A high volume of complaints have forced the Cincinnati Zoo to pull out of a special business partnership with the Creation Museum in nearby Petersburg, Ky., after running for less than three days.
-
(Photo: Answers in Genesis)Visitors observe the life-size, animatronic Utahraptor, a velociraptor-type dinosaur whose remains were discovered in Utah in 1993, at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.
The two institutions had come together to offer a special ticket package that gave visitors the opportunity to drop in on both at a discounted rate while promoting one another at the same time.
According to the Creation Museum’s founder, Ken Ham, however, the zoo received hundreds of complaints, many of which were opposed to the faith and ideas that the museum presents.
“It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith,” Ham said, expressing disappointment in the zoo’s decision but also understanding of its perspective.
“Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,” he added.
The Creation Museum, which cost $27 million to build, is a 60,000-square foot facility that opened last year in May and revived the creation/evolution debate among Young Earth creationists, Old Earth creationists, anti-creationism evolutionists, and theistic evolutionists.
Packed with high-tech exhibits that include animatronic dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark, the museum attempts to align the Bible’s literal account of creation with natural history. The museum’s founder, like many other Young Earth creationists, believes dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.
Critics, however, both non-Christians and Christians who are against a literal interpretation of the Bible on life origins, have protested and spoke out against the anti-evolution display, worried that their children will be affected. The controversy garnered the new exhibit a large amount of media coverage.
“Frankly, we are used to this kind of criticism from our opponents,” Ham said regarding the latest controversy, “and so being ‘expelled’ like this is not a huge surprise.”
Despite the zoo’s decision, Ham said his museum would continue promoting the “excellent zoo” on its website and in printed material that is passed out inside of the museum.
“We are committed to promoting regional tourism,” he explained.
Furthermore, the museum will still provide $9 off of the ticket prices (the amount of the discount under the original agreement) from Dec. 2 to Dec. 11, with the exception of Saturday, Dec. 6. "Get the Museum/Zoo Discount Anyway," the museum website says.
Beginning on Dec. 12, the museum will have up its special Christmas display, which includes a live outdoor nativity scene and a special lighted “Road to Bethlehem” trail. Visitors to the museum grounds will also be met with hayrides, seasonal lights and decorations, holiday food, and events and activities for children. Inside the museum, there will be special Christmas exhibits including the Planetarium presentation “The Bethlehem Star.”
“We find the two – Creation and Christmas – go very well together,” says Creation Museum co-founder and spokesperson Mark Looy, “and we invite our guests to experience each in light of the other at our special ‘Bethlehem’s Blessings – A Christmas Celebration’ this December.”
Located near the Cincinnati Airport, the Creation Museum is a ministry of Answers in Genesis, a nonprofit Christian organization dedicated to confirming the validity of the Bible from the very first verse.
Since its opening in May 2007, the museum has seen over 600,000 visitors.
On the Web:
www.CreationMuseum.org
RSS
"Both scientists find fossilized bones in sedimentary layers of the earth. Sediment=fossilized mud; mud laid down either by a world-wide flood, OR a sloowwww gradual dusting (which in no way gives good explanation for poly-straight fossils"
'Dusting'? Come again? F
Local floods leave beds of sediment/mud in themselves which fossilize organisms too. This would go a long way in explaining why we find successive layers stacked on top of each other which were independently formed at different times, not by a single occurrence, but rather by several occasions. How could a single global flood even explain multiple layers all layered in succession? Obviously one layer would have to solidify prior to those above it, & when you're dealing with about a dozen layers, there is no reasoning a single flood, global or not, would result in such empirical data. Begin to explain that one.
"the square shape of the grand canyon,"
Square shape? come again?
"or the fact that it was rubidium-strontium dated to be older at the top than the bottom)."
Cite please
Jasonx10
"People are constantly labeling creationists as 'ignorant' or 'unscientific'."
Have you looked at Ken Ham's site lately? Kent Hovind? The Way of the Masters Kirk Cameron & Ray comfort? Yeah, they're not very scientific at all.
"(when is the last nationally televised debate you've seen between a PHD Creationist and a PHD Evolutionist here in America?"
They happen all the time chap, but they're rarely ever publicly aired on TV for the simple reason of ratings. In the confrontation between science & religion their have been many court appearances. In science conferences opposing views on evolutionary processes & methods are often discussed at great length, the issue is that people like Kent Hovind don't publish their work in the scientific peer reviewed literature, it never even makes it that far as by the time it's given a cursory look over it's shown to be wrong in many counts.
'pro-science'?
As if 'science' "says" one thing and creationists say another? Even within evolutionary biology (let alone other fields) you can not get any particular scientist to agree with another on a given matter, so 'science' is not an absolute foundation, but rather a process (one which is being maligned by so many FAITHfully antithetical people today).
Pro-science, if you were truly 'pro-science', you would understand that the observation of present-day data; empirical evidence, is something that must be viewed through a window of presuppositions (and EVERY scientist makes them). Do not be so naive as to think that somehow 'darwinians are being honest about what they observe and creationists are distorting the facts'.
Both scientists find fossilized bones in sedimentary layers of the earth. Sediment=fossilized mud; mud laid down either by a world-wide flood, OR a sloowwww gradual dusting (which in no way gives good explanation for poly-straight fossils or the square shape of the grand canyon, or the fact that it was rubidium-strontium dated to be older at the top than the bottom).
A more adequate name for you might be 'pro-uniformity' (this a faith or a worldview, not an 'irrefutable factual foundation')
Good for AIG. This is intolerance. It's ridiculous how even a private organization is so demonized by people for something that will in no way affect their lives negatively. People are constantly labeling creationists as 'ignorant' or 'unscientific' (arent we Christians the 'intollerant' 'bigotted' ones?). The media generally demonizes creationists, the schools generally do; but the one thing they all have in common is a fear of an open debate (when is the last nationally televised debate you've seen between a PHD Creationist and a PHD Evolutionist here in America? You don't see them for the obvious reason that darwinians enjoy their monopoly on so-called 'scientific fact' and they would prefer most people continue to not understand that our presuppositions about a past we never physically witnessed influence how we view the empirical evidence available to us today).
pro-science, I know who you are. The kind of put downs you have expressed on this thread you have expressed on many other threads but with a different ID. It has gotten you nowhere in the past except to be given the boot by CP. When are you going to stop with the put downs and start communicating your views of science in a respectful way? I really don't know why any of us waste our time with you.
Yeah, this is a bottomless pit of ignorance and religious extremism.
Pro,
I think you've been sucked into this pit even farther than I have!
Believer's last comment was so incoherent I might be tempted to assume there was not enough mental faculty there to warrant an argument.
"pro, you're right, that's why [bible, bible, nonsense, irrelevance, bible, nya-nya-I-can't-hear-you...]" Wow.
So much for apologetics, eh?
believer, do you think you would go to hell if you watched the video I recommended?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
I really think, if there is a God, it would not approve of your willful ignorance.
I really think, if there's a hell, you're going there if you don't stop being lazy and start educating yourself.
pro, you're right that's why His desire is for every person to discover Him for who He really is by coming to accept Him through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ alone and come to realize that in its original autographs the Bible is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God, literally the Word of God which can be wholly trusted and adhered to.
"In my life, God has been faithful in what I have seen right in front of me. He has great credibility with me so I take His word for it and I do not pretend to understand how he could create everything."
If there is a God, would it approve of people who are too lazy to do the hard work to understand the discoveries of modern science? Would a God approve of people who are willfully ignorant and too lazy to think for themselves? I doubt it.
"blue, care to discuss the piltdown hoax?"
There's thousands of fossils, but creationists are only interested in talking about a small handful of hoaxes and mistakes. Piltdown was a century ago, real scientists doubted it, real scientists proved it was nonsense, yet creationists will continue to complain about it for the next thousand years.
Meanwhile in the real world, scientists continue to make important discoveries to learn more about the history of life. Evolution is already the strongest fact of science, and it grows stronger every day as biologists continue to compare DNA sequences to accurately determine thousands of evolutionary relationships.
I know creationists are willfully ignorant. I know creationists are too lazy to study science. I know scientific evidence is meaningless to creationists, because they automatically reject any evidence, no matter how powerful it is, if it conflicts with their literal interpretation of Genesis, which was written by scientifically illiterate people thousands of years ago.
Perhaps there is one creationist reading this who isn't a robot with a cemented shut mind. That creationist should watch this video. Anyone, who has any intelligence at all, would have to agree this video shows beyond any doubt people and chimps share an ancestor. The information in this video is smoking gun proof for the idea people are distant cousins of the other ape species.
Are there any creationists who are able to think? I doubt it, but here's the video anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
"What caused HIV? This was the question. Where did HIV come from."
HIV is caused by a virus, and according to biology, it's closely related to SIV. In other words, it's a variant of SIV, it evolved from it's old habitat to a new one.
"Why is AIDS now a problem when it didn't seem to be recorded in history (or was it?)."
Keep in mind how much the average life expectancy has risen globally in the past 150 years (nearly doubled). Prior to this, people could have HIV or AIDS and died from something else as sanitation wasn't a big fad just yet. As you might know, it takes a while to go 'full blown', typically at least 18 months, though sometimes 3-5 years. Also, we wouldn't know if it caused their death even 100 years ago for lack of understanding of biology and medicine and how viruses work. Some would invoke the demons or possessed spirits, and not attribute it to the actual virus itself.
Without understanding virology and biology we couldn't record its causes effectively. We would know people would be dying like with the Plauge, but wouldn't know how to identify it.
"Perhaps it was limited to the gay population as "dirty needles" didn't exist at the time and thus Paul wrote about "taking into themselves"."
