “super nova remnants” are visible from the Earth. According to astronomical theory, in galaxies of our size, approximately 7,250 super nova remnants should be visible. Using the creationist age of the galaxy, we should expect to find between 125 and 200 super nova remnants. The actual number of super nova remnants visible from the Earth is 205, which is very close to the creationist numbers.
As you can see, at no point was the supernatural referenced.
As to the Bible discrepancies
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/20
Sorry ran out of time for more response, but more could be given.
Hi edmundreinhardt. I’m sorry for taking so long in getting back. You spent a lot of time putting together your reply and that deserves a response. The reality is that you have come to a conclusion that Genesis is fact, the universe is very young and you THEREFORE need to make everything else FIT within that timeframe, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. It’s closing your eyes and accepting a supernatural answer to everything regardless of the fact that there has been no evidence of any supernatural event by any all-powerful being since primitive times.
You have accepted that the word of The Bible is true and correct, but how can you ignore the evil it professes? How can you pick and choose? If Jesus said the power of prayer can achieve anything:
“Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours.” (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)
…then WHY has this never happened? Why does prayer patently not work?
You need to read the whole Bible, not just the bits you want to believe in - http://www.evilbible.com
edmundreinhardt,
I don’t really consider answersingenesis.org, creationwiki.org, or apologeticspress.org to be a good unbiased source of information when debating the subject of creationism.
Show me some unbiased experimentally verified science websites, and I will be prepared to listen. That is, if you can find any.
Reading many of the comments here I am amazed. I see a very critical view of creation and a young universe and lots of talk of scientific evidence for a very old universe and evolution. This seems very biases and ‘closed eyes’ by those opposing a young earth as there is lots of evidence in favor of that theory. Even the initial entry about the definition of a museum leads me to question the use of evolution as a theory as it violates the definition of theory in that evolution has no evidence, no transitional fossils, many problems with dating techniques, and much more. If a critical, non-factual, non-logical view is used for one view it must fairly be applied to all. Also personal attacks calling well educated people blind again avoids the real issues if is usually used by people who cannot argue logically, rationally, and must resort to emotion. Any real progress can only be made by looking at evidence, the source of the evidence, the assumptions build into the conclusions based on the evidence, and see where that leads.
Three excellent books in this line are by Lee Strobel, a former lawyer, who looks at Faith, at Jesus, at Creation, and wrote a book on each, looking at the evidences from many points of view, to draw the conclusions he does,
Thanks Ed. I’m actually pretty pleased that with an emotive subject like this that there has been no real mud slinging from either side and the debate has been fairly rational. One thing I will note is that both sides have been strongly defending their own points of view, rather than actually trying to directly dispute specifics. You say there is “lots of evidence” in favor of a young earth theory, but I say there is far more that suggests a very old earth and universe. However, you offer no direct evidence to support your stance. You have this “museum” that bases everything on faith and an almost 2000 year old book (Genesis), but you conveniently close your eyes to the evidence of age listed here (as raised earlier):
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=1
Can you dispute these age measures to squeeze them into your 6000 year timescale? Is there no moral problem with incest driving the initial population of the Earth and again incest playing a major part of the repopulation after the “Flood” under your preferred theory? And in 4500 years after Noah’s flood “somehow” we’ve managed to produce Chinese and Japanse and Eskimos and Blacks and Indians and Scandinavians and Aborigines and Arabs and Polynesians and… the list goes on. You have no problems in your mind with this?
Already done. That other crazzy Kent Hovind is waaaaay ahead. But then again he went to Jail for tax fraud. Ahhh the system works.
Paralleldivergence, there appears to be much evidence for long ages. It also appears to be much evidence for short ages, as Edmund Reinhardt said in a previous append. Like tree rings some have claimed that ice layers in Greenland also determine age. But recently a hole was bored a few hundred feet down to some buried fighter jets, in the ice. There were thousands of years worth of layers yet we know these planes went down less than 70 years ago. Obviously the theory of of one ice layer per year was wrong. I’m not saying this is true of tree rings, but it does show some things we believe as scientific fact are really theories.
It is also interesting that the oldest living things on earth, trees, are less than 4500 years, but very close. In the Inyo mountains of California is the bristlecone pine forest. Trees about 4000 years old, calculated by tree rings. A possible reason there is nothing old is due to the flood killing everything. Regarding the different races, the Bible has an answer. Whether you believe it or not, it is a possible theory that explains the evidence. The fact that no one has ever recorded a transitional species in humankind or animal lends credence to the Bible explanation. It can be found in Genesis 11 verses 1-11.
Regarding the museum, I’ve not been there yet, I hope to go later this year. From the little I have read about it I think the exhibits are based on the same science and any other museums.
James, I have met Kent Hovind a few years back while vacationing in Florida. I found he was very articulate, quite vast knowledge base, excellent examples of young earth. I personally do not agree with his stand against taxes, but he did explain to me why he is taking this stand, and I give him credit for standing by his convictions. This does not make his crazy. My previous append mentions tactics like name calling and how it totally discredits the person doing the name calling.
mistake, sentence:
From the little I have read about it I think the exhibits are based on the same science and any other museums.
should be
From the little I have read about it I think the exhibits are based on the same science AS any other museum.
