Ham's Creation Museum

[shernren]

Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

But TEs also believe in the doctrine that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God. We also believe that God created out of nothing; in fact, we believe that God still sustains today through His naturalistic providence to creation. Two out of three. By your definition we are more than half creationist!

I would add that a Creationist holds what Scripture says about the matter to be first and foremost a factual account. The creation "model" that one holds is based on their interpretation of Scripture. Any scientific theories then are looked at in light of that belief. To me, this is similar to an evolutionist looking at things with a belief in "naturalism" and/or "materialism".

Well "naturalism" or "materialism" is not normally a belief. It is simply a sensible way of doing things. Every time you make sure a ladder is set firmly against the wall before you climb up it, you acknowledge that you can't avoid the laws of gravity and you are unintentionally being "naturalistic" about it. Science is, in the same vein, naturalistic only because methodological naturalism works. If you can replace it with something better, by all means try.

The way I read your definition, it sounds like the creationist has a scientific theory first, and then interprets the Bible to fit that theory. A Creationist in general believes that true science is compatible with a true interpretation of scripture. Creationist don't usually believe "the Bible can only be true - if". They already believe it to be true.

Well, we have seen many creationists here declare that if evolution is true, then they have very strong reasons not to believe in Christianity (to say nothing of those who say they would reject it altogether). Whatever the theory is, in practice creationism looks exactly like I defined it - if evolution is true, then the Bible is false, therefore we must prove evolution false. But evolution is a scientific theory, and creationists try very hard to make its substitutes scientific theories as well - so creationism becomes the mode of thinking in which science validates the Bible. That may not be how they conceptualize it. But that often becomes how they play their role in real life.

 

[shernren]

I'm curious about something now.

What do the creationists here think about the museum? Getting past the initial "Wow, we get our own museum!" high. Do creationists think that the museum will help reach more people than before? Can they foresee people who have never heard about creationism any other way coming to accept it through the Creation Museum?

Because if I was a creationist, I'd be worried that AiG has built itself a white elephant. But of course I'm not one, so I can't claim to figure out whether you guys identify with that - other than shutting up and listening for once.

 

[Digit]

To be honest, I think any kind of attention to our account of creation, is better than what we had before. I mean imagine if TEs got a TE Museum, that would be kind cool too. I prefer not to think of it as a sort of club, but more a great evangelical tool for Christianity as a whole. At the end of the day, if someone goes, and finds God through it, then that's a win in my book.

Digit

 

[Mallon]

At the end of the day, if someone goes, and finds God through it, then that's a win in my book.

What about those people who are turned away from Christianity because they associate it with the museum's rediculous belief that fire-breathing dragons were once real?

 

[keyarch]

What about those people who are turned away from Christianity because they associate it with the museum's rediculous belief that fire-breathing dragons were once real?

Is that so rediculous? Check out this paper: http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Fire.htm

Also, what comes to mind is the Bombardier beetle.

 

[Mallon]

Is that so rediculous?

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Jase]

To be honest, I think any kind of attention to our account of creation, is better than what we had before. I mean imagine if TEs got a TE Museum, that would be kind cool too. I prefer not to think of it as a sort of club, but more a great evangelical tool for Christianity as a whole. At the end of the day, if someone goes, and finds God through it, then that's a win in my book.

Digit

TE's have a museum, it's called the Museum of Natural History.

 

[Deamiter]

Is that so rediculous? Check out this paper: http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Fire.htm

Also, what comes to mind is the Bombardier beetle.

To elaborate on Mallon's post, there are a few reasons it's rediculous that aren't discussed in your link.

First of all, not ONE ancient drawing of a dragon is morphologically feasable. In the last couple hundred years, we've drawn and imagined dragons more and more like dinosaurs but ancient drawings of dragons are universally impossible. Not only could they not fly (wings are in the wrong spot, too small and the bodies too heavy), there are literally no organisms living or fossilized that even remotely have the skeletal structure necessary to be at all related to dragons.