I doubt it, if you review the % and number of HIV/AIDS cases globally, over 85% are found in Africa, with some countries have a very high infection rate (50%).
DP,
"They may be wrong. It only takes about 100 years for current science to ask "what were they thinking to come up with that wrong answer".
For this I would highlight how in centuries past we were ignorant of physics, and as a result Lord Kelvin (who rejected evolution) gave the age of the Earth an age of around 100 million years. Over time the evidence collected and tested has been pushing the age further and further back, we now have a lower limit age around 4.57 billion. It could be slightly older, but it's age matches quite well with other nearby objects like the Sun and the Moon.
"could he not have created everything from Himself as is?"
Hypothetically speaking, sure. It's also hypothetically possible this is all fake, and we're in 'The Matrix' virtual world. The issue though is this sort of hypothesis isn't at all testable by science (as it appeals to the untestable), so it's not at all possible to be demonstrated positively based on consistent evidence. In a word, it's not falsifiable.
Take the concept of matter replication specifically food."
Your grandiose stories deliver a wonder, but they're short on where it counts - evidence. Science and the tests that must be conducted must be done in a falsifiable manner so we can establish reality as it really is and not appeal to magic, angels, gnomes, elves, goblins and other demons which run through the mind. We are rational creatures, but this rationality in science is contingent on what can verified, and used to make accurate predictions.
DP,
"There is one other thing about radioactive dating. I think it was java man that was suppose to be so very old."
'Java man' is a type specimen for Homo Erectus (like how 'Lucy' is the type specimen for A.Afarensis), in other words 'java man' is but one specimen of the fossils we have on record for Homo Erectus.
"It turned out they were dating the dirt next to the bone and not the bone itself. The bone itself showed to be from the 1800's and the dude had arthritis."
I must stress, with fossils (at least those older than 60,000) when they're found they almost never (or any measurable amounts) have any remaining Carbon 14, and so an slower decay isotope must be used.
In doing so they are effectively dating the rock in which the fossil is encased, and if you're familiar with the fossilization process the dead organism absorbs the mineralization.
The only hominid fossil of which 'arthritis' is related is an older Homo Neandethalensis from a Cave in modern Israel, it's one of the older fossils from the Neandthals, and it apparently suffered from arthritis.
"Please note my arguement isn't saying the 4.5 billion is right or wrong. The arguement is simply saying we don't know as much as we think we do."
DP, a bit of Socrates in there eh? =) I would agree, we are not all knowing, nor will we ever be I think, but for somethings we have a fair enough evidence which is consistent to justify our beliefs soundly and in principle this is why the age given earlier is used by scientists globally.
There is one other thing about radioactive dating. I think it was java man that was suppose to be so very old. It turned out they were dating the dirt next to the bone and not the bone itself. The bone itself showed to be from the 1800's and the dude had arthritis. There are stories on both sides of the arguement on this one for sure.
The point is too many people on both sides of the arguement are more interested in 'winning' than they are in the persuit of knowledge. Numbers can be changed. Info can be twisted. Methods can be "adjusted" intentionally or unintentionally. At this point in the game it takes great faith to accept any position on the origin of man.
In my life, God has been faithful in what I have seen right in front of me. He has great credibility with me so I take His word for it and I do not pretend to understand how he could create everything.
Here's one for you. Science says matter and energy are interchangeable. If in fact God is "all powerful" could he not have created everything from Himself as is? Take the concept of matter replication specifically food. Say we get that technology and you make a steak. Will the aged beef really be aged. If you measure it's age and it shows to have been aged for 3 months will it really have been aged for 3 months or was it replicated that way?
"DP, earlier on another thread you were unaware to the link between how HIV results in AIDS, something that has been publicaly known for over 2 decades."
Actually, earlier in the thread I was saying we didn't know what caused AIDS. Yes it is a result of HIV. In the medical field many refer to AIDS as advance HIV and 'full blown AIDS'. What caused HIV? This was the question. Where did HIV come from. Why is AIDS now a problem when it didn't seem to be recorded in history (or was it?). Perhaps it was limited to the gay population as "dirty needles" didn't exist at the time and thus Paul wrote about "taking into themselves".
"Now follow that logic with the evidence of 6 independent methods which all give the same approximate age of 4.57 billion years all within a margin of less than 2 %."
There was a problem at a company I worked at for about 6 years. The manufacture of a piece of equipment gave instructions on how to set it up. It kept breaking. The boss said "I'll give you 2 hours. See if you can figure it out." I did. There was a physical relationship which the manufacture had misused. They applied the physical force applied curve reverse to the effect of the physical effort created by the frame. Thus, each time they did the same thing on 6 different independent applications gave the same results.
I bring this up to say that, yes you have several different methods saying the same thing. They are all variations based on the same concept of physics. They may be right. They may be wrong. It only takes about 100 years for current science to ask "what were they thinking to come up with that wrong answer". Now, based on their understanding based on technology of the day in some cases is amazing. Still, it was only conjecture at the time. The 4.5 billion years number could be arrived at any number of ways.
Three salesman check into a motel. Their boss is cheap so they are sharing a room split on each of their business expense accounts. The room is $30 which is $10 each. They get to their room and the front desk clerk sees he made a mistake. The room is actually $25 so he sends five one dollar bills up with the bell hop. The bell hop knows they can't split the money evenly so he keeps $2. Each of the salesmen get $1 back. They spent $10 each and get $1 back so each spent $9 x 3 = 27 + the $2 the bell hop had = $29. Where's the other buck?
Please note my arguement isn't saying the 4.5 billion is right or wrong. The arguement is simply saying we don't know as much as we think we do. We think we are so smart just like the people 100, 200, 500 years ago thought they were.
blue, care to discuss the piltdown hoax?
Ken Ham on his wife; He is married to Marilyn ("Mally"), whom he describes as a "very, very submissive, supportive wife"
Ken Ham on a coworker: Controversy arose when Mackay "was excommunicated in the 1980s after making allegations of witchcraft and necrophilia against a fellow member of the ministry.
..And Overall: an Old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth and said he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology.
The Creation Museum IS embarrassing, as is its creator. Anyone who believes dinosaurs and man coexisted 'because of writing on a cave' has no capacity for scientific intellect.
"All that was based on Carbon 14 dating."
DP, earlier on another thread you were unaware to the link between how HIV results in AIDS, something that has been publicaly known for over 2 decades.
I can see why you think this now. C14 (carbon dating) only dates to about 60,000 years, so obviously it wasn't the isotope being measured to give the age for the Earth. If you're talking about further back, you'd need to use a slower decaying isotope, something like Potassium Argon or others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
"Then it was switched to another dating method which may prove to be accurate or inaccruate."
Here's what I don't get, and maybe you and others like you aught to mull this one over. I would argue that in your position you contend that 'all radiometric dating methods are widely inaccurate'. Now follow that logic with the evidence of 6 independent methods which all give the same approximate age of 4.57 billion years all within a margin of less than 2 %.
Also consider of the over 4 dozen dating methods we have at our disposal, not one, not one comes back with ages anywhere in the > 6,000 year range.
"There is no absolute proof the earth is that old. Only contemporary proof (that which is accepted to be truth now)."
Right, the same contemporary science used to make atom bombs and nuclear power via understanding physics is somehow wrong when it comes to dating now.
"My views or anyone else's views don't matter. What matters is scientific evidence, and so far all the evidence supports biological evolution and a 4,500,000,000 year old earth."
All that was based on Carbon 14 dating. Then it was switched to another dating method which may prove to be accurate or inaccruate. There is no absolute proof the earth is that old. Only contemporary proof (that which is accepted to be truth now).
"The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution." -tpique1
--------------------------------
TP,
Nothing in the paragraph above makes any sense. Evolution is not based on inconsistency. Uniformity is not a biblical principle. Nothing in science is derived from the bible. One of the defining features of secular thinking, relative to sectarian thinking, is consistency. Scientists do not "do science" as if it were upheld by a giant turtle (oops, wrong religion. I mean a God!) Science and its principles are based on observation, not a "creation assumption." The only assumption in the bible is that a god magically did everything.
You clearly have no idea what science is (evolution and cosmology in particular) which is unfortunate. I suggest going to college, or at least reading a few general science books (written by scientists, not preachers.)
Furthermore, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true†not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.
Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.
Furthermore, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true†not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.
Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.
I like what "Pro-science: says
My views or anyone else's views don't matter. What matters is scientific evidence, and so far all the evidence supports biological evolution and a 4,500,000,000 year old earth.
Notice how he writes the rule book.
All the evidence, so he says, supports biological evolution. But does it really?
Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.
Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?
The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution.
"Many creationists are extremely dishonest, especially the creationists like Ken Ham who make a living lying to children."
Now, now...Queensbury! I would like your absolute and difinitive unquestional proof that God had nothing to do with the creation of the earth. You will find your 'evidence' will quickly go into the philosophical. How do I know that? If it were fact then there would be no question. At least the Bible admits one must believe based on faith (confidence or trust in a person or thing). You believe in evolution by faith as you have confidence or trust in it).
"Its a fault of mine to be generous to those who disagree with me, even on this subject, I suspect because I once held it to."
I think it's because science is about the journey of discovory. True science does not say "I have all the detailed answers". After all, the more we learn the more we know. What more do we know? We know there are quite a few more details than we first thought! To every answered question is 100 new questions. That's the addiction of science!
Translation? You're a scientist and you don't use science as an answer as much as an adventure.
Mathelets,
"Do you?"
