Posted on 12/12/2006 8:11:24 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Of course, the fallacy in this thinking is that (since the fossil record shows wonderfully-adapted creatures all through it) that 'less-adapted' creatures never gained enough numbers to be represented (which is DonaldC's point).
It truly is impossible to falsify a theory that actually predicts that the evidence to support it should not exist.
At what point does an error become a con?
It truly is impossible to falsify a theory that actually predicts that the evidence to support it should not exist.
I know you're trying to be clever with the rhetoric, but you are demonstrably wrong.
The ToE is falsifiable. It wouldn't be scientific unless it was.
Find a million-year-old homo sapiens skeleton, and you will have disproved the ToE.
"Creation Science" is not falsifiable, which is why the term itself is an oxymoron.
Well, there's "truth," and then there's reality.
At what point does an error become a con?
When the error has been brought to their attention.
You make a good point - this is no longer about them being simply "incorrect." It's a deliberate and cynical attempt to make a quick buck by repeating and reinforcing known falsehoods.
All planted there by God to test our faith from what I hear. And the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood.
"You do see fossils of animals with deformities (including humans and their ancestors). You see them alive and running around today, why would think that they didn't exist in the fossil record?
Anything that was truly not viable would be limited to a single isolated individual and hence you would expect to find them fairly rarely, but they do exist."
It just seems to me, and I am not an expert in the field, that there should be a huge quantity of examples of random mutations, viable or not, relative to what would have had to occur on the scales we are talking about.
--I cannot think of a way evolution and creationism can fit together.--
Simple. Just think, "God did it"!
"And lo, the number of the beast shall be e=mc2."
You're right, it doesn't work.
God created the heavens and the earth
Hey, if it's truly random, yes, I would expect to see some bizarre things. :) A naturally occurring jack-a-lope would be sight! hehehe
God created the heavens and the earth
Not in question here.
The ToE has absolutely zero to say about the origin of life.
One can still believe your statement and accept the facts that the universe is at least somewhere around 13 billion years old and that life has been evolving on Earth for millions, if not billions, of years.
Who or what put that chain in motion is not a subject for the ToE.
Nice example of circular thinking.
"Find a million-year-old homo sapiens skeleton, and you will have disproved the ToE."
You are aware that the concept of 'reworking' means that out-of-order fossils are assumed to have been 'reworked', aren't you?
Evil plot? No. Just the natural result of a philosphy (science) that *requires* a natural explanation.
Comprender?
Wow, I bet Ken Ham and the rest of the AIG bunch have never seen that list. I was a creationist, but you listed so many great words I changed my mind!
Oops, I see that you don't understand what science is and what it is not.
Science assumes 'a priori' that only naturalistic methodologies are acceptable and has therefore deliberately limited its scope. This would return an incorrect answer if, in fact, the universe and life *were* created supernaturally.
Science, by definition, can *never* answer the natural vs supernatural creation question.
But don't let that stop you from pretending that it can.
Is it that hard to fathom that evolution is a process guided by God? And that the 7 days in the bible are not literal days? Think about it. What is a "day?" It's a 24 hour period from one noon to the next noon. Before day and night existed, here was no "day" and therefore a "day" could be any length of time God wanted it to be. Or a day could actually be an era.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.