Creation Museum: Affirms A Biblical View of Mankind’s Beginnings
A Creation Museum has just opened in Petersburg, Ky. Science, the museum asserts, affirms a literal reading of Genesis. Although many secular scientists scoff at such a notion, the museum's beliefs are more mainstream than evolutionists probably wish was the case. A March Newsweek poll found that 48 percent of American adults believe God made humans "pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
"What I say to evolutionists is, 'Come on, be honest,’" Ham said. "Their starting point is that there is no God. They've redesigned science. … Everybody has a starting point, and everyone needs to admit their starting point, and their starting points determine how they interpret the evidence."
The museum doesn't ignore tough questions that critics of creationism have long been asking: Where did Cain get his wife? How did dinosaurs fit on the ark? If dinosaurs did survive the flood, then why aren't they still around today?
The project also was blessed with the services of Patrick Marsh, who was the scenic designer for the Jaws and King Kong rides at Universal Studios in Orlando, Fla. A creationist himself, Marsh joined Answers in Genesis in 2001 and designed the museum, which features recreations of the Garden of Eden and a section of Noah's Ark. Ham calls it a "walk through" biblical history.
Critics already are calling the museum anti-science -- an objection Ham dismisses. He is quick to note that five Ph.D. scientists are on staff.
"The point we make to people is [that] the origins issue is different from empirical science that built Space Shuttles or put man on the moon," he said. "The origins issue is an issue regarding history -- and you don't have the history; you only have the present. We want people to distinguish those two things. If I wanted to illustrate gravity, I stand here, I hold a pen, and you watch it drop. You can't deny that that happens. But if said to you, 'Show me that hundreds of millions of years ago life arose from non-life,' you can't show me that. All you can do is look at the evidence in the present and try to interpret it in relation to the past."
"What I say to evolutionists is, 'Come on, be honest,’" Ham said. "Their starting point is that there is no God. They've redesigned science. … Everybody has a starting point, and everyone needs to admit their starting point, and their starting points determine how they interpret the evidence."
The museum doesn't ignore tough questions that critics of creationism have long been asking: Where did Cain get his wife? How did dinosaurs fit on the ark? If dinosaurs did survive the flood, then why aren't they still around today?
The project also was blessed with the services of Patrick Marsh, who was the scenic designer for the Jaws and King Kong rides at Universal Studios in Orlando, Fla. A creationist himself, Marsh joined Answers in Genesis in 2001 and designed the museum, which features recreations of the Garden of Eden and a section of Noah's Ark. Ham calls it a "walk through" biblical history.
Critics already are calling the museum anti-science -- an objection Ham dismisses. He is quick to note that five Ph.D. scientists are on staff.
"The point we make to people is [that] the origins issue is different from empirical science that built Space Shuttles or put man on the moon," he said. "The origins issue is an issue regarding history -- and you don't have the history; you only have the present. We want people to distinguish those two things. If I wanted to illustrate gravity, I stand here, I hold a pen, and you watch it drop. You can't deny that that happens. But if said to you, 'Show me that hundreds of millions of years ago life arose from non-life,' you can't show me that. All you can do is look at the evidence in the present and try to interpret it in relation to the past."
15 comments:
Pictures
Ha ha ha ha ha.
I think I will write an article on this mega bullshit.
Creationist museums you say? How about creating a Hindu Creationist museum to give another "alternative" view on intelligent science?
Scientology too, will be great? What sayeth you, oh Mr Splinter?
Actually I would have no problem with a Hindu or Scientology museum. I find it no different than that which some people call art, but I think is merely a joke.
Simply go or don't go.
Am I to believe that 100% scientists agree 100% with everything that may be found/written in science museums and the like?
"The point we make to people is [that] the origins issue is different from empirical science that built Space Shuttles or put man on the moon...."
Science is about empirical evidence...Mr Ham-burger has unwittingly admitted that Creation science is not science........
Goes to show that Creationism is bullshit.