Of course not, I think though the infamous names of radical movements whatever their theological views are much better know than big winners like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham.
ww, it's all artwork, so is the field of anthropology for the most part but evolutionists appear to have no problem believing their "facts".
agent,
"Kent Hovind anyone? Now he's a real piece of work."
Guilt by association? Did you really go that low-brow? I don't think anyone here has tried to tar you or any other atheist with the names of infamous atheistist mass-murderers of history. I don't think they represent the average atheistic evolutionist any more than Hovind represents the average Christian creationist. Do you?
I left you a message at the last article. Probably out till next week. Have a good weekend all.
Very true most likely, but I'm not talking about them.
Kent Hovind anyone? Now he's a real piece of work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
Many creationists are extremely dishonest, especially the creationists like Ken Ham who make a living lying to children.
Hi pro
I agree with you about the dinos and men living together and mathetes is well aware that I disagree with him, we ahve had plenty of good converations. Its just that I don't think Mathetes thinks thats those who disagree with him are liars etc..wrong, yes, but liars, no. Its a fault of mine to be generous to those who disagree with me, even on this subject, I suspect because I once held it to.
BW
Steve
blue1018 wrote "I find the creation museum downright embarrassing."
Yeah. It's a disgrace. Ken Ham, who isn't even from this country, has made America a laughing-stock. If it was up to me Ken Ham would be deported for mental child abuse.
steveh20, I think you didn't see what I wrote. What I meant was could you explain to mathetes why his idea that dinosaurs lived with people might be true on the Flintstones cartoons for children, but it isn't true in the real world. I'd explain it myself, but his idea is so completely wrong, and so against virtually every branch of science, that I couldn't possibly talk about it without dying from laughter. Thanks.
pretty much star. i'd rather be proud of studied science and proven biology and anatomy than bible-hugging literal word-for-word believers. no offense, but that is truth right there.
Mathelets, "dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and man has been around for 10-15 thousand years. Is that right "
I am wondering how you specifically define 'man' here, b/c if you just mean at the very least anatomically and morphologically, it's more like 190,000 years, at least.
blue1018 - Would it be better if the museum reneame itself as Evolution Museum and put a human in a cage next to an ape and put a name plate on the human's cage that reads, "Mutated Ape"? Would that make you proud?
I find the creation museum downright embarrassing.
I just visited genesispark.com, which lists many artifacts from human history as evidence for dinosaurs living with humans, including those mentioned here. It's all artwork. Is that what passes for evidence in creationist circles? A handful of fanciful creatures in artwork that happen to resemble animals that once lived is not evidence that the artist saw the animal. For every unicorn drawing you produce as evidence, there are a thousand fossils and sediment layers that say otherwise.
I guess if one considers the bible to be evidence, then one should accept drawings of dragons as well. The standards of science are a little higher. Any zoo should be embarrassed to have ever even considered dealing with a religious theme park. People had a right to be outraged, and the zoo responded appropriately.
viking,
I can appreciate your viewpoint. I've seen drawings, tapestries, and other artifacts showing a menagerie of mythical creatures, and that's not even close to the number of "beasties" described in literature.
I think two things set these apart. First, the artifacts from the Romans and Cambodians are identical to modern renderings of those animals' appearances. Since many legends often have a seed of truth in them (giant squid = kraken?), perhaps the dragons of antiquity were in fact dinosaurs. The Hebrew word tannim is often translated as dragons in the Old Testament (some modern translations render it as jackals, but that's probably trying to avoid sounding unscientific). In Job 40, behomoth sounds a lot more like an Apatosaurus ("tail like a cedar tree") than an elephant (tail like a rope)or a hippo (tail like a flap of skin).
Second, scientific books of any age are likely to be looked upon as simple compared to later research. Yet where would we be without their work; that they are primitive by our standards does not necessarily mean they were wrong. For more on Aldrovandus and Baptista, see Perseus Or of Dragons, by H. F. Scott Stokes. Google Dr. Kenneth Cole for pictures of the stegasaurus in the Angkor complex. Wish I could give you more, but it's from a Powerpoint I did some years back; I apologize for not recording the exact sources of the pictures. Let me know if you cannot find them.
viking, welcome back. I especially appreciate your insiders view on matters related to education.
hi all sorry for a long abscence. I will take a shot at an explanation for the artworks described as Dinosaurs that mathetes lists
1. Drawing of a pterosaur in a cave in the Four Corners region of the US, near where Univ of Ohio scientists dug up pterosaur bones in the valley below. Who drew the pterosaurs in the cave?
2. Roman mosaic circa 200 AD showing two long-necked dinorsaurs (Apatosauri?).
3. Angkor Thom temple in Cambodia (circa 1200 AD) has carvings of jungle animals, including tigers, monkeys, pigs, and a stegosaurus (the plates on its back are clearly visible).
4. The Historia Animalium, a European scientific book from the 1500s, listed and described several animals as alive at the time, which we would call dinosaurs.
5. A naturalist of that time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon fitting the description of a Tanystropheus on May 13, 1572, near Bologna, Italy.
I recall many artistic and literary renderings of early civilizations of monsters, dragons, Kraken, griffins, rocs, medusa, manticores, unicorns, mermaids etc, etc, etc, while most of these were clearly fantastical imaginings but in many cases these were identified in what passed for scholarly or "scientific" texts although they would not use that term of the time. A good example is the unicorn which was long believed to exist based on the findings of narwhale tusks and the imaginings of persons at the time. In interpreting early humans artistic renderings it is important to do so in the context of rather than in contradiction to physical evidence. I would though be interested (due to my interest in curiosities and mythic tales) in seeing the depictions you describe if you can direct me to a site where they are viewable.
Regarding the main article it seems to me that the original offer was a business decision and the change was a business decision based on the customers reaction. It is not surprising since the vast majority of persons including christians world wide do not ascribe to the young earth literalist interpretation views of the museum.
Thanks, Steve, I continue to learn from you, geologically + socially.
"Queensbury rules"
Indeed...thumbs up!
"Please keep politics separate from science. "
I'd love to! The only reason evolution has a required place in the science class is because of politics. Our students are taught way more about evolution then they are about hands-on science they will use on the job. I worked with people who could tell you all about evolution but could do simple science required by their job.
Let's remove politics from the classroom and focus on what we need to learn to keep from being run over by the trade deficit!
Woo...genetlmen, lets keep to the Queensbury rules around here. Fair play and decent behaviour at all times. Pro whilst I agree with you on some points I think your comments towards mathetes where wide of the mark, lets just call it the heat of the moment and shake hands....
Steve AKA The ref
pro,
What clever fellow you are! While addressing steve, you call me your friend + then you speak poorly of me. Did you think that made it less insulting or libelous? And you still don't get what I was saying: I never said whether the earth is young or old; you only assumed it. Why don't you drop the negativity + give your explanation for the artifacts + scientific books which show dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans? Is that too much to ask?
pro, we're not talking about a flood, but the flood that lasted 40 days and nights non-stop with waters coming down and coming up over the entire earth. Now as you know I do not claim to be a scientist, but I've seen the damage a flash flood can cause so I can only imagine what could happen in a global flood as recorded in the Bible. Plus, what if some of those waters came in the form of a hurricane or a tsunami and we know the horrific damage that can be done by them.
steveh20, thanks for the information. You obviously know more about science than I do. I hope you can talk some sense into our friend mathetes who seems to think every scientist in the world is a liar and/or incompetent and/or not as smart as mathetes.
Sorry but you're going to have to talk to steveh20 about your flimsy "evidence" for what any intelligent child would agree is ridiculous (your young planet in a 14 billion year old universe). I'm not interested in what you obviously copy and pasted from a Bible website or some other anti-science magical creation organization.
Sorry, forgot to end that the end of the permian was about 250 million years ago.
Pro
Yep aside from diffrent using decay rates there are diffrent methods such as measuring the heat loss of the earth when the bulk elemental composition of the Earth is taken into account. Moving out from the Earth though its also interesting to date using decay rates such items as chondritic meteorites. These meteorites are composed of original material from the solar nebula and have not undergone any geological processes that result in differentiation as seen especially on the terestrial planets. Cratering rates through out the solar system are also another method of dating within the solar system.
Re the Deccan traps, its also interesting to note that the biggest mass extinction(there are five in all) of all time at the End of the Permian period occurred as the Siberian traps errupted, these make the Deccan look like indoor fireworks, the Siberian traps at that time where only part of the problem though as sea levels dropped at this time due to a slow down in sea foor spreading at mid ocean ridges and the creation of the super continenet Pangea occured.
Apologies all: accidentally posted twice, + the delete button doesn't work from home. Sorry.
pro,
Now I understand how far you'll go to avoid talking about all the evidence. You would rather make assumptions about a person's religion, without evidence, than talk about the evidence in front of you regarding dinosaurs. While you talk about what might have happened, you ignore hard evidence in front of you. How unscientific!
pro,
Now I understand how far you'll go to avoid talking about all the evidence. You would rather make assumptions about a person's religion, without evidence, than talk about the evidence in front of you regarding dinosaurs. While you talk about what might have happened, you ignore hard evidence in front of you. How unscientific!
steveh20 wrote "Building on what pro science wrote about the demise of the dinosaurs, it appears that according to what the fossil record reveals they where already on the way out possibily helped by events occuring at the Deccan traps (worth a vist today I am told), they where having real bad luck and the impact was the icing on the cake."
Thanks for that information. I found out more about it here:
http://tinyurl.com/6lu5dc
India's Smoking Gun: Dino-killing Eruptions
ScienceDaily (Aug. 10, 2005) New discoveries about the timing and speed of gigantic, 6500-foot (2-km) thick lava flows that poured out of the ground 65 million years ago could shift the blame for killing the dinosaurs.