Secondly, while it's true the the Bombardier beetle shoots hot liquid out it's rear end, there is no record -- fossilized or existing -- of ANY creature that has an even related mechanism to dragons. The page suggests that we already have everything we need -- but that's in no way true.

First off, there is no 'methane diffusion system' in the intestines or any other part of any organisms' bodies. It exists only in the imagination of the author who apparently doesn't even recognize that there is NO gaseous diffusion mechanisms that pull gas out of our digestion systems! They suggest further that there would be an active methane transport system without remotely suggestion how one might be developed with existing understanding of organic systems!

Then they suggest that an organism had a tube like a urinary tract that moved methane from intestines to the head... Again, when every other organism falls neatly into a nested hierarchy where every organism's sturucture has transitional and analog forms in other organisms, he suggests as plausable a system that exists nowhere in nature?

You could give this author marks for imagination, but it's supported in no way by what we find in nature.

 

[Floodnut]

Evolutionism is a pack of lies and myth and it is ludicrous that Christians spend any money to promote this lie of the devil, but our tax dollars are directed in the millions to promote and propagate this laughable lie. Praise God for the breath of fresh air in the marvelous museum and educational facility established by the godly men and women at AiG.

 

[metherion]

I am quite tempted to go for the following reason:

There are a lot of questions about creationism, responses to evolution, and re-responses by creationism, etc.

A good example is talk.origins. There are creationist claims which are refuted, generating more claims, generating more refutations. I am tempted to go to Kentucky with a list of Creationist responses and see if they hold up.

For example, I would be willing to lay down money that Adam and Eve look suspiciously Caucasian, whereas they are supposed to be olive-skinned with... brown eyes I think it is, because the right combo of genes to generate all human phenotypes (caucasion, mongoloid, negroid, etc.) would look like that (as claimed by AiG).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp][/url]
Noah and his family were probably mid-brown, with genes for both dark and light skin, because a medium skin color would seem to be the most generally suitable (dark enough to protect against skin cancer, yet light enough to allow vitamin D production). As all the factors for skin color were present in Adam and Eve, they would most likely have been mid-brown as well, with brown eyes and brown (or black) hair. In fact, most of the world’s population today is still mid-brown.

Similarly, I would bet that Moses and Noah don't look ethnicly Jewish either.

There are other things too. That's just one example.
I think that would be fun to do. As well as laugh at the "scientific" displays. A lot.

Metherion

 

[The Lady Kate]

Praise God for the breath of fresh air in the marvelous museum and educational facility established by the godly men and women at AiG.

Just out of curiosity... what about the ungodly ones? Every orgaization, even AiG, is bound to have a few bad apples... should we praise God for the people who were just involved for the paycheck?

 

[keyarch]

Yes. Yes it is.

Regarding the ‘Leviathan’, these are given as quotes from the Lord Himself:

Job 40:6 6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Job 41:18-21 18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
Job 41:31 31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

---------
Fossilization requires special conditions. Maybe such a creature did exist, and either was never fossilized or if so not found.

Undoubtedly, the renderings of such a creature have been imagined based on tales. However, that doesn’t change the fact that Scripture alludes to such a creature and therefore should deserve a little more consideration rather than just saying it’s ridicules.

 

[Mallon]

Regarding the ‘Leviathan’, these are given as quotes from the Lord Himself:

God is quoted as saying lots of things in Job 41 that were not meant literally. Do you similarly think the heart of the Leviathan was made of stone or that its skin was unmovable?

Fossilization requires special conditions. Maybe such a creature did exist, and either was never fossilized or if so not found.

That sounds pretty ad hoc to me. Where do you suppose such a creature might be found, and in what sediments?

However, that doesn’t change the fact that Scripture alludes to such a creature and therefore should deserve a little more consideration rather than just saying it’s ridicules.

I still say it's a mythologized crocodile. Shernren has his own interpretation.

