Ham's Creation Museum

Digit · May 31, 2007

Mallon said:
Thanks for posting that interview, Digit. Unfortunately, it saddens me for 3 reasons:
(1) This man claims to be a scientist, yet somehow manages to cram the supernatural into his very unscientific explanations.
(2) This man refers to evolutionary creationists as "Christians" (with quotes), implying that they are somehow less Christian than he. That is one of the most unChristian things you can do, and it exemplifies his feelings of self-righteousness.
(3) Converting people to Christianity with creation "science" rather than the gospel message is a sham. Jesus is the rock of our salvation, not creation "science." I fear for the faith of those people this man claims to have helped save, because if they keep digging for answers, they're likely to lose it!

Hi Mallon,

1) Is there something in particular that you disagree with in his explanations?
2) Yes I agree, that is unfortunate as it's not our place to judge.
3) I think I could say the same thing about people being converted to Christianity through theistic evolution is a sham too, for the exact same reasons. Basically, it's not out place to judge, just as in point (2). If they take even one step towards God, then that's a positive no matter the circumstances, and if us humans are making a mess of ministering to people, then we can only pray that God will work in their lives and correct our wrongs. I don't feel you can say with any certainty that they will lose faith when they dig for answers, I mean there are plenty of YECs that haven't lost faith, and plenty of people who were YECs or OECs that have converted to the other side, the message of Jesus still rings true, I don't believe God really cares what we think about origins, simply that we uphold His Laws.

Cheers!
Digit

Mallon · May 31, 2007

Digit said:
1) Is there something in particular that you disagree with in his explanations?

Yes. Science cannot testify to a divine, non-material creator. Period. That is part of the definition of science, and creationists don't get to change that definition if they don't like it.

3) I think I could say the same thing about people being converted to Christianity through theistic evolution is a sham too, for the exact same reasons.

Whaaaat??? When is the last time you saw an evolutionary creationist try to convert a non-Christian by preaching evolutionary theory to them?
That's a rediculous statement, Digit, and I hope you can back it up with more than just hearsay!

I don't feel you can say with any certainty that they will lose faith when they dig for answers, I mean there are plenty of YECs that haven't lost faith

Ask yourself why. It isn't because "good science proves God." Otherwise, we would all be saved.
(i.e.,

)

Digit · May 31, 2007

Mallon said:
Yes. Science cannot testify to a divine, non-material creator. Period. That is part of the definition of science, and creationists don't get to change that definition if they don't like it.

You lost me here. I asked if the interviewee has said something that you disagree with, as you said he is making unscientific statements, can you point me to them as I am not sure what you are referring to?

Mallon said:
Whaaaat??? When is the last time you saw an evolutionary creationist try to convert a non-Christian by preaching evolutionary theory to them?
That's a rediculous statement, Digit, and I hope you can back it up with more than just hearsay!

No problem:
You said that converting people to Christianity through Creationism is a sham, as they will lose faith when they dig for answers. I said I could say the exact same thing about coverting people via theistic evolutionary theory. I never said it has actually happened, although I am pretty sure that at some stage during witnessing, to people, the whole Creation vs Evolution argument comes up, and Theistic Evolutionists say, "Nuhuh, you can have BOTH!" and problem solved, and point justified. You can't make a blanket statement like that, instead I reasoned that it is not our place to judge our impact on people's lives.

Mallon said:
Ask yourself why. It isn't because "good science proves God." Otherwise, we would all be saved.
(i.e.,

)

See, now I feel bad because you think I am not listening to you, I really am yet do you see how I believe that instead of ignoring you, I am here talking about it and actually listening to what you say. Yet there are some things we can both see, which we will not agree on. I interpret them one way, you another. Why is it that I should not say the same about you?

Digit

benonymous · May 31, 2007

I'm really disappointed with this forum. This is my first post and people here are just as blindly sure of themselves as anywhere else, regardless of reality. I visited the creation museum the day it opened, and it is awesome. It's historically and scientifically accurate and well-designed. It is a great place for not only bringing new people to Christ but reaffirming the faith of existing believers.

I'm tired of being ridiculed for my beliefs. I was looking for a cool forum with nice people and it looks like this one isn't it.

Mallon · May 31, 2007

Digit said:
You lost me here. I asked if the interviewee has said something that you disagree with, as you said he is making unscientific statements, can you point me to them as I am not sure what you are referring to?

Chittick uses Intelligent Design and God-of-the-Gaps arguments throughout his interview. Just read what he has to say about plant cells:

When a person builds a house from a pile of bricks, the bricks don't spontaneously jump into the ordered arrangement. They have been already 'worked out' by the blueprint, the prior design. And so when cells build a plant, the blueprint or program is already there.