The Deccan Traps of India are one of Earth's largest lava flows ever, with the potential of having wreaked havoc with the climate of the Earth - if they erupted and released climate-changing gases quickly enough. French and Indian geologists have now identified a 600-meter (2000-foot) thick portion of the lava that may have piled up in as little as 30,000 years - fast enough to have possibly caused a deadly global climate shift.
I think one of the reasons, or perhaps the only reason, Christian extremists pretend the earth is a few thousand years old, is because they know evolution is a slow process. They figure if there wasn't enough time for the development of new species from ancient species, they can continue believing people were special magical creations of God.
It's too bad about the Christians and Muslims and other religious people whose beliefs depend on their denial of modern science. What a hopeless problem they have. In every conflict between science and religion, science has always won, and science always will win. With every new discovery in evolutionary biology and other branches of science, religions become more and more obsolete.
Christians and Muslims could solve the religious implications of modern science by just admitting the God they believe in was not necessary for anything. But the problem is there's really no reason to believe in a worthless God. I think the Christians who accept evolution and who really understand how evolution works, are not being honest with themselves when they say they can still believe in God. Many people do get it. They realize there's no magic in the universe, and they realize God is nothing more than an invention used by primitive ancient people to answer questions that science can answer today. They realize God isn't even necessary for unanswered questions, because they think eventually those problems will be solved by scientists, or they assume there's a natural cause for everything, even if that natural cause is never fully understood.
"Have I mentioned religion at all?"
In my experience talking to evolution deniers and old-earth deniers, they have ALWAYS been Christian fundamentalists or Muslims.
The reason they deny these scientific facts is extremely obvious. They have a religious boundary that they refuse to cross.
I never in my life met an atheist who had a problem with evolutionary biology or a 4.5 billion year old earth. It's fair to say the denial of these scientific facts is always for religious reasons.
steveh20, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading many methods were used to determine the age of the earth, and all these methods gave scientists the same result, an earth that formed about 4,500,000,000 years ago. That means the "young earthers" who believe in a 6,000 year old earth are so completely wrong that they can be compared to somebody who believes New York City is 24 feet from San Francisco. (Somebody did the math.)
Without understanding how scientists can accurately estimate the age of the earth, a person with common sense can figure out for himself the earth must be very old. For example, looking at a globe it's very obvious South America and Africa used to be one continent because they would fit together almost perfectly. After they split apart it must have taken a very long time for the South Atlantic Ocean to get as wide as it is today. (From DNA analysis scientists know that South America monkeys are related to African monkeys, even though they have evolved into different species.)
Also, scientists know India used to be separated from the rest of Asia. India slowly crashed into Asia creating the tallest mountain peaks in the world. It had to have taken a very long time for those huge mountains to form.
I've seen the Grand Canyon. It's one mile deep. I know the scientifically illiterate creationists claim one flood formed this canyon, but that is totally ridiculous. A flood could not cut thru one mile of solid rock. It should be obvious to any child the canyon was formed by erosion from the Colorado river, and it's obvious it had to have taken millions of years to cut thru one mile of rock. How creationists can deny what is so obvious to everyone else I will never understand.
I'd keep away from Kelvin and the age of the Earth, you'll get your fingers burnt. Kelvin only showed the Earth was young by geological standards not the ones you want, he calculated the Earth to be about a hundread million years old. He based his calculations on the heat loss of the Earth not knowing about radioactivity and the heat it produces, he was not aware(and niether was anybody else) of the Earths bulk elemental composition of radioactive materials within its mantle.
pro,
"Scientific truth is determined by scientific evidence. There is nothing scientific about drawings in a cave."
I bet the paleontogists + archeologists would disagree with you about that. Besides the cave drawings, how did Romans in 200 AD, Cambodians in 1200 AD, + 16th century scientists all know about + describe dinosaurs? Deal with the evidence, if you're really pro-science.
Also, what religious training do you think I've had? Have I mentioned religion at all? I'm talking science, evidence, facts, + artifacts. why do you dodge the issue + keep talking about religion?
Pro,
Its interesting that you chose to focus on the century rather than Kelvins premise of a young earth . . .
(. . . only learning from people who want to defend the Bible . . . )
The Bible may not be very specific or explanatory in its scientific statements. It may not satisfy the demands of science in its explanations, its reasoning, or its methodology. This is because the Bibles primary objective is to reveal Gods message to humanity, and not to answer the riddles of science. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, although it does contain many verses that are scientific in nature. Its mission is primarily spiritual salvation, and not scientific conjecture or solutions; yet it has proven itself to be historically reliable.
Evolution on the other hand has yet to provide any conclusive evidence for our transitional fossil record . . . perhaps one will magically appear one day.
It's funny, but it was going to see Ken Ham speak that finally convinced me that the modern geological explanation for the age of the Earth etc.. and evolutionary theory as an explanation for the bio diversity for the life on this planet was fundamentally correct. I'd been thinking about these issues for a while and in the Christian book shop I managed sold books such as "Evolution-the Lie, The Genesis Flood etc..". I thought his talk would sort me out, give me the intellectual grounding I required but as he spoke, with his half truths, quote mining etc..I realised that the views I had been against where essentially correct and that I had been wrong. I don't think that was the affect ken wanted the evening to have. Still feel bad sometimes about selling those books.
pro, paintings in caves are not scientific, but anthropologists taking a few bones and developing a supposed manlike creature to include the amount of hair on their body and other features that they would mainly have to guess at is?
"pro, so what your saying is you've got your mind made up so don't confuse you with facts!"
Science is not up to me or anyone else. Scientific truth is determined by scientific evidence. There is nothing scientific about drawings in a cave. There is nothing scientific about copying and pasting nonsense from a Bible website.
I'm a strong believer in time management. Educating willfully ignorant people is not a good use of my time. I can only suggest that you people use google to learn about the world you live in. If you don't want to do that, or if you insist on only learning from people who want to defend the Bible, there's nothing I can do for you.
To properly explain all the evidence supporting the idea that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years before the appearance of modern humans would take me several months.
You got to do your own research.
Your "evidence" is not really scientific evidence. For example, a drawing in a cave is not valid scientific evidence, and therefore it would be a waste of my time to talk about it.
It is your life you're wasting, and it's your religion you are disgracing. Your misconceptions about science are your problem, not mine. My time is limited, so I don't want to waste it explaining something that I don't think you would understand anyway.
I'm not saying you are not able to understand real scientific evidence. I just don't think you want to understand it, especially if it conflicts with your religious training.
pro, so what your saying is you've got your mind made up so don't confuse you with facts!
pro-science,
"I could spend a lot of time explaining why you are wrong about dinosaurs and people living in the same time period, but this idea is so totally insane, it would be a waste of my time."
I'm sure the heliocentric solar system was thought to be insane when Copernicus and Galileo suggested it, but now we know it was true because of the evidence.
Based on how long it took you to reply last time, I will be gone before you reply again. I look forward to reading your reply tomorrow. I am genuinely interested in how you explain the evidence that shows man and dinosaurs existed at the same time. Please take time to think about it and let me know the best explanation for these artifacts.
pro-science (though you don't follow the evidence),
The evidence is there; I would post the pictures if this site afforded a means to do so. A scientist would examine it and incorporate it into his theory. You refuse to do so, so you are not a scientist.
"Your idea about hungry gigantic dinosaurs living with people and not eating them for breakfast is so nuts you are disgracing your religion."
1. It's not my idea; I got it by reading. Try reading more than what fits the official evolutionary paradigm. Quite a few biology and archeology PhDs recognize the existence of this evidence, which you still have not explained.
2. When have I spoken about my religion? How do you know what I believe? Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I only asked you to look at the evidence, which you refused to do. Hence, you are not scientific.
"If I am mistaken and you have looked at all the evidence, how do you explain the following?"
mathetes, I'll be honest with you. The idea that dinosaurs shared this planet with people a few thousand years ago is so insane, I wouldn't waste one second studying the list you gave me.
I suggest visit any science blog, instead of a Christian blog. Talk to real scientists about your ideas. Be prepared for a little ridicule, but some of them will patiently explain why you are completely wrong.
An alternative is doing your own research. Google "the age of the earth", "dinosaurs", or whatever else that might help you learn something. Caution: you can't expect to learn anything if you depend on people who are only interested in defending the Bible.
I could spend a lot of time explaining why you are wrong about dinosaurs and people living in the same time period, but this idea is so totally insane, it would be a waste of my time. Just please do your own research. Your idea about hungry gigantic dinosaurs living with people and not eating them for breakfast is so nuts you are disgracing your religion. Any intelligent child reading your comments is going to think Christianity is only for the scientifically illiterate.
pro-science,
Your screen name makes it clear where you stand on the issue, but it's a misnomer. True science looks at all the evidence before deciding an issue. You obviously must not have done that.
If I am mistaken and you have looked at all the evidence, how do you explain the following?
1. Drawing of a pterosaur in a cave in the Four Corners region of the US, near where Univ of Ohio scientists dug up pterosaur bones in the valley below. Who drew the pterosaurs in the cave?
2. Roman mosaic circa 200 AD showing two long-necked dinorsaurs (Apatosauri?).
3. Angkor Thom temple in Cambodia (circa 1200 AD) has carvings of jungle animals, including tigers, monkeys, pigs, and a stegosaurus (the plates on its back are clearly visible).
4. The Historia Animalium, a European scientific book from the 1500s, listed and described several animals as alive at the time, which we would call dinosaurs.
