Ham's Creation Museum

[vossler]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you missed the point of the whole review thing. It was hardly to tell you whether the museum has spiritual value or not.

What's the value of a 'spiritual' website doing reviews on a museum that is presenting a biblical and/or spiritual view of the origin of the world if it isn't to give me some spiritual insight? Why should I even bother reading it? What's the purpose of even presenting it?

But I'm glad you felt comfortable slipping in that "I'm-above-the-world" mentality you've got going on there.

Aren't we as Christians set apart from the world? Are you saying that the world can and does give you spiritual insights?

 

[The Lady Kate]

What's the value of a 'spiritual' website doing reviews on a museum that is presenting a biblical and/or spiritual view of the origin of the world if it isn't to give me some spiritual insight? Why should I even bother reading it? What's the purpose of even presenting it?

So when this museum claims... no, screams from the rooftops, to provide spiritual insight, despite having little to no worldly insight at all, what's it's value?

Do I really have to quote Augstine yet again?

Aren't we as Christians set apart from the world? Are you saying that the world can and does give you spiritual insights?

So, the museum gives no spiritual insight?

[BIBLE]Romans 1:20[/BIBLE]

 

[shernren]

I don't know about "scientific creationists" but for me this statement should be challenging for everyone.

So you are agreeing after all that scientific statements do have spiritual consequences? (I'm not convinced that we finished exploring that the last time.

A recreated church facade stands at the other end of the room, but the foundation of the church has been damaged by a large wrecking-ball labeled "millions of years." The signage explains that the cause of all this misery is our move away from Genesis and toward the scientific ideas of geology and evolution. Ideas about an old earth make people feel small and insignificant, so naturally they do drugs and have abortions.
​

An old earth -> therefore I don't need the church?
I evolved -> therefore I do drugs and abortions?

 

[vossler]

So you are agreeing after all that scientific statements do have spiritual consequences?

Scientific statements can have spiritual consequences.

An old earth -> therefore I don't need the church?
I evolved -> therefore I do drugs and abortions?

If only it were that simple.

 

[Digit]

If only it were that simple.

I actually think it is that simple. This is something that is often evident when witnessing or simply talking about God. People seem to have a pretty good grasp of what it would mean to their lives. This is where I feel most of the rejection comes from, that we are inherently selfish, and don't want to give up control, and live what has become known to us as our life according to the rules of someone else. For me, the biggest thorn in our side is that of evolution, because it doesn't require a God, whereas scripture says that He is the only way, God is life.

Digit

 

[gluadys]

For me, the biggest thorn in our side is that of evolution, because it doesn't require a God, ....

Digit

Two questions: how can we come to God by faith, if something requires God so that we do not have to believe in his existence, but know it to be required fact?

How can God be fully sovereign over creation if some line of logic or some scientific theory makes his existence obligatory? Doesn't that subject God to rational logic or some aspect of creaton?

 

[Digit]

Two questions: how can we come to God by faith, if something requires God so that we do not have to believe in his existence, but know it to be required fact?

How can God be fully sovereign over creation if some line of logic or some scientific theory makes his existence obligatory? Doesn't that subject God to rational logic or some aspect of creaton?

Not for Christians, I was talking about those who are unsaved. God wishes us to reason as well as use faith, however we know that there are things in life which we need Him for. I can't imagine being where I am today, without God working in my life. Yet evolution attempts to explain our origin and as such people see no requirement for God. They find Him unnecessary. As my friend at work put it, who is unsaved, "Religion comes about from not understanding our surroundings." that is the way that non-believers think. When they have explanations, they can supress the need for anything else.

Digit

 

[gluadys]

Not for Christians, I was talking about those who are unsaved.

So was I. It is the unsaved who must come to God by faith in order to be saved.

God wishes us to reason as well as use faith,

I would be the last person to disagree with that. But faith is what relates us to God. Reason is not a adequate substitute for faith. It may start us in the right direction, but it cannot carry us all the way to God.

As my friend at work put it, who is unsaved, "Religion comes about from not understanding our surroundings." that is the way that non-believers think. When they have explanations, they can supress the need for anything else.

Digit

Then I would say he has an incorrect understanding of what faith is. He thinks God is the explanation for gaps in our knowledge.

