Creation Museum Mixes Christmas and Dinosaurs

agentorangex »

Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Just HOW can the theory of evolution be tested?"

Like all other science theories, based on empirical evidence. That is, if evolution is true, we aught to find specific patterns of shared morphological homology across many different groups of species (such as having 4 legs) this would be just one prediction.

weekenderman »

Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

I am a little curious, however. Just HOW can the theory of evolution be tested?

That's what I thought . . .

weekenderman »

Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Well put, kami, and I hope you don't spend too much of your time during this glorious Advent season debating the anti-science trolls here who think they're pro-science

These folks have "eyes to hear but cannot hear," and as the Bible also says: "The natural man knows not the things of God (and His Creation); neither CAN he/she know them because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned."

God bless you, and have a wonderful CHRISTmas!

pro-science »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:14 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

kami wrote "But instead argue the definition of the word "theory" is someone different when it's applied in a scientific scene, even though no such dictionary or other reference indicates it is so."

kami, these definitions of the word "theory" come from the online dictionary, answers.com.

Please notice the first definition is used by scientists. Please read the first definition carefully.

THEORY:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

kami »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:05 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

(dang 'enter key. sorry bout that...)

The nativity fits perfectly with the Creation Museum as well as message it conveys.

As for science, why is it some feel to support the Bible is anti-Science? God was the one who created science, the study the natural world around us in the first place.

The only difference is chiefly the world-view from where one hails. While a Creationists and an Evolutionist sees the same evidence setting before them both are naturally going to interpret it differently based on their own belief systems.

However the Creationists are usually the ones who will readily admit where their world-view rests. The Evolutionists in general, or at least the one's I've encountered, won't even admit that much. But instead argue the definition of the word "theory" is someone different when it's applied in a scientific scene, even though no such dictionary or other reference indicates it is so.

kami »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:52 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

The tag-line for Answers in Genesis is "Defending the Bible from the very first verse.

Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

It then goes on from there to tell how God created everything into existence in just 6 literal days...something which is supported and referred back to by Jesus as well as Moses and the Prophets.

In the New Testament:

John
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Bible reports Jesus wasn't always man. But it does report He was and always will be God. The verses above state distinctly He was there when Creation took place. And indeed it was through Him "all things were made".

God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who Created the heavens and the earth and all that live therein, became a creature: A human being. So that He could live under and keep the Law we could not even hope to live up to...and pay the full price we could never pay for our forgiveness of sins.

The nativity fits perfectly with the Creation museum as well as message

pro-science »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 7

While Ken Ham makes a living lying to children about science, scientists are working hard to make discoveries that advance human progress and human knowledge.

The reason I stopped by this blog for evolution deniers: I found these two videos that both talk about ERVs. ERVs found in the exact same locations in the DNA of more than one species is lead-pipe evidence for the idea those species developed from the same ancient ancestors from who they inherited the ERVs.

I selected these two videos because they are extremely easy to understand. This is very important information and we are lucky to be living in a time when these exciting discoveries are being made. Will any creationists watch these videos? I doubt it, but here they are anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

zeno »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Well said, wwfsmd! Unless, of course you consider the 'Creation Museum' to be just for the living dinosaurs! :-)

wwfsmd »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 4:48 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 6

A museum contains remnants of things that actually happened. This is a theme park.

There are no remnants of dinosaurs living with people. Claiming museum status has made this theme park (and young earth creationists in general) a laughing stock. I would be embarrassed to live anywhere near it.