The Creation Museum

[AKAK]

MMMkay...

Less personal... more about Jesus riding dinosaurs.

 

[Buckeye86]

MMMkay...

Less personal... more about Jesus riding dinosaurs.

Yeah, my bad.

 

[Brewtus]

I know I'm pulling this out of a longer string of things, but it made me wonder:

What does everyone think the creationist thinks about Natural Selection?

Well since there isn't one agreed upon Theory of Creationism, I would think that each Creationist has their own individual opinion of Natural Selection (which probably then leads to some discussion about micro vs. macro evolution).

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Well since there isn't one agreed upon Theory of Creationism, I would think that each Creationist has their own individual opinion of Natural Selection (which probably then leads to some discussion about micro vs. macro evolution).

What standard are we holding "an agreed upon theory" too? If it's the same as a bunch of scientists agree on the overarching idea that man and everything esle evovled from a single-celled simple organism. Then yes the same could be true of a "Theory of Creation."

I actually see less deviation from the "Theory" standpoint in creationism than evolutionism.

For instance: Have we decided whether the change is incremental and barely noticible from small changes in base pairs or is it large changes happening quickly resulting in large noticeable differences between evolutionary transitional species?

Edit: Hold on. I forgot something.

Edit2: I don't understand the hang-up on the lack of "agreed upon theory of creation".

 

[muffler dragon]

I actually see less deviation from the "Theory" standpoint in creationism than evolutionism.

For instance: Have we decided whether the change is incremental and barely noticible from small changes in base pairs or is it large changes happening quickly resulting in large noticeable differences between evolutionary transitional species?

Edit: Hold on. I forgot something.

I believe there is just as much variance in the creationist viewpoints: progressive, literal, etc.

 

[AKAK]

Anybod else feel like Jesus was probably more of an herbivore rider?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I believe there is just as much variance in the creationist viewpoints: progressive, literal, etc.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't progressive just evolution with a Divine starter?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Anybod else feel like Jesus was probably more of an herbivore rider?

Well it woud seem like fish and lamb were likely part of his diet. See the feeding of the 5,000 and the Passover meal.

 

[muffler dragon]

If I'm not mistaken, isn't progressive just evolution with a Divine starter?

TBH, I don't recall. I just remember ICR as the literal (along with AiG), Hugh Ross as progressive creationist or theistic evolutionist, and a couple others. My personal impression is that there are many varied theories in evolution simply because of the number of scientists and disciplines involved; whereas, creationism would have the same if the numbers were the same.

 

[Brewtus]

What standard are we holding "an agreed upon theory" too? If it's the same as a bunch of scientists agree on the overarching idea that man and everything esle evovled from a single-celled simple organism. Then yes the same could be true of a "Theory of Creation."

I actually see less deviation from the "Theory" standpoint in creationism than evolutionism.

For instance: Have we decided whether the change is incremental and barely noticible from small changes in base pairs or is it large changes happening quickly resulting in large noticeable differences between evolutionary transitional species?

Edit: Hold on. I forgot something.

Edit2: I don't understand the hang-up on the lack of "agreed upon theory of creation".

Considering that each religion has its own stories of creation, I would argue that there are as many or more Theories of Creationism as there are religions. Even within Christianity there isn't a consensus on the details of Creation (is the universe 6,000 years old or billions?, did God create the universe in 6 days or over billions of years?, did Adam and Eve really exist or did God use evolution to "create" mankind and then at some point gave him/her a soul?, etc.).

There is no controversy or arguments among scientists regarding the big-picture of Evolution. The disagreements and discussions are regarding the specific mechanics and influences of evolution, the exact relationship between extant and extinct species, etc.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

My personal impression is that there are many varied theories in evolution simply because of the number of scientists and disciplines involved; whereas, creationism would have the same if the numbers were the same.

I find this in particular very interesting. I'm willing to submit that it may be true.

Though, I find little qaulitative difference from theistic evolution to the atheistic variety. Little enough that I guess I never really counted it different.

I get this impression that the evolutionist believes I'm incapable of understanding their theory. That if somehow they could explain natural selection, genetic selection and mutation, adaptation in a way that this caveman can understand it then my eyes would be open. I'm going to be honest, the way some of you think I'm a quack makes me wonder just a little about my comprehension ability. But it seems like my comprehension ability does seem to inhibit me in only this one area. I've had no problems in schools in other various disciplines, english, math chemistry, information technology.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Considering that each religion has its own stories of creation, I would argue that there are as many or more Theories of Creationism as there are religions. Even within Christianity there isn't a consensus on the details of Creation (is the universe 6,000 years old or billions?, did God create the universe in 6 days or over billions of years?, did Adam and Eve really exist or did God use evolution to "create" mankind and then at some point gave him/her a soul?, etc.).

There is no controversy or arguments among scientists regarding the big-picture of Evolution. The disagreements and discussions are regarding the specific mechanics and influences of evolution, the exact relationship between extant and extinct species, etc.

I think I understand what you're saying now. First as stated in a previous post a theistic evolutionist has about zero qualitative difference from the atheistic variety when it comes to the actual theory of how evolultion happened.

But I also realized something that should have been obvious to me. Of course you equalize all creation accounts from all the religions because they are all "myths."

So, then, let's revise, back to the title of the thread. And back to the crazy fundamentalist which seems to be who we describe as the makers of the creation museum.

What do they (and the people who subsribe to it) think about natural selection?

 

[JCOSU86]

I don't think carbons should date.

Carbonist

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm going to be honest, the way some of you think I'm a quack makes me wonder just a little about my comprehension ability.

I don't believe you to be a quack, crazy or anything of the sort. I was just sharing my thoughts on the varied POVs in the creationist movement for equality. I've been on both sides of aisle (creationist and evolutionist). I'm not picking a side in this thread nor am I judging those that have posted.

 

[Brewtus]

So, then, let's revise, back to the title of the thread. And back to the crazy fundamentalist which seems to be who we describe as the makers of the creation museum.

What do they (and the people who subsribe to it) think about natural selection?

Well you'd have to get an answer from them directly, but I think their response would have something to do with acknowledging "micro evolution" (such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics) but not "macro evolution" (evolution of a new species). But what I'd like to know is how a Creationist would explain the fossil skulls I posted photos of previously in this thread. How do they fit into the Creationist model?