Hi Ed,
The trees take us to one age level, but that site I posted refers to so much more evidence than that. I looked and I found reference to a WWII plane being buried under a glacier in Greenland. Can’t really classify a glacier as layers of sheet ice.
I don’t know if you had a read of this at my site, http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/11/11/how-hubble-killed-god - but the whole “creation of light in transit” is such a weak ridiculous and nonsense argument that creationists hold up. What possible reason would “god” have to create galaxies that are over 10 billion light years away, visible to our Earth if the universe was only 6000 years old?
I also looked up Genesis 11 - it ONLY refers to different languages - nothing to do with different races. If you can explain through Genesis the incredible variety of races of humans in just 4500 years then maybe there would be some real Answers in Genesis - not just vague blabberings by primitive men from a primitive time. When the Bible was written, the authors had no comprehension of Chinese, American Indians, Polynesians, Scandinavians and Aborigines. It’s little wonder they aren’t mentioned. Surely God knew about them though. The Australian Aborigines have lived there for over 40,000 years. Well before Adam and Eve. Speaking of Australia, the Great Flood that destroyed EVERYTHING except the people and animals on the Ark SOMEHOW managed to drop animals totally unique to that island continent - kangaroos, koalas, echidnas, playpus, wallabies - the list goes on. Noah never went anywhere near Australia. Explain that in Genesis. It’s totally contradictory. Nevermind the Polar bears and bison. The reality is, Genesis does not mention kangaroos. Genesis 7:2-3 specifies seven pairs of each kind of clean animal and one pair of each kind of unclean animal. Deuteronomy 14:4-18 lists the species of clean animals and the species of unclean animals. Kangaroos, polar bears and bison were not listed and therefore were not in the ark. Likewise with giraffes, elephants, lions, etc. Genesis 7:2-3 is consistent with a local flood - not a global one. No global flood means dinosaur fossils in the United States, and the Grand Canyon being caused by the global flood is pure bunk.
Ken Ham even wrote an article trying to explain it, and that article goes nowhere. The Title of the article sets it up, for the answer we are all waiting for, but instead, his answer is “just believe because the Bible is the truth”. Read it for yourself - http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html
Just like the church was proved wrong about astronomy, over time it will be proven wrong generally and exposed for the mass human-control organization it is.
But I’m always open to any real evidence you might be able to bring to the table, Ed. Green Lantern said it right above.
I found this site by pure accident; or was I meant to find it? I followed a couple of links from a financial bulletin board and, “Hey Presto!”
I apologise for my use of the English language but we invented it!
My mother was a lapsed Roman Catholic of Irish descent, and my father an Anglcian whose family came from the Inner Hebrides; but I didn’t have religion forced down my throat. We were given religious instreuction at school based on the Christian Bible but by the age of 15 I had serious doubts about what we were being taught. The bible is a great history book based on the tribes of Isreal and those we now call ‘Jews’ although Jerusalem was not important, being only a settlement in the early days. MY doubts came from my ability to reason what I understood from what we were being taught, and information that I got from other sources.
Now there are several things that I don’t understand. No that’s wrong, there are thousands of things are don’t understand but I would like a few answers please:
If all animals (including T-Rex) were vegetarian, is the reason that Polar Bears now eat Seals because they ate all the vegatation that apparently grew on the Arctic ice pack before the flood?
If it is the case that the animals we now know as carnivors are really naturally vegetarian why do all the A class predators, on every continent, chase, kill and eat other animals. Why does ‘God’ allow his creations to eat each other when there is plenty of vegetation available? Of is this a continuation of the thread of death, in many many forms much of which was done either at ‘His’ command or in ‘His’ name?
Why do Hippopotamuses, which are vegetarian, kill more people than any other species in Africa, and eat them as well?
Why have fossils of Ammonites and other long dead sea creatues been found at a height of 4000 metres in the Himalayas? They are not exactly close to the high water mark - not even for the flood? Are we expected to believe that they are there simply for decoation or that the Himalayas have come into existence in just 6000 years? That is an annual rise of 4.8 feet a year.
When ‘God’ made this perfect planet of ours do you think he understood the side effects of the process we call Plate Techtonics? Because if he did then he is a mass murderer! The by-products are of course, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and, where an earthquake occurs under water, the chance of a tsunami.
Over 250,000 died in the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, countless thousands in the eruptions of Mt St. Helens, Mt Pinatubo, Krakatoa and all the others not to mention the earthquakes that occur on the fault lines like the one that destoryed San Francisco in 1908.
I would like someone to explain the intelligence of this design!
Welcome Friendlypig! I hope you find some interesting subject matter at the site. There are so many more questions raised than “Answers in Genesis” provides. Even their “answers” raise questions. But their mantra is don’t let them ask questions! Take a look at this quote: “If we allow our children to doubt the days of creation, when the language speaks so plainly, they are likely to then doubt Christ’s Virgin Birth, and that He really rose from the dead.” - this quote is taken directly frm the Answers In Genesis website. What kind of answer is that?? [Ref: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp ]
Paralleldivergence,
Thanks for your prompt response. I can only hope that someone can explain how my points fit into their version of reality.