I would add that Christian witnesses who try to develop arguments for God on a similar basis (science can't explain X, therefore God) are feeding just such an inadequate God-of-the-gaps understanding of faith.

 

[Galle]

Not for Christians, I was talking about those who are unsaved. God wishes us to reason as well as use faith, however we know that there are things in life which we need Him for. I can't imagine being where I am today, without God working in my life. Yet evolution attempts to explain our origin and as such people see no requirement for God. They find Him unnecessary. As my friend at work put it, who is unsaved, "Religion comes about from not understanding our surroundings." that is the way that non-believers think. When they have explanations, they can supress the need for anything else.

Digit

Digit, how does evolution do away with God any more than any other scientific theory? Observe:

Yet germ theory attempts to explain illness and as such people see no requirement for God. They find Him unnecessary. As my friend at work put it, who is unsaved, "Religion comes about from not understanding our surroundings." that is the way that non-believers think.

Yet meteorology attempts to explain the weather and as such people see no requirement for God. They find Him unnecessary...

Yet developmental biology attempts to explain our origin and as such people see no requirement for God. They find Him unnecessary...

If you're going to complain that a particular scientific theory makes God unnecessary, then you really need to complain about ALL scientific theories.

 

[theFijian]

For me, the biggest thorn in our side is that of evolution, because it doesn't require a God

Do gravity and photosynthesis 'require' God? When will Creationists desist from this fallacious reasoning?

 

[Digit]

Guys, lets just step outside of this for a second - do you deliberately misunderstand something?

The world builds up a great deal of barriers to the concept of God. The difference between something like photosynthesis, and evolution, is that evolution explains our origins. Afterall, that's the board we are posting on right. Photosynthesis explains how something operates.

It isn't fallacious reasoning, it's experience theFijan. Which is why it puzzles me, unless you all were brought up in Christian families, how you didn't have a similar experience. Even Deameter admitted it took him a lot of praying, and time to come to the conclusion he did about Genesis being figurative and accept evolution. That's what concerns me.

When unsaved people don't need to question their origins, or they feel comfortable with an offhanded explanation, and lets face it, a large part of them don't question it because of evolution. They don't even truly understand the inner workings of evolution.

Getting back inside this discussion... I can't remember what I wanted to say now. :/

Digit

 

[Digit]

So was I. It is the unsaved who must come to God by faith in order to be saved.

Then you don't understand how an unsaved person thinks and considers the world, you don't know what gradual influences do to a persons mind over time, and how possibilities, become facts and how it cements a world without God for them.

I would be the last person to disagree with that. But faith is what relates us to God. Reason is not a adequate substitute for faith. It may start us in the right direction, but it cannot carry us all the way to God.

Like I said, you have no experience in this regard then, if you do not see how evolution is a giant barrier to an unsaved person. As another colleague at work put it, why when he can look around at the world in it's current form, and understand it's origins (evolution) would he want to place himself inside a tiny box (in reference to how the Bible sees the world).

Then I would say he has an incorrect understanding of what faith is. He thinks God is the explanation for gaps in our knowledge.

He knows what faith is, he just doesn't believe it's necessary. Whether his understanding is right or not, it's due to the fact that he has all his questions satisfied, his god is science, and he feels science and religion are incompatible. It's one, or the other. Science gives him a massive understanding of the world, religion gives him something he doesn't want, doesn't need and feels no desire for.

I would add that Christian witnesses who try to develop arguments for God on a similar basis (science can't explain X, therefore God) are feeding just such an inadequate God-of-the-gaps understanding of faith.

Again, are you ignoring what I am saying? It's not about developing arguments around that. Where did I say that? I said it's about how non-saved people think, and when the need and desire to question is removed, or dampened to a large degree as I think it is today, it's very hard to break through that barrier.

Digit

 

[Galle]

Photosynthesis explains how something operates.

Just like evolution explains how something operates. If you're going to reject evolution because it does away with God or puts up a barrier or whatever, you're going to have to reject photosynthesis for the exact same reason.

It isn't fallacious reasoning, it's experience theFijan.