5. A naturalist of that time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon fitting the description of a Tanystropheus on May 13, 1572, near Bologna, Italy.
True science reasons that when evidence contradicts a scientific theory, that theory must be modified or disregarded in order to make room for a new theory which incorporates the evidence. The simplest explanation (Occam's razor) is that dinosaurs survived longer than current theory; therefore, the theory must be adjusted.
"Have you taken time to look at the evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together? Or have you made the decision they did not, in spite of the evidence that they did?"
Holy cow! You agree with Ken Ham. I've been studying the history of life as described by evolutionary biology for a very long time. Never once did I see any evidence for the crazy idea that people lived with T-Rex whose teeth could cut thru solid bone as easily as a person can eat a banana. People would not have lasted very long in a world of gigantic hungry dinosaurs. Our very small mammal ancestors who lived more than 65 million years ago very likely had to live mostly underground to avoid becoming a dinosaur's lunch.
The idea that people and dinosaurs lived together on a planet that is now only 6,000 years old is so incorrect it's fair to say it's ridiculous. There's a big difference between the actual age of the earth, about 4,500,000,000 years, and a 6,000 year old earth.
pro-science,
By some of your posts, you almost sound like a person who bases your decisions on evidence. But your previous post showed your not interested in evidence at all: "Cave man drawings with dinosaurs? Any teacher who ever implied these two creatures lived together is hopelessly incompetent."
Have you taken time to look at the evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together? Or have you made the decision they did not, in spite of the evidence that they did?
"not qualified or don't subscribe to your views of evolution and you accuse us as Christians of being intolerant. Could it be that they realize there is wiggle room when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution as well as the origin of life?"
My views or anyone else's views don't matter. What matters is scientific evidence, and so far all the evidence supports biological evolution and a 4,500,000,000 year old earth.
I'm not tolerant of incompetent biology teachers because it's not fair to students to be stuck with an unqualified teacher. Sorry, but a creationist biology teacher is not qualified to teach biology. If you disagree, I respectfully suggest you study the discoveries of modern science and find out why virtually 100% of the world's biologists agree the evidence for the common ancestry of all life is overwhelming.
pro, not qualified or don't subscribe to your views of evolution and you accuse us as Christians of being intolerant. Could it be that they realize there is wiggle room when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution as well as the origin of life?
Marketing evolution
http://tinyurl.com/5e49h6
"Lord Kelvin, the nineteenth-century physicist"
19th century? Science has advanced tremendously since more than 100 years ago. Wouldn't it be more logical to study the discoveries of 21st century scientists?
"So much for those liberal evolution teachers I grew up with that pointed to some cave man drawings with dinosaurs."
Please keep politics separate from science. Evolutionary biology is not a "liberal" idea.
Cave man drawings with dinosaurs? Any teacher who ever implied these two creatures lived together is hopelessly incompetent. This is a big problem in America. Many biology teachers should be fired because they are not qualified to teach science.
"My guess is we are all going to stand before God, he's going to explain how he created the world in 6 days and why things are the way they are and we're all going to go 'well, duh!!!'."
I don't believe in any gods. However if I did believe in a god, and if I believed this god's hobby was punishing willfully ignorant people in a hell, I would want to educate myself and find out why thousands of biologists claim evolution is the strongest fact of science.
(this planet formed about 4,500,000,000 years ago)
Earths rate of rotation is slowly but measurably declining. Based on this, Lord Kelvin, he nineteenth-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale, argued against an old planet. His point: if Earth were billions of years old, it centrifugal force would have been so great during its alleged molten state that the equatorial regions would have bulged out. This would have retained much of the bulging as it cooled and consolidated. Because the decline in rotational rate is now known to be greater than previously thought, Lord Kelvins argument holds up even better.
(the entire universe was magically created 6,000 years ago)
I suppose that your big bang theory: bringing forth something from nothing is not an insane idea . . . I guess old myths never die . . . they only fade away.
"Ken Ham dishonestly tells little children that dinosaurs and people used to live together."
So much for those liberal evolution teachers I grew up with that pointed to some cave man drawings with dinosaurs.... The main problem I have with Evolution is that it is a moving target. It keeps changing.
I've studied the art of illusion for a number of decades (you know, slight of hand and such). The goal is to make the person see what you want them to see and keep them from seeing what you don't want them to see. Most of what you see simply isn't as it looks. My guess is we are all going to stand before God, he's going to explain how he created the world in 6 days and why things are the way they are and we're all going to go "well, duh!!!".
Arrogance demands an answer. Humility is willing to wait for it.
According to massive evidence, dinosaurs went extinct about 65,000,000 years ago, and our ape-like ancestors started looking like modern humans about 200,000 years ago.
Also, according to massive evidence, this planet formed about 4,500,000,000 years ago, and the universe is at least 14,000,000,000 years old.
Meanwhile, a wacko named Ken Ham mentally abuses children with his insane idea the entire universe was magically created 6,000 years ago.
pro-science and steve,
So according to the prevailing paradigm, dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and man has been around for 10-15 thousand years. Is that right?
Building on what pro science wrote about the demise of the dinosaurs, it appears that according to what the fossil record reveals they where already on the way out possibily helped by events occuring at the Deccan traps (worth a vist today I am told), they where having real bad luck and the impact was the icing on the cake.
"The museum's founder, like many other Young Earth creationists, believes dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals."
Ken Ham dishonestly tells little children that dinosaurs and people used to live together. Does anyone else here believe that nonsense? I'm not sure if Ken Ham knows he's lying, or if he is just extremely scientifically illiterate.
Virtually the entire scientific community agrees there's massive evidence for the idea that dinosaurs went extinct thanks to a huge asteroid that smashed into earth 65 million years ago. They also agree massive evidence shows that our ancient ape ancestors didn't start looking like modern humans until about 200,000 years ago. It's totally ridiculous to claim people lived with dinosaurs, so Ken Ham's dishonesty about dinosaurs is child abuse.
tpique1 wrote "The evolutionist's first line of defense: Silence all dissent."
tpique1, nobody is trying to close down the Creation Museum. A pro-science zoo doesn't want to have a business relationship with an anti-science museum. That's no reason to claim they are trying to silence dissent.
Perhaps you are talking about the laws against teaching magical creation in biology classrooms. That's just common sense. It's unreasonable to expect biology teachers to teach religious creation myths. Religious ideas belong in church. Science and only science belongs in science classrooms. Evolution is science. Magical creation is the exact opposite of science. Scientists look for natural explanations to answer scientific questions. Religions look for supernatural explanations. Science and religion are two completely different subjects and must always be kept completely separate. Religious ideas can only pollute science, slow down scientific progress, and dumb down science education.
"A high volume of complaints have forced the Cincinnati Zoo to pull out of a special business partnership with the Creation Museum in nearby Petersburg, Ky., after running for less than three days."
The Cincinnati Zoo helps the public learn about science, especially evolutionary biology. It makes no sense for the Cincinnati Zoo to have a business relationship with the Creation Museum, because that museum dishonestly tells the public evolution is false.
bemused, since you capitalized "Creation Museum" shouldn't you have used the word "the" instead of "a" before "Creation Museum"?
"Ken Ham and his associates are the TRUE HEROES!!! They don't need the Cinncinnati Zoo. God will bless their work regardless. I'm a Kindergarten Teacher, and BELEIVE ME, I see children who are so lacking in social, moral, and especially spiritual education, it BREAKS MY HEART. This nation is disentegrating before our very eyes, and very few seem to care. I thank the Lord for the Creation Museum. May God bless their work."
It breaks my heart that a kindergarten teacher can't spell believe or disintegrate and capitalized words like kindergarten, let alone that someone with a college education and a teaching degree would back something like a "Creation Museum".
agent, my remark to ozark was what many young Christians began to think after they were led to believe the Creation Account was not literally true. It wasn't chance it was just as the Bible declares it occurred.
beliver,
"they were not a matter of chance or accident but a purposeful and special creation of God"
If we pre-supose 1) Christian God is True, and 2) He is as the Bible indicates, the giver/provider of all laws on how matter, time and space work and can possibly function, it's hard to argue it being entirely chance with their creation.
You could almost say it had to be, or inevitable, at least in some fashion.
"they were led to believe the Creation Account was no more than a myth or allegory"
You're propping up this false dichotomy in which you assert that if it's non literal, and to a T, then it's somehow all myth.
But this isn't so, I tried to elude to that possibility that the creation narrative could an interpretation metaphorically and still one would have to praise God for the creation none the less as it's greater deeper meaning of Him being involved in it is the core message above all else.
ozark, but I have seen many young Christians who were discouraged in their faith with regards to trusting the Word of God when they were led to believe the Creation Account was no more than a myth or allegory. Basically, well if that's a myth or allegory then can the other teachings in the Word of God be trusted, such as the virgin birth and so on.
When we take the entire testimony of Scripture; what do we find? We see that the creation is a literal account with the hope of its future restoration. The Bible opens with the story of creation; the Bible closes with the story of re-creation. All that was lost by the fall of our first parents is restored. The One who made all things by the Word of His mouth at the beginning brings the long struggle with sin, evil, and death to a triumphant and glorious conclusion. He is the One who dwelt among us and died in our stead on Calvary. As the heavenly beings sang for joy at the first creation, so the redeemed from earth proclaim:
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created (Revelation 4:11).
I have to complement many of you who posted comments on this article. It is refreshing to see some general civility and intellectual discussion, a rarity in today's literary bomb-throwing culture on the Web.