Scientists don't have to agree with everything there is in scientific theories, such as the theory of gravity, but they do not deny wholesale that gravity does not exist.
"Actually I would have no problem with a Hindu or Scientology museum. I find it no different than that which some people call art, but I think is merely a joke."
Creationism shares a place amongst the above-mentioned "jokes".
For creationism to claim to be "science" and then reject empirical evidence - a major staple of science, is almost as farcical as saying that pigs are actually birds that fly without wings.
Check this out: A frog without lungs.
No missing link you say? Watch this:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2457,Lungless-frog-discovered-in-Borneo,Reuters
Are you promoting de-evolution now Beast?
'The aquatic frog has evolved backwards, re-acquiring a primordial trait'
Do you think humans will also 'evolve backwards' sometime soon?
Interestingly they write 'The aquatic frog has evolved backwards' - 'Studying the frog could help shed light on how lungs evolved in the first place' - AND 'This is an endangered frog that we know practically nothing about.'
If you know 'practically nothing' about this frog, then there is no way to claim it has 'evolved backwards' or that it will prove evolution.
Good try though...
Tim
Herein lies your ignorance towards
Science, Tim.
The truth is, this frog represents a "missing link", that is, a frog that proves once again that there are animals that fit into the amphibian-fish transition.
There is no such thing as "de evolution"; fishes which live in dark caves, for example, evolve without sight. Its not a case of devolution, rather a case of evolution discarding sight because sight is not a survival trait in the first place.
Like I said before, Science is about finding proof. Since this frog is a new and exciting discovery, its only right for scientists to find out more. Its an exciting find, though.
Nice try for discrediting science. When are you going to move to the mountains, oh ye science hater? I am waiting.
Beast FCD
Once again, evolution is proven to be valid.
Beast FCD
Beast,
You and science are merely *assuming* ‘this frog represents a "missing link", that is, a frog that proves once again that there are animals that fit into the amphibian-fish transition.’ It is not ‘truth’ nor ‘proof’ of such, for even science has said, 'This is an endangered frog that we know practically nothing about.'
As you said, ‘Science is about finding proof.’ They have a long leap to go before *proving* evolution with this frog.
Again, neither you nor science has proven evolution to be valid, but a belief.
Tim
Once again, you have shown me that you have slept through your biology class.
"This is an endangered frog that we know nothing about" is a statement taken out of context. What the scientist means is that they do not understand the full mechanisms behind this strange lungless phenomenon. We do know that that frog breathes through its skin; whether it evolved from standard lunged frogs, or simply lost its lungs over time, is still yet to be discovered. But from this specimen, it is evident that at some point, frogs did evolve from lungless creatures to frogs with lungs.
Actually, Tim, there is no big "leap" to prove evolution. The facts are there. Go figure it out.
Beast FCD
Beast,
‘But from this specimen, it is evident that at some point, frogs did evolve from lungless creatures to frogs with lungs.’
Yeah, the ‘some point’ is today. A lungless frog today does not prove evolution from a frog with lungs, but that it was born without lungs and currently exist. Though you wish to believe in evolution, the fact is this type of frog could very well have existed just as long as all other frogs.
Tim
First of all, let me clarify this: Evolution is fact. Belief is not necessary.
Secondly, the evidence in nature is very clear that transitional species do exist, and this frog is one of the many that has been discovered (the platypus is another).
At this point the evidence is clear: Whether the frog has evolved to lose its lungs or that it is the progenitor of modern day frogs, it is very clear that at some point in the evolutionary route, frogs did make the evolutionary leap into amphibians.
& finally let me add this: I don't believe in evolution. I KNOW EVOLUTION IS FACT.
Beast FCD
With reference to this post, I wrote an article with regards to Ken Ham, who thinks that T rex co existed with Man and at some point of time was vegetarian.
Read this, and debunk it. If you can.
http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2008/10/all-those-herbivorious-tyrannosauruses.html
Beast FCD
Post a Comment