Creation museum pushes 'true history' (About New Ohio Creationist Museum)

BBC ^

[HHKrepublican_2]

A new high-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the Creation Museum.

But secular scientists would take issue with the use of either word to describe the almost completed building that stands just a few miles west of Cincinnati, on the borders of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.

Wherever you stand on the debate, it is impossible not to be impressed by the effort that has gone into constructing the $27m (£13.5m) museum, which hopes to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.

"We have a planetarium to our left, and a virtually-finished bookstore.

"The museum is right under that archway there," said Mark Looy, vice president for ministry relations, standing in the foyer next to an animatronics dinosaur that is munching on a synthetic plant.

Playful dinosaurs

The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible - to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

[Stultis]

No they aren't (or rather they are micro-evolution), but they are not real "macro-evolution" becuause they are just variation within kind:

Well, yes, the hawthorn flys example are not (yet) true species, but they do show some significant movement (e.g. reduced fertility) toward that direction. This is just the point. Variation within a kind can lead divergent populations to becoming full species. And when that happens this is "macroevolution" by definition. (Macroevoltuion means evolution above the species level. If a new species arises you're in the realm of macro. If not you're "only" dealing with micro.)

once there were on a few type of Canine Dog,but now many would you call any of these (from the small tea-cup poodle to the Great Dane) not dogs

Your syntax is a little unclear, but anyway "dogs" refers to any member of Family Canidae, or Canids. Domestic dogs ("tea-cup poodle to the Great Dane") are indeed all one species, Canis familiaris.

BUT but there are many "dogs" (canids) which are good and independent species. For instance all true foxes are canids.

Therefore if you want to use the term "dog" in the ordinary scientific sense, claiming that they're all one "kind," then you're effectively admitting (whether or not you realize it) that "macroevolution" DOES occur within "kinds".

Five of those separate dog species are pictured below. Just for fun, can you identify which two of the seven are NOT dogs? Answers here.

Each pic is linked to a larger image.

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 

[Stultis]

"No he isn't. Most of his examples are pollen, spores and such. Small, maybe, but not delicate, and ubiquitous as heck. VERY easily reworked (or contaminating sediments they weren't ever actually part of)."

Ah, there's that 'reworking' arugment that I mentioned to 'atlaw'. He seemed completely unaware of it.

Here is Woodmorappe responding to Morton.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp

Um, yeah. Whatever. You're aware that article has nothing, even indirectly, to do with fossil "reworking" aren't you? But then, very possibly you aren't. If you can't savvy the distinction between "spontaneous generation" and pre-biotic chemical evolution, then maybe the distinction between relative and absolute dating is equally mysterious.

The "Woodmorappe" article you link concerns absolute dating (dating in years, as by radiometric dating of rocks), whereas fossil reworking is an issue of relative dating (dating by position within the geologic column).

In any case Glenn Morton responded to it here:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/woodrad.htm

BTW, "Woodmorappe" neglects to tell you something very interesting about Morton's original response to his own original paper: that it was published when Morton himself was still also a young earth creationist.

[_Jim]

Just think what the bible says about creation. Trees etc were created bearing fruit, man and woman was created, not boy and girl.

ANd howcome trees are not made ot 'tree stuff', boys made of 'boy-stuff' and girls made of 'girl-stuff', but rather they ALL share a common basis in biology not to mention matter itself?

Is this not the GREATEST charade then?

[GourmetDan]

"Could you please provide additional documentation on this quote? I am unable to find a reliable source through google."

See link for ISBN etc. You can even find a nearby library.

http://www.librarything.com/work-info/177892

[GourmetDan]

"If life came into being as the result of a more or less complex process of some kind -- probably one occurring over some period of time, and with various stages, sub-processes or parallel processes involved -- then that would not be "spontaneous," neither in terms of the way the term had been previously used in science, nor in terms of the common dictionary definition of the term."

All unknown and merely presumed by faith in naturalism.

The dictionary does not place a time or number of processes limit on 'spontaneous', although I understand why you would need to.

[GourmetDan]

"It's easy to assert that all of historical geology is b.s. when you don't have to actually do anything with it, or with any supposed alternative."

And it's a lot easier to 'refute' someones work if you pretend that you don't even have to address it.