Personally, I don't particularly care for Ham's general attitude towards believers who disagree with his perspective (probably a function of his hyper-Calvinist theology) and I could see how a public institution such as the Zoo (at least when I lived in Cincy back in the '90's, it received subsidies of public money) might want to be careful of too close association with strong-opinioned, acerbic individuals such as Ken.
IMHO, there is sufficient room in what can honestly be indisputably known about the Lord's Creation activities, that in the long run, arguments over literal v figurative periods of time in Genesis are simply a diversion from what we are called to be as servants in the Kingdom, salt and light. How does an argument of the meaning of "yom" further the Kingdom?
I've taught in the physical sciences for several decades now, and in all of that time, I've never met or heard the personal testimony of a single person who came to a saving knowledge of Our Lord through arguments over the Creation act/process (not saying that they don't exist, just never encountered such a person in the thousands of people that I have interacted with in a scientific arena as a Christian). I have on the other hand, personally talked to or heard many intellectual advanced persons who were convinced of the reality of a Loving Creator God, based in the Walk of His servants and the caring attitudes exhibited by them.
Argumentation is fun, but I encourage y'all to be certain that you balance it with graceful love.
agent, Adam and Eve were a special creation of God's both physically and spiritually for the purpose of fellowship with God, but because of sin this fellowship was destroyed and required God to send Christ to the Cross so that fellowship could be restored, they were not a matter of chance or accident but a purposeful and special creation of God. Plus to see the Creation Account as nothing more than a myth or allegory or what ever other term other than literal leaves too many unanswered questions that theistic evolutionists can satisfactorily answer.
Believer, of the reading on Christianity and appologetics I've done, when it comes to the phrase 'in the image of God' on the making of humanity I find it describing the process of instilling spiritual/moral (soul, what have you) sense into the physical body.
That being that God is a spiritual entity in nature suggests that this wasn't a *poofing* process of creating a fully new being from actual dirt, but rather that the spiritual is being 'breathed into' the already existing physical being that had already existed since previous creations. 'From dirt', suggests that we have a lowly origin, but that we're part of nature but still have a higher place within it as per Gods role of acknowledging Him & his works.
This is all non literal, and it still provides glory and praise to the Creator and in no way implies deception or lying no more than other parts which are taken as metaphorical. So where is the objection in such a view of metaphorical, higher meaning, reading?
agent, because the Creation Account has such a powerful impact on many of God's other truths taught in the Word of God. In the Creation Account we see God's perfect creation damaged by the initial entry of sin into the world through Adam and Eve as well as God putting into play the redemptive work of His Son, Jesus Christ as so much of what we read in the Old Testament points us to the Cross of Jesus Christ. In the Creation Account we see God instituting both marriage and the family. In the Creation Account we see death both physical and spiritual for God's special creation, mankind, enter the world which made it necessary for God to put His redemptive plan for mankind into play.
Believer,
In other parts of the bible we are told Jesus is a rock and other metaphorical and allegorical truths are given. So why can't the creation narrative, be a symbolic or metaphorical truth, and still be truth none the less?
chicago, Any allegorical writing in the Bible is clearly understood as such; Jesus' parables for example. The Bible clearly states the ultimate author of the Bible is God. Missing the point would be that the Bible in it's entirety is not True.
Believer: Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful response and insight.
Forgivensinner: I think we should clarify that the Hebrew texts in the Bible are not "only" allegorical, but rather, that using allegory was a very meaningful literary tool that the ancient Hebrew authors utilized in order to convey their messages. It was their way of making their messages about God incredibly significant. Our little Western minds are used to taking things literally.
So rather than seeing their use of allegory as somehow making the texts less significant, we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the authors who wrote it -- whether or not these accounts are literally true is missing the point.
Tallguy,
Your understanding of the creation story is not in harmony with the testimony of scripture; is God and the writers of the New Testament lying?
According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for mans workweek: work six days, rest one. Certainly God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.
Also, Jesus and others speak of creation as a literal fact: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation (2Peter 3:4).
Both Adam and Eve are mentioned several times in the New Testament:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1Corinthians 15:22).
For Adam was first formed, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Timothy 2:13, 14).
I have to admit being on CP makes me realize how very niave I am to all the many arguments surrounding the Bible. An allegory, huh? How very sad for us if this were to be true, which I cannot and will not concede. If we believe that the Creation account, Adam and Eve for that matter, are symbolic fictional figures, where does that leave Jesus in someone's mind? Discrediting any part of the Bible for folks only helps to create discredit for the whole Bible in their minds and our ONLY way to heaven.
tallguy, so when does God finally start telling the truth?
Chicago's got it right fellas! The story of creation is only an allegorical account....
ifeelfine, in Mark 16:17-18, all the verbs are future tense, except for "if they drink...." How do you get that these are commands, as you say?
You also said, " You're just like the other folks that pick and choose."
Please give an example. Don't confuse using linguistis + historical study tools with "picking and choosing." You're smarter than that.
ifeelfine, I did not dismiss those verses I simply did my homework by referring to some people who are a whole lot smarter than me when it comes to interpreting difficult passages of scripture such as these to see how they interpreted it.
ifeelfine72,
It would be nice to know who you are addressing . . .
I knew you'd figure out a way to dismiss those passages . . . and yet, when others of us do the same thing to other passages, you get on your soapbox and talk about literalness, inerrency, etc. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
Gods revelation contained in the Scriptures has been and still remains the final authority to define Christian beliefs and practices. Any attempt to supersede the authority of the Bible by the teaching authority of any Church, group, or person represents, as Jesus said, (a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition) . . . making void the word of God through your tradition (Mark 7:9, 13)!
One needs to consider the following evidence for the Bibles reliability before it is categorized as just another piece of human literature:
1) Manuscripts: We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament and the same is true of the New Testament text; We possess over 5,300 manuscripts
2)Archaeology: Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible.
3) Prophecy: The third principle of Bible reliability is Prophecy, or predictive ability. The Bible records predictions of events that could not be known or predicted by chance or common sense.
4) Statistics: When you look at some of the improbable prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, it seems incredible that skeptics (knowing the authenticity and historicity of the texts) could reject the statistical verdict and it is Statistically preposterous that any or all of the Bibles very specific, detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance, good guessing, or deliberate deceit.
Chicago,
It is true that Matthew was primarily addressing a Jewish audience, however, I would not call his gospel an (agenda); he merely was communicating how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies as the Messiah.
You said, (We don't know exactly what Jesus said); how do you know . . . and also how do you have an understanding of who God is without his written revelation?
I am not surprised to hear the (we dont know) argument, many today have taken this position through their study of Biblical Criticism/Higher Criticism. The overriding concern with this textual method of observation is its study of these writings as purely human literature. The fundamental problem with higher criticism is its reliance on the (critics) subjective speculations rather than on verifiable scientific investigation. James Orr makes this point in his major article on (Biblical Criticism) in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, of which he is editor-in-chief.
He wrote: (While invaluable as an aid in the domain of Biblical introduction (date, authorship, genuineness, contents, destination, etc. Biblical Criticism manifestly tends to widen out illimitably into regions where exact science cannot follow it, where, often, the critics imagination is his only law)-end quote.
This method destroys any confidence in the divine origin of the message of the Bible because it presupposes its writings to be merely human literary production, error-ridden, and entirely conditioned by the culture of the time. We can also see the negative impact of Biblical Criticism today by the increasing number of Bible scholars, preachers, and lay-Christians who have lost their confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible. Again, I am not surprised . . . thank God not all Christians have fallen prey to this subjective and philosophical reading of Gods Word. This is really nothing new, it is the old lie re-packaged for todays unsuspecting generation.
tpique1, the Zoo was receiving complaints from both christians and non-christians alike, read the article. And as a business it can't stay aligned with this museum as it would impact their own profits. There is no 'silencing' here, the 'museum' is still open.
The evolutionist's first line of defense: Silence all dissent.
stop complaining! i WANT all those morons to go to that museum. that way, they won't be underfoot wherever my family goes. (I don't want them next to me in church either.)
The word "take up" is Strongs 142: to lift, to take up or away; fig. to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), spec. to sail away (i.e. to weight anchor); by Hebrew comparision strongs 5375: to expiate sin.
An interesting word "snake" in the Greek. It is Strongs 3789 which means a snake and also has the figurative definition of "an artful malicious person esp. Satan---serpent."
So, with the full definition in mind we take up a snake or two on this site!!!
ifeelfine, plus in the Greek the better translation would be if they are compelled to pick up snakes or if they are compelled to drink poison, it does not warrant the voluntary snake-handling or drinking of poison, practices not attested in the early church. (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)
ifeelfine, leave it to you to pick out a passage of scipture that we're not certain if they were actually a part of the Book of Mark or if these practices were a part of the early church only. But if you feel led to either handle snakes or drink poison I can take you to some churches in our area that can accomodate you.
mathetes: Mark 16:17-18 is a command - not something we can choose to do. Therefore, you're not testing God because he is commanding you to do it (is it testing God to love your children? No, because are supposed to do it). You're just like the other folks that pick and choose.
ifeelfine, and I'll say again for theistic evolution to be true God had to lie!
believer: I'm only going to say this one more time: God wasn't lying - that's your interpretation of it.
chicago, even though I butt heads with you some I always enjoy your honesty such as your last post. I knew a guy in college who was on fire for the Lord and then he went to "cemetery" and the next time I saw him he was like a dead fish spiritually because he had discovered how unreliable the Bible was. On another site someone remarked how we have to be taught how to misunderstand the Bible and that is so true. But you ask why all or nothing and the best way I can answer that is that the Bible is one if not the most honest books ever written since it has no problem sharing the good, the bad, and the ugly of God's people and as a result I think some people believe were to accept everything in the Bible as good and right. But the reality is God did not approve or ordain many of the things we read in the Bible and in fact we often times read the negative consequences that went along with those things done that did not have God's approval or were ordained by Him. So even though I believe with all my heart that the Bible in its original autographs is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God, literally God's Word, I by no means believe God is okay with all the acts and deeds done by those written about in the Bible and even some of the patriarchs in the Bible.