It seems to me that however well meaning the advocates of this, how shall I put it, ‘Theory’ is, semantics are once again getting in the way. They talk about ‘Not allowing their children to believe in an alternative to their views’. This is neither persuasion nor faith, but mind control. We were all born with a brain; I know that I’ve got one because it rattles when I shake my head, especially in disbelief at some of things that I have read in ‘answers in genesis’. If we have a brain then we have the power to think, and to deduce, in the same way that Ken Ham did when he developed this crack-pot version of reality. What he is wanting to do is to control everyone else’s thoughts, especially the most vulnerable.
That is the definition of ‘Cult’ not of ‘Faith’.
But the news gets better, but I’m not sure for whom. We now know, thanks to the archaeologists and the theologians, that monotheism only developed in the Levant 2500 years ago, and even then it was not widely accepted. The ‘logical’ and therefore only conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is that the ‘Book of Genesis’ could not have been written prior to 2000BC.
What we now have to do is to translate this into a date using Ken Ham’s own mathematical formulae i.e. that one day equates to a thousand years. Seeing that Ken Ham has not argued against the fact that a sidereal year is 365 days then we can assume that there are 2500 X 365 days since the development of monotheism in the Judeo Christianity Timeline. That gives us a total of 912500 days, or in their version ‘years’. Each day equates to a Thousand years, so by multiplying by 1000 we get an answer of 912,500,000 years since the concept of a single god was developed.
After all that work I need to go and lie down!
Thanks for the excellent post, Friendlypig. I think we’ll all be wating for a long time for rational responses to your important questions. I wrote about this more here if you’re interested: http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/11/04/which-is-stronger-manfluence-or-godfluence/
My apologies; the date before which Genesis could not have been written is of course 500BC, and not 2500BC as i previously wrote.
Paralleldivergence,
Sorry for the delay responding to your response on Aug 28th. End of summer and a busy time.
Going through you append, I did not read you ‘how Hubble killed God article’ but I still agree with you that God did not create light in transit. I see no purpose to that as I agree that it would be deceptive and I do not think God tries to deceive people. In fact Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him [God] since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse, …” So God says he has shown us stuff about creation and it is ‘clearly seen’, thus he would not deceive us. Thus the appearance of ‘old’ light must have another answer, and there are some which are more plausible. But I will not get into that here except to say if you are interested in other theories look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem#Starlight_and_Time:_.22White_Hole.22_Cosmology (I am not saying I agree with this, just that it is an alternative theory which is more plausible).
Your answer about people groups, relating to my comments on Genesis 11 is valid. I did not explain very well. It is possible God changes people physical characteristics along with their language but the Bible does not say this, so it is pure speculation. What is more likely is that God changed their language, as the Bible says, people spread out over the earth, and over many generations (but not millions of years) people changed. Those who remained along the equator area developed dark skins due to fair skinned people dying off quicker due to cancer, etc so the genes triggering darker skin helped those people survive better. Likewise adaptation to climate change heading north and south around the world had similar effects. This is not macro-evolution, a change in species but adaptation within a species, similar to the famous finch beaks study in the Galapagos islands. Another possibility is simply people killing each other. We see this today, so it was probably no different in the past. When someone who was a little different came into an area they would be outcasts, maybe killed. Even in cities like Toronto, the ‘most multicultural city in the world’ there are many ethnic communities to which people gather. Greek, Jewish, Chinese, Italian, etc.
Regarding Australia, and people being there 40,000 years+, you are assuming a long age of the earth, which I do not believe. As I believe everyone descended from Adam/Eve about 6000 years ago then 40,000+ years is not possible. The earth is about 25,000 miles in diameter. Walking 10 miles per day one can walk 3650 miles per year, so in about 7 years people could walk around the entire earth. So after Genesis 11 it would not take long for a group to migrate to Australia. Animal migrations would have begun immediately after the flood. If God called the animals to come to Noah, he did not go get them, then he certainly could have told them to disperse after the flood.
Regarding people, assuming continental drift did not kick into high speed until after the flood Australia would have been much closer to Asia and thus easily reachable. Aside from that there is the famous contiki expedition which demonstrated long distance travel by sea, long ago.
Genesis is certainly not contradictory. The Bible may be considered incomplete, but not contradictory. Of course anything written is incomplete, as is this append, as there is always more that could be said. But was God has said is enough, based on the quote above so that things ‘are clearly seen’.
Regarding a local flood, to your use own words, ‘this is pure bunk’. Genesis 7 talks about the highest mountains being covered by at least 15 cubits (22.5 feet minimum). If is was local than this water would flow out through the valleys to the seas and never get to this height. Other evidence like sea fossils on mountain tops around the world show it was global. It local, and these mountains very old then the fossils would have all been eroded away.
Likewise for the grand canyon. It is huge! I was there last summer. It was amazing; the highlight of our trip. And yes, it could have been created quickly. Mount St. Helen is a very small example. When you combine that with ~30,000’ of water and an ice age shortly after the flood, it is certainly possible.
As for th