Creation Museums?
Discussion Actions
ok, so i’ve just recently become aware of young earth creationists defending their arguements via MUSEUMS. i’ve known that archeological and historical defenses have been made for years, maybe even since or before darwin’s arguement for evolution, but to validate and present the information in such a misleading way as through a museum structure seems a bit overboard to me.
i think all of us here are certainly open to healthy discussion and friendly debate, and in no way to i think that young earth creationists shouldn’t defend their case. i simply question how seriously misleading this can be given that it’s based on no good evidence or imperical data, and the people presenting and defending this info are HIGHLY defensive in the wake of healthy scientific critisism.
below are links for consideration…
www.creationtruth.org
creationmuseum.org
6 Responses
-
-
Charles, it would be good if you could provide a link to the discussion you are referring to.
Also, problem is that creation museums do not present any “facts”. They show pure conjecture, and often false data. You can’t disagree with facts, it’s the conjecture and untruths that are the problem.
The old earth has been empirically validated (not proven – there is no such thing is natural sciences). What other evidence do you require? It can be easily provided. On the other hand, there is no evidence for a young earth – none whatsoever. Only conjecture again.
-
Thanks for the response Charles! And nice to meet you!
I disagree with nothing you say, and I know for a fact that I would absolutely enjoy a Creation museum, and intend to visit the one nearby (Cincinnati) since I live in Dayton, OH and will no doubt bring my son, who is 5 and attends a Catholic school. I look forward to visiting and reporting my findings!
The few apparent “loopholes” in carbon and radiometric dating are nothing new, and seem undisputed by the science community, which would only assume an invitation for clarification and review so that we can agree and move on. However, the only evidence that I can find for young earth creation is the attack of scientific errors that support evolution, which in no way points to young earth creation, but rather to areas of science that still need tireless review and scrutiny.
I’m also concerned about the gray area of mixing up and jumbling “dating” and “evolution” as the same things. The dating of objects is its own entity which can support evolution, but not as a freestanding entity. Scientists could prove that the universe is 14 billion yrs old without giving a lick of evidence for evolution. An argument could easily be made that the human race is older than 6k yrs old without using evolution as part of the defense. And evolution, as defined (a process of change in any direction) is a non-issue given that we can see it in almost every simple social and biological environment known between now and first recorded history. An argument for evolution without the defense of deep time could also be made since we know simple organisms such as bacteria evolve almost yearly. Which is amazing!! Measuring light would be the most simple and accurate way to blow apart young earth creation without even adding evo into the equation.
As far as I can tell, the data for old earth outweighs young earth, and young earth’s biggest defense is pointing out science’s flaws and then waiting for future resolutions to their own problems while continuing to confirm that the bible is “literal” truth and has been confirmed……which is just my observation AND experience.
Looking forward to your response!
p.s.
Thanks for the reminder about your “empirical” thread…I’ve been there before, but had to update myself, and comment!
-
Josh, Thank you for your ideas. The reason that the “old earth” vs. “new earth” is important to the theory of evolution is that 3.5 billion years are NEEDED to support the theory.
Remember that TGFE told us that evolution is a fact… that there was so much empirical data that anyone doubting the fact of evolution would be like someone trying to defend the idea of a flat earth.
Again, anyone having empirical data should show us where such data is reported. However, since May 2009, no one has visited this site who can point to the “factual data”.
What about the carbon 14? What about the helium?
We are expected to accept the fact based on faith… faith that all in favor are trustworthy and that there is consensus in the scientific community.
Please excuse me for not having enough faith.
-
Charles,
I am ready to take up your challenge. Evolution is a fact, because it can be observed, just like gravity.
You will simply have to define what you consider to be “empirical data”.
Also you seem to have overlooked the fact that the “old earth” theory, ie. evidence to support a very old earth is not an invention of evolutionists. It was accepted a long time before Darwin, when most scientists were creationists.
I can also explain the doubts you have about carbon 14 and helium 0 plese specify what you consider to be a problem.
Evolution has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with observable facts – unlike young earth creationism.
-
thank Connie for THIS little plug-in…a nice write up on their visit to the Creation Museum near cinci.
Josh, Please read my discussion group on this site.
Thank God For Evolution, Facts Are God’s Native Tongue: “Evolutionary religion’s alternative to reliance on ancient scriptures is empirical data. In a way, the data are our scriptures— and to these we submit”.
Starting May 2009 I invited anyone to show empirical data for an old earth. There are two unresolved problems: 1. Carbon 14 in coal mines indicate that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old. 2. Radiometric dating of zircon measures an excessive amount of helium. Again, a young earth.
People visit creation museums because they wish to experience scenarios described in the Bible. I suggest that you visit one of the museums and take note of which facts you disagree with. Please report them here.
Charles Palm