 

[Jase]

Evolutionism is a pack of lies and myth and it is ludicrous that Christians spend any money to promote this lie of the devil, but our tax dollars are directed in the millions to promote and propagate this laughable lie. Praise God for the breath of fresh air in the marvelous museum and educational facility established by the godly men and women at AiG.

I see no kindness in any of your posts, why is that? It's always hate spewed at evolutionists.

 

[shernren]

Regarding the ‘Leviathan’, these are given as quotes from the Lord Himself:

Job 40:6 6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Job 41:18-21 18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
Job 41:31 31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

---------
Fossilization requires special conditions. Maybe such a creature did exist, and either was never fossilized or if so not found.

Undoubtedly, the renderings of such a creature have been imagined based on tales. However, that doesn’t change the fact that Scripture alludes to such a creature and therefore should deserve a little more consideration rather than just saying it’s ridicules.

Of course Leviathan exists. Don't you believe in the reality of Satan? ;D

Seriously, though, you're going to get into all kinds of trouble if you don't consider your interpretation of Job properly. You might believe in fire-breathing dinos. But to do that you need to take the foundations of the earth and the warehouses of snow and hail onto your Biblical worldview as well.

 

[laptoppop]

Seriously, though, you're going to get into all kinds of trouble if you don't consider your interpretation of Job properly. You might believe in fire-breathing dinos. But to do that you need to take the foundations of the earth and the warehouses of snow and hail onto your Biblical worldview as well.

Again, this is a false meme. Traditional, conservative (we need to find some term for folks that don't like that one -- I'm fine calling it foo interpretation as long as it is defined properly) interpretation recognizes metaphors and figurative language and poetry, etc. For example, I'm fine with a figurative discussion about the snake and tree of life in the first part of Genesis. However, Adam is referred to in an unbroken line of geneaologies, and there are lots of other scriptures referring to him as a specific first man person. The six days are also highlighted by the morning and evening phrases, lest we try to make them anything but 24 hour periods.

 

[laptoppop]

I see no kindness in any of your posts, why is that? It's always hate spewed at evolutionists.

Disrespect is never good. Please take a look at your own posts and try to see how someone who honestly believes that YEC is the best explanation, both scripturally and in terms of the physical evidence, etc., would see your posts.

 

[shernren]

Again, this is a false meme. Traditional, conservative (we need to find some term for folks that don't like that one -- I'm fine calling it foo interpretation as long as it is defined properly) interpretation recognizes metaphors and figurative language and poetry, etc. For example, I'm fine with a figurative discussion about the snake and tree of life in the first part of Genesis. However, Adam is referred to in an unbroken line of geneaologies, and there are lots of other scriptures referring to him as a specific first man person. The six days are also highlighted by the morning and evening phrases, lest we try to make them anything but 24 hour periods.

But fire-breathing dinos, the warehouse of hail, and the foundations of the earth are all found in the same narrative of Job 38-41. If we were talking about different passages of Scripture you'd have a point. But the entire passage involves one long narrative by God convincing Job of His infinite wisdom. What sort of rule would allow you to interpret one part of it figuratively and another part literally?

 

[laptoppop]

In this particular passage, God is reciting a litany of things where His knowledge exceeds Mans. In many (most? ALL?) He uses language that describes the things but does not purport to explain them. I'm not supporting the fire breathing dragon thoughts -- but trying to help you understand that conservative scholarship is not literalism in all cases no matter what.

 

[keyarch]

What sort of rule would allow you to interpret one part of it figuratively and another part literally?

Where is the rule that says if one part of it is figurative that it all is?

My point was that the notion is not as ridiculous as it may seem to some. I would not say it was fact, but I also couldn't say it was fiction. Regarding the fossils, I was trying to point out that there may not be evidence for a creature like that. This could be especially true if it lived in the water and not close to the conditions that tend to make fossils. Anyway, seeing the features that God's creatures manifest in today's world and knowing that there were many different ones in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if we could be surprised.