Creation Museum being built....

[BrutusMaximus]

Tibs - not cool. I was raised a Christian, and while I am certainly not a bible beating holy roller, I still hold those beliefs. Believe what you want, I have no problem with that, but dont attack religious beliefs. Also, yes this should be on the political board. I purposely dont ever click on it, because I want to avoid this kind of crap from dickheads.

 

[stxbuck]

Tibs is being an ass-what's new. What is new is this-does anyone on this board honestly believe T-Rex was walking around at the same time as human beings?
I am a Christian, and defend the Christian position on most things, but to honestly suggest that Teradactyls were pooping on cavemen's heads while flying around is just silly.......

 

[HabaneroBuck]

I think anyone who has never actually read a sound Creationist defense on the internet or in book form (yes, "sound Creationist defense" does exist) would be rather surprised at what one can accurately infer from scientific evidence. I can guarantee that the Ham museum will surprise many doubters with the amount of scientific evidence presented. Of course, evolution is not technically a science, but rather a naturalistic view of history. The Creation debate is not a scientific debate, but an historic debate.

Creationism is not, "The Bible said it and I believe it, so there." Creationism is more along the lines of how do you explain "irreducible complexity", does the history of the earth suggest naturalistic uniformity or cataclysmic change, from whence comes the information needed to produce "macroevolution" (suggested by evolutionists to arrise from chance genetic mutation without any documentation or reasonability whatsoever), and the like....

Here's a simple test to get people thinking (though this does not disprove evolution).

The universe came into existence by one of four methods:

1) It has always been.
2) It is an illusion.
3) It came out of nothing by natural means.
4) It came out of nothing by supernatural means.

1) is disproved by the law of entropy. Matter and energy within a closed system are constantly running down. Disintegration would occur. The idea that the universe expands and contracts on itself perpetually might be feasible if you have an external infusion of energy, and thus would lend itself to supernaturalism. By natural means, the universe can not have always been.

2) is not scientific. Disproved by common experience.

3) is disproved by the Conservation Laws. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

4) Is speculative.

So, we are left with the conclusion that either #1 or #4 are true, but either one can only be true by supernatural means. Therefore, our origins are supernatural. Science will concede this if you read books on the Big Bang, for within the first 0.000008 seconds, the laws of physics no longer apply, and therefore the action becomes, by definition, "supernatural."

 

[Buckeye Maniac]

I personally believe that God started the universe and caused the events to unfold that brought about life but was hands off for the rest of the process.

 

[GoBucks89]

How stupid will these people get?

Argumentum Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. In other words, as I have said before, name-calling is no substitute for a good argument. I'm assuming that once again you don't have any good arguments.

Critics such as the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ (search) in nearby Cincinnati, say museum leaders are twisting Bible verses to support an agenda.

"It's silly. It's a silly, silly argument," said Adams. "They use what I consider to be a flawed analysis of Scripture."

More name-calling, and this from a "pastor"? Perhaps someone should remind him of the Golden Rule. But I suppose the idea of treating someone the way you would want to be treated is just another "flawed analysis" in his mind.

Half a million visitors a year are expected. That worries many scientists, who say the museum will attempt to undo a person's scientific education.

"They're pretty much saying that scientists around the world have colluded to pretty much lie to people," said Dr. William Anyonge, a paleontologist and assistant professor of biology at Xavier University (search) in Cincinnati. "I think that is really a slander to science."

Straw man argument. Yawn.

"Yes, the content will be very different from what you'll hear presented from mainstream scientists," he said, "but it's still good science nonetheless."

Still waiting for someone to refute this. Science is a method, not a conclusion. You can't say something is not good science just because you disagree with the scientist's conclusions. And yet, that is exactly what the critics of creation-science do, along with engaging in the other fallacies listed above. A reasonable critique of the creation-scientist's methods would be useful in refuting his conclusions. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. I don't expect it anytime soon.