Believer: Why does it have to be "all or nothing?"
Maybe I'm an "apathiest" - - I just DON'T CARE one way or the other.
See what all that education and living in a religious order will do to you? I definitely became jaded.
chicago, so basically for you it's creating God in your image as opposed to being created in the image of God? Because God's Word does not present God and God's truths in a way that are acceptable to you that allows you the right to reject God's Word as being God's Word? But in a way that is a very convenient thing to do, that way when you read a passage of scripture that either convicts one of sin or reveals sin in ones life you simply choose to reject it by saying this is of man and not of God.
"Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,"
So, this was a voluntary ticket package which would only be of issue if someone WANTED to go to both? Sounds like discrimination to me. There are zoos that partner with other businesses all the time to go to wax museums, restaruauts and all kinds of things. This only proves the 'spirit of anti-christ' is growing in our nation.
So much for tolerance and freedom of religion. I've never read in the Constitution where it says 'freedom from religion'. Perhaps some of the folks here who say Christianity isn't being discriminated against can explain this to a simple mountain man like me....
Hello c24
I attended an excellent Catholic school, my R.E exams centred on the synoptic gospels and I clearly remember my teachers taking the same approach you write of. I think the Catholic church has a far more realistic (not perfect though like any church) approach to the gospels than many churches.
BW
Steve
Believer: You asked "what would one have to show you to prove the Bible is indeed the inerrant Word of God?"
I would have to put aside my reasoning, lots of higher education, and even my ethics to do so.
Reasoning: The fact that there were dozens, maybe hundreds of anonymous authors of the Biblical texts makes it unlikely that all of it is inerrant and written by God. Of all the earliest texts we have, no two are alike.
Ethics: The Bible gives advice for the treatment of slaves and advocates killing one's children if they curse you. Obviously, texts like these are from human minds with human intentions involved.
Education: I'd have to put aside what I was taught. 90 hours of graduate school - - and we were taught that the Bible is a record of human inspiration.
I appreciate your concern, but common sense won't allow me to believe that all the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Online4him: I appreciate you taking the time to provide a more relevant argument, which you did.
Regarding the scripture in Matthew where Jesus reinforces the accuracy of the Hebrew texts, we have to realize two things:
1. The author of Matthew was writing primarily to a Jewish audience and, therefore, he had an agenda, namely to reinforce the Hebrew texts.
2. We don't know exactly what Jesus said. There wasn't anyone following him around with a note pad writing everything down. Each of the gospel authors took what had been handed down orally, and decades later wrote it for a specific purpose, to convey a certain message for different reasons.
I had a Jesuit professor for my course in Matthew who always said, "Did Jesus really say this? We dont know. But when I get to heaven, I'll ask him."
I pretty much take that position as well.
ifeelfine,
Jesus spoke in parables at times; are we to read His parables and miss the point?
ifeelfine72, you said, ( . . . you just choose to ignore the truth.)
Define truth . . .
ifeelfine, your said:
ForgivenSinner: Do you "take God at His word" when reading Mark 16:17-18?
We who take God at His Word believe those verses, for God has proven them time and again, starting with the apostle in Jerusalem (Acts 2-4) and Paul (Acts 28:1-6). I don't believe we should test God by doing drinking poisons or picking up snakes intentionally, but God's Word is true and He has proved it repeatedly.
Believer: When are you going to see that you are asking a loaded, silly question every time you ask us "When does God finally start telling the truth?" Of course we think God has already told the truth - you just choose to ignore the truth."
Nice avoidance/cop out. Do you read the gospels as historical narrative? Are they true? Which part of God's Word do you accept as truth?
ifeelfine, no according to theistic evolutionists like yourself God was lying when we read Genesis 1:31, "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good." Based on your view when this happened there was already death and destruction in the world. Plus God tells us that as a result of sin, death and destruction came into the world and yet according to your view death and destruction came into the world prior to the arrival of man, prior to sin coming into the world, so once again based on your view God is lying to us. The bottomline is that to believe theistic evolution is to believe God is a liar.
This shows how intolerent and bigotted the secular socialist are. I thank the zoo, who likely needs more help than the museum, for encourged education and exposure to valid school of thought, that is banned in the tax payer funded, unionized, and failing public school system, that the poor is locked into.
ForgivenSinner: Do you "take God at His word" when reading Mark 16:17-18?
Believer: When are you going to see that you are asking a loaded, silly question every time you ask us "When does God finally start telling the truth?" Of course we think God has already told the truth - you just choose to ignore the truth.
Thank you believer, online, forgivensinner and weekenderman, for contending for THE faith ONCE delivered to the saints.
Some encouragement... Micah 6:1 - "Hear ye now what the LORD saith; Arise, contend thou before the mountains, and let the hills hear thy voice. Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD'S controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel. O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me."
To all other, and you know who you are: your position is contrary to the Word of God, and for this you will be held accountable on the day of God's judgment.
Scripture says "The natural man (chicago) knows not the things of God, neither CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are Spiritually discerned.
“It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith,â€Â
The interesting thing about this story to me is that Ham actually thinks the museum's decision was about Christian faith. What a moron! Has to do with credibility for what should be a scientific institution (the zoo).
The zoo hooked up with Ham's sham is like Nature magazine marketing jointly with Astrology today! Has nothing to do with the Christian faith, has to do with science and common sense!
Guess I won't be going to the Cincinnati Zoo anymore. (Columbus is really better anyway.) But my children LOVE the Creation Museum. And we love Ken Hamm. God bless him for standing up for the truth.
Ken Ham and his associates are the TRUE HEROES!!! They don't need the Cinncinnati Zoo. God will bless their work regardless. I'm a Kindergarten Teacher, and BELEIVE ME, I see children who are so lacking in social, moral, and especially spiritual education, it BREAKS MY HEART. This nation is disentegrating before our very eyes, and very few seem to care. I thank the Lord for the Creation Museum. May God bless their work.
Believer, There is Nothing that you could show chicago that would cause him to believe The Bible as God's Word, Absolutely Nothing.
He chooses not to believe. And the Scripture tell's us, " Neither cast ye your pearls before swine."
Unless the Holy Spirit convicts him of his sin, he will continue in his ignorance and Spiritual Blindness.
chicago, what would one have to show you to prove the Bible is indeed the inerrant Word of God?
Chicago,
Sorry, I do not subscribe to modern textual criticism as some obviously do but believe that the Scriptures are exactly what they claim to be: (God-breathed); inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the context of the Scriptures, the word inspiration simply means (God-Breathed).
The Bible itself claims that every word, in every part of the Bible, is inspired by God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). This view of the Scriptures is often referred to as (verbal plenary) inspiration. What that means is that the inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal inspiration), not just concepts or ideas; and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture (plenary inspiration).
Another verse that deals with the inspiration of the Scriptures is 2 Peter 1:21. This verse tells us that (prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit). This verse helps us to understand that although men wrote the Scriptures, the words they wrote were the very words of God. Even though God used men with their distinctive personalities and writing styles, God divinely inspired the very words they wrote.
Jesus Himself confirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures when He said, (Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished) (Matthew 5:17-18). In these verses, Jesus is reinforcing the accuracy of the Scriptures down to the smallest detail and the slightest punctuation mark - because it is the very word of God.
Chicago says, "Also, I see evolution as a march toward progressive goodness..."
You see as well as a blind man.
What possible evidence of progressing upwards toward goodness do you SEE in todays world?
If I was an evolutionist, I would say that mankind is de-volving...we may be living longer but we sure ain't loving better.
chicago,
You claim to believe in God, but do not believe the Bible is His literal Word, so where do you get God's literal Word?
Online4him: You were trying to argue my claim that the Bible is a record of human inspiration, yet you did nothing but quote the Bible (which I said was a record of HUMAN inspiration)
Circular arguments such as yours are just about the laziest way of going about it.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.
I believe in the Literal creation of the heavens and the Earth. And what joy and comfort that brings to my soul.
The Holy Scriptures declare, in 2-Tim 3:16," All " Scripture is given by Inspiration of God."
So when the Bible says that God created, Then that settles the argument for me. God Created.
Now for those who attempt to explain the Bible away by Their Intellect, Please understand that it just reveals your Ignorance of the Scriptures, and also your doubt and unbelief are blinding.
I see a heaven and an Earth, and ZI believe that it got here by the Power and will of Almighty God.
I see the Sun and the Moon, And I believe that God set them in the sky.
I see the birds and the fish, The tall Mountains, And I say to myself, What a Might God I serve.
To those who choose not to believe, That is your right, But know and understand one Day, God will set it all straight.
To God be the Glory, Great things He has done, so Loved He the World that He gave us His Son, Who yield His Life an Atonement for sin, and opened the floodgate that all may go in.
Praise God.
Tallguy wrote "Chicago's got it right fellas! The story of creation is only an allegorical account. If it were to be taken word for word, then why can't any of you tell me why He created light on the first day and then again on the forth day? Why is the first story of creation different from the second story of creation (chapter 2)?"
What am I chop liver, now? I answered you this morning. I see how it is.
Oh wait a second, I just remembered -- democratic voting is only respected by God-haters when the vote goes their way (see Prop 8 in CA for a prime example).