[GourmetDan]

"It's easy to assert that all of historical geology is b.s. when you don't have to actually do anything with it, or with any supposed alternative."

I think you've forgotten the conversation trail.

You claimed that reworking didn't apply to small, delicate fossils. I then proposed Woodmorappe's work as being real problems since they involved small, delicate fossils, the very ones you claim cannot be reworked. You failed to answer.

As for Morton's 'response'. All I saw was more misrepresentation of Woodmorappe, as expected.

[FFIGHTER]

Science and math are tools of Satan and his Scientist minions.

[js1138]

Thank you, we're all familiar with Google and copy-pasting. You filled up my comments window, and there doesn't even seem to be a point.

On easy point to make is that you can set your pings to display summaries. That's what the choice is for.

The other point, which you choose to ignore, is that there are hundreds of rather large and vicious dinosaurs other than the "behemoth" that get no mention in recorded history. And that list does not include the dozens of large mammals other than the mammoth.

I think if you lived in a world with millions of raptors running around loose, you'd mention it in your history.

[Stultis]

You claimed that reworking didn't apply to small, delicate fossils. I then proposed Woodmorappe's work as being real problems since they involved small, delicate fossils, the very ones you claim cannot be reworked. You failed to answer.

Wrong. First I never said "small" or "delicate" applied necessarily or in general to fossils whose position cannot be explained by "reworking". I only used those terms in respect to a specific and incidental example I happened to give ("small, delicate bones like those of most fishes"). There are of course plenty of other fossils that could never be explained by reworking, such as complete, articulated skeletons, fossils composed of thin, carbonate films, and etc.

Second I did answer, pointing out that the list of out of order fossils I'd seen from "Woodmorappe" previously (you never gave a specific link) was mostly pollen, spores and the like. These are small but NOT delicate.

Third neither you (nor "Woodmorappe") have ever documented the gratitous, i.e. ad hoc, use of "reworking" to explain otherwise anomalous fossils. It is, of course, possible to have specific evidence (independent of any evolutionary considerations) for fossil reworking.

[Stultis]

All unknown and merely presumed by faith in naturalism.

Huh? I don't even understand that assertion, except as some sort of bizarre and extreme intellectual (or anti-intellectual) relativism. How the term "spontaneous generation" has historically been used in science is not an issue of "faith," but rather an issue of examining the actual history, or scholarship regarding that history.

I happen to have read rather beyond the depth of the average layperson in the history of biology and natural history, and have consumed several books covering the spontaneous generation controversies alone.

I know what I'm talking about here. You don't.

[atlaw]

Ah, there's that 'reworking' arugment that I mentioned to 'atlaw'. He seemed completely unaware of it.

Completely unaware of it? Hardly. It is readily apparent from your comments, however, that you haven't a clue about the concept. I was hoping that you would make at least a stab at giving your (apparently idiosyncratic) understanding of it, but you chose to dodge and huff instead. Perhaps you'd like to remedy that now.

ps -- it is ordinary courtesy to ping someone to a post in which they are referenced, especially when they are referenced with derision.

[Non-Sequitur]

To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus Rex.

How about another diorama where the baby T-Rex playfully turn on the two smiling children and rip their limbs off?

[Quark2005]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The Bible's authors obviously did not think it necessary to detail the entire taxonomic list of dinosaurs, just like it did not deem it necessary to list any other species.

Well, there is a vivid detail that the Bible provided about the 'dinosaur' called Leviathan (Job 41:19-21):

19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out.

20 Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.

21 His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.

Does this mean that some dinosaurs could breathe fire?

[LikeLight]

LOL!

Yes, I suppose it can be amusing watching the believers in scientific naturalism squirm. Although I tend to celebrate rather than mock their liberation from misplaced faith in man and his "wisdom".

[js1138]

The Bible was never written to be a science textbook.

But that's exactly the point scientists have been trying to make for centuries. It's the point St. Augustine was trying to make when he advised Christians not to make assertions about the natural world that are obviously false.

My point about the dinosaurs stands: no world full of both humans and raptors could produce a history devoid of comment on the dominant predators.

[js1138]

It could be. Legend and folklore of fire-breathing "dragons" may have had root in historical fact.

Now that's pathetic.