I don't know if there's a formal name for it, but just because an explanation does not include a claim (e.g., evolution does not include the claim that God did this or that), it does not follow that the explanation rules out, disproves, or has any relevancy on the claim. Non-sequitur is probably the closest match.

When unsaved people don't need to question their origins, or they feel comfortable with an offhanded explanation, and lets face it, a large part of them don't question it because of evolution. They don't even truly understand the inner workings of evolution.

Good lord, I think my neighbor's irony meter just exploded.

 

[shernren]

Scientific statements can have spiritual consequences.

So how does the age of the earth affect my knowledge of God?

If only it were that simple.

Well, AiG is saying it is. Take it up with them, not me.

 

[theFijian]

It isn't fallacious reasoning, it's experience theFijan

Oh it's fallacious alright. How do you 'experience' whether photosynthesis 'requires' God? I suspect what you have experienced is people employing the same fallacious reasoning that you have to 'prove' to themself that tGod doesn't exist.

 

[Digit]

Oh it's fallacious alright. How do you 'experience' whether photosynthesis 'requires' God? I suspect what you have experienced is people employing the same fallacious reasoning that you have to 'prove' to themself that tGod doesn't exist.

So in one part of your reply, you believe I experienced 'photosynthesis' and in the other part you understand I wasn't talking about that at all, and was instead talking about experiencing how people think.

I grow tired of playing word games, when you can have a reasonable discussion, without deliberately trying to misunderstand the points raised, and apply them out of context, feel free to PM me.

Until such a time, is there really any point in my saying, "Is too." and you saying, "Nuh-uh." over and over?

Digit

 

[Digit]

So how does the age of the earth affect my knowledge of God?

I just want to point out, that this is the exact problem I am seeing occur pretty consistantly here. It's the all or nothing belief. He didn't say all scientific beliefs will affect your faith in God. He said some can. Which is the exact same thing I pointed out, and theFijan asked me how photosynthesis affects it, which again has no relation to origins.

Seriously, please don't assume. We all know what that does.

Digit

 

[theIdi0t]

Like I said, you have no experience in this regard then, if you do not see how evolution is a giant barrier to an unsaved person. As another colleague at work put it, why when he can look around at the world in it's current form, and understand it's origins (evolution) would he want to place himself inside a tiny box (in reference to how the Bible sees the world).

There's a poll from crawfish that I posted in the main area, where Crawfish asked unbelievers if Christianity and Evolution are incompatible, and not a single person said yes.

They said that evolution is not the reason why they don't believe, there was more blame thrown on fundamentalism, and creationism as to why they don't believe.

There is no barrier for them, there is a barrier for you. You don't know how to make sense of what everyone else has no problem making sense out of, because you have been indoctrinated to think inside one box, but have not tried to think outside of it.

Why do you think so many YECs became uncomfortable with the pick a tree poll, that so few even responded? You assume that Genesis can only be viewed as literal, but do you see any posts in this forum asking how one can view specific parts to be allegorical, and not compromise scripture?

If you wanted to see, the tools are available for you, but why close your eyes? There is no barrier between evolution and belief, even the unbeliever knows this, there is only a barrier for you. Remove the blindfold over your eyes, and see.

 

[theFijian]

So in one part of your reply, you believe I experienced 'photosynthesis' and in the other part you understand I wasn't talking about that at all, and was instead talking about experiencing how people think.

These are not word games, you just need to articulate yourself better. Allow me to quote you:

For me, the biggest thorn in our side is that of evolution, because it doesn't require a God

This is you making a false assertion - 'evolution doesn't require God'. Then you say:

It isn't fallacious reasoning, it's experience theFijan.

This is why I asked if you had experience of these natural processes and phenomena 'requiring' God, because I could only go on what you had said.

I grow tired of playing word games, when you can have a reasonable discussion, without deliberately trying to misunderstand the points raised, and apply them out of context, feel free to PM me.

Until such a time, is there really any point in my saying, "Is too." and you saying, "Nuh-uh." over and over?

Digit

I had to read between the lines that you were actually talking about other people believing that evolution doesn't require God. Don't get all melodramatic just because you can't express yourself well. How about when you can express and articulate yourself clearly you PM me, because I'm not about to waste my time on people who make false assertions and then go in a sulk when they are corrected.