Maybe Christians should start a letter-writing campaign to the Cincinnati Zoo to complain about this intolerance? I'm sure there are many more of "us" than there are of "them."
<blockquote>worried that their children will be affected. </blockquote> That the tykes would actually be given something to <i>think</> about? I wonder if these same parents are as careful about what's on TV? Oy, vey!
Chicago said, (The Bible is a RECORD OF HUMAN INSPIRATION).
Jesus said and spoke of:
Abel was a real individual (Luke 11:51)
Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-39 & Luke 17:26, 27)
Abraham (John 8:56-58)
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15, 11:23, 24 & Luke 10:12)
Lot & his wife (Luke 17:28-32)
Isaac and Jacob (Matthew 8:11 & Luke 13:28)
Jonah (Matthew 12:39-41)
Sheba (Matthew 12:42)
Daniel (Matthew 24:15)
Isaiah (Isaiah 61:1-2 & Luke 4:18)
Timothy says:
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2Timothy 3:15-17).
Hmmm . . . whom to believe . . . I choose the latter.
vi, I should say had not been committed on earth at that point in time.
vi, all the creationists I know believe in the literal six day creation as stated in the book of Genesis. Gap theory followers believe between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, I believe, that God messed up His first creation and had to start over and theistic evolutionists believe the same as evolutionists accept God was orchestrating it all along. The three views have major differences and the latter two are contrary to the written Word of God because when God looks out at His creation and realized it was all very good, with these two views death and destruction were already present which is anything but good and especially considering that both are a result of sin which had not been committed at that point in time.
chicago, I never assumed that with you and in fact based on your rejection of many of God's truths there was no doubt in my mind you did not believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God, but I do appreciate your honesty in this matter as opposed to some who claim to believe in inerrancy but their posts say otherwise.
Sorry...that got mixed up...I'm talking about the category of creationist that does not include theistic evolutionists.
Sorry, last sentence of the first paragraph should have been:
How do you know when he changed from one to the other?
Tallguy, I see no one has answered you (perhaps they read Proverbs), so please accept my explanation. You said: "Chicago's got it right fellas! The story of creation is only an allegorical account."
So the question is to you: when did God stop the allegory and start the history? Gen. 5 - right before the flood? Gen. 10 - just before Babel? Gen. 12 - with Abram? How do you when he changed from one to the other?
"If it were to be taken word for word, then why can't any of you tell me why He created light on the first day and then again on the forth day?"
Do you not see the parallel nature of the days of creation? Gen. 1:2 said the earth was "formless and empty." Days 1-3 God was forming, Days 4-6 God was filling. He made light (photons in motion) on Day 1; on Day 4 He made specific light-bearers/producers. No problem there.
"Why is the first story of creation different from the second story of creation (chapter 2)?" Gen. 1:1-2:4 tells us of Creation Week; Gen. 2 is a close-up of Day 6. Again, no problem when you understand Hebrew. Some English translations do a better job of translating the verb tenses in Gen. 2 than others.
Please don't miss the point. Non-theistic reationists argue for faith while assuming the atheist rhetoric and assumptions in everything they say. That's double-minded. They should proclaim the scriptures in full, and in all things. That's what the article says...it supports both science and faith through honesty and choice.
Believer and Weekenderman: You've assumed that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I don't, nor was I taught that in divinity school.
The Bible is a RECORD OF HUMAN INSPIRATION.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2418
vi, does the writer of the google article believe that in its original autographs that the Bible is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God, literally God's Word?
vi, as for your reference to the use of lots, "though this proverb is quite brief, its point seems to be that the Lord not fate, is the reason for success, if there is any. It also seems to warn that the casting of lots does not carry with it an automatic validity, for in every case the freedom to answer lies with God, who is not at the beck and call of the thrower. It may please God to use this means to give further confidence that one's decision, when it does not conflict with Scripture, or with one's best discernment, is indeed His will. But in no sense should the casting of lots be used or viewed as a means of bypassing what can be known of God and His will through Scripture, prayer, and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.", "Hard Sayings Of The Bible" pg. 332.
Good word, believer. That last post is right on target.
vi, oops is not in God's vocabulary nor is chance since everything God does He does for a purpose and everything He allows He has known about for all eternity and unlike evolutionists believe humans did not arrive by either accident or chance we are a special creation of God as His Word clearly declares.
Here's something amazing! Creationists have totally missed their own astonishing biblical heresy, that's right heresy, in invoking the concepts of "accidental evolution" and "blind" chance. According to the Bible (Pv. 16:33) God controls all chance and there are no accidents. That's a pretty big Ooops! You might enjoy this from the current Google News listings:
Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977514804
"What proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well."
Is the creation story literal or allegorical?
According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for mans workweek: work six days, rest one. Certainly God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.
Also, Jesus speaks of creation as a literal fact: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).
weekenderman-(Did that not literally happen to a literal Adam and a literal Eve, and if not then why is Christ referred to in the New Testament as the "Second Adam." Your smart-alecky theory is full of holes, I'm afraid.)
Well said!!!
Clip monster is at it again. I'll try sections:
Here’s the real laugh. Creationists have totally missed their own astonishing biblical heresy, that’s right heresy, in invoking the concepts of “accidental evolution†and “blind†chance. According to the Bible (Pv. 16:33) God controls all chance and there are no accidents. That’s a pretty big Ooops! You might enjoy this from the current Google News listings:
Chicago's got it right fellas! The story of creation is only an allegorical account. If it were to be taken word for word, then why can't any of you tell me why He created light on the first day and then again on the forth day? Why is the first story of creation different from the second story of creation (chapter 2)?
Here’s the real laugh. Creationists have totally missed their own astonishing biblical heresy, that’s right heresy, in invoking the concepts of “accidental evolution†and “blind†chance. According to the Bible (Pv. 16:33) God controls all chance and there are no accidents. That’s a pretty big Ooops! You might enjoy this from the current Google News listings:
Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977514804
“What proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well.â€Â
Here’s the real laugh. Creationists have totally missed their own astonishing biblical heresy, that’s right heresy, in invoking the concepts of “accidental evolution†and “blind†chance. According to the Bible (Pv. 16:33) God controls all chance and there are no accidents. That’s a pretty big Ooops! You might enjoy this from the current Google News listings:
Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977514804
“What proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well.â€Â
Chicago, don't feel sorry for those who are exposed to the truth. There's an awful lot of evidence for a young earth, and in fact, evolutionists have trouble explaining a lot: What accounts for the magnificent human eye? Charles Darwin said evolution could never account for the eye. What random accidents could have occurred for the earth to be so finely tuned that life is possible? Evolution can't explain that. Where are the missing links? Evolution has never found one. As a former head of the Atomic Energy Commission stated and I quote, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." God's Word is truth but will never be accepted by the majority until that blessed day when "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." That's the truth.
week, you're right on target and it amazes me that those who profess to be Christians can't see that by rejecting the Genesis account of Creation they have so many questions to answer if Christianity is to be truly of God.
So Chicago, if you believe Genesis not to be literal, what is your view of the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden. Did that not literally happen to a literal Adam and a literal Eve, and if not then why is Christ referred to in the New Testament as the "Second Adam." Your smart-alecky theory is full of holes, I'm afraid.
tallguy and chicago, so I take it you both buy into evolution so let me ask you two vitally important questions; was God lying when He looked out on His creation and saw that it was all very good and if the creation account and other accounts such as the global flood are nothing but allegories when does God finally start telling the truth?
Unbelief has always been the mainstream. True Christianity is always ridiculed because we take God's word as truth and science is man's way to say no to God and pat himself on the back. Why is this news? God has never had a majority. Men are full of pride and think they know more than God. It's so sad but you either believe God's word or you don't. It's that simple.
Chicago,
So you would have people believe God is the Creator, but not as it is written in His Word?
Forgiven: Please don't feel sorry for me. I simply read Genesis as it was supposed to be read - - as an allegorical account to illustrate God's greatness as a creator. The authors of Genesis never meant for it to be taken literally. They used allegory to convey a message. It was simply a style of writing they all used back then.
Also, I see evolution as a march toward progressive goodness - - again, the handiwork of a Creator.
That says a lot about our society and hatred toward God and His Word. I wish they had a creation museum in every state! I would love for the Word of God to come to life and for people to know the truth. John 17:17.."thy word is truth."
Tallguy, you're being serious. Do you not believe God at His Word? I will give you a day is like a thousand years to God. He resting is not the resting you and I need. His resting was doing nothing else to His creation and looking on it. God made light to separate the day and the night and then made the sun, moon and stars to eluminate and reflect that light.
chicago, I am sorry you feel that way.
I really feel sorry for the children that are exposed to this creation museum full of lies and un-truths. If adults want to get their little thrills by going there, fine. But to expose kids to this is downright harmful.
If parents really want to inspire awe in their kids, stick with the Smithsonian.
So if they are going to "confirm the validity of the Bible from the very first verse", then how do they reconcile the second account of creation right after the first? How come God created light on the first day, and then God created light again on the 4th day? Didn't He get it right the first time, or is this story of creation just a metaphor? Yes, it's a metaphor, and the point of the story of creation is that God is our Creator, but that He did it in exactly in 6 days and rested on the 7th is a cute little story. Do you really think that God needed a rest after all his hard work?
Pax Christi...
amen, brotha
This is spectacular ~ a Creation Museum!
This is exactly what our society needs ~ the God-side! Kudos to these folks for being brave enough to do it!
Tens of thousands of Christians visit The Cincinnati Zoo each year. Are Christians not welcome there anymore? C'mon Zoo officials...reverse your decision...it's never too late to do what's right!