(i.e., he can't figure out how cells could have evolved, therefore, Goddidit!)

You said that converting people to Christianity through Creationism is a sham, as they will lose faith when they dig for answers. I said I could say the exact same thing about coverting people via theistic evolutionary theory. I never said it has actually happened

Great! No need to speculate any further!

See, now I feel bad because you think I am not listening to you

Not at all! My emoticon was not directed at you.

benonymous said:
I'm tired of being ridiculed for my beliefs.

You are not ridiculed for your beliefs. You are free to believe what you want to. But confusing those beliefs for science, as Ham's museum does, begets ridicule.

Digit · May 31, 2007

Heya Ben,

Don't be discouraged, at the end of the day we all believe in the same core message and that's the important thing, this is merely us debating internally with each other.

I do agree with you however in being so sure of ourselves. I mean, humanity as a whole finds it difficult to accurately say what happened yesterday, yet alone so long ago. Hence why I am well aware my position my not be correct, yet I find it Biblically correct and not contradicted via any modern discoveries, it really is down to your interpretation of the facts. Just don't make it the basis for your whole faith on it, and then when it gets whisked away from under you, you will still be a-ok.

Digit

LewisWildermuth · May 31, 2007

benonymous said:
I'm really disappointed with this forum. This is my first post and people here are just as blindly sure of themselves as anywhere else, regardless of reality. I visited the creation museum the day it opened, and it is awesome. It's historically and scientifically accurate and well-designed. It is a great place for not only bringing new people to Christ but reaffirming the faith of existing believers.

I'm tired of being ridiculed for my beliefs. I was looking for a cool forum with nice people and it looks like this one isn't it.

Sorry that we are not "cool" enough or "nice" enough for your tastes, see you.

Digit · May 31, 2007

Mallon said:
Chittick uses Intelligent Design and God-of-the-Gaps arguments throughout his interview. Just read what he has to say about plant cells:

When a person builds a house from a pile of bricks, the bricks don't spontaneously jump into the ordered arrangement. They have been already 'worked out' by the blueprint, the prior design. And so when cells build a plant, the blueprint or program is already there.

(i.e., he can't figure out how cells could have evolved, therefore, Goddidit!)

I don't think that is the assumption that he draws. Or rather, I don't think that is the reasoning he uses. I certainly don't think the unexplainable is a result of God, but I do think that when the Bible says God created the plants on the third day, that he believes this. As do I. Hence our pattern of thought on this matter, does not equate to: "We don't understand, therefore God must have done it." it's more "The Bible says God did it, therefore that is what we understand."

Digit

Mallon · May 31, 2007

Digit said:
it's more "The Bible says God did it, therefore that is what we understand."

Then you admit that the conclusion precedes the test. That's still not science.

Digit · May 31, 2007

Mallon said:
Then you admit that the conclusion precedes the test. That's still not science.

Hey Mallon,

I think we crossed wires somewhere. Understanding, or if you like, believing, something does not preclude using science to explain how it came about. How it functions, why, what it uses to benefit it's function and how efficient it is. As such the creation museum and AiG are both grounded firmly in scientific explanations and a great deal of reasoning. You can see this yourself by visiting their site, or indeed e-mailing them with troublesome questions, as I have done in the past. So indeed, don't just take my word on this, as by and large I am woefully under-equipped to answer many questions, yet that reinforces my belief in a literal version of Genesis, as it doesn't matter about my intellectual status, simply that I believe.

So whilst I cannot recreate Jesus in a science lab to test, thus not proving His existence, there are a myriad of non-scientific reasons I use that give me a real belief in Him, one of which, is the scriptures in the Bible. As such, I can apply the same system to things like Creation.

Digit

Edit: Just to add as we got off-topic there for a second. I am pretty sure that being a scientist as Chittick is, he has used science to justify his beliefs, and indeed back them up. Yet we have that belief first. As the Bible says:
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

KerrMetric · May 31, 2007

benonymous said:
I visited the creation museum the day it opened, and it is awesome.

Oh dear.

It's historically and scientifically accurate

I seriously doubt you have the background to make this statement.

Mallon · May 31, 2007

Digit said:
Understanding, or if you like, believing, something does not preclude using science to explain how it came about.

I agree with you entirely, Digit. But the a priori rejection of evidence that contradicts your preconceived belief is VERY unscientific. It is anti-science. Yet this is Ham's approach to both his ministry (AiG) and "museum." To quote from the AiG website:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

"When properly understood, the evidence confirms the biblical account."

This is circular reasoning, and has no place in science. Again, Ham -- indeed, anyone -- can believe what he wants. But it is a mistake to confuse beliefs for science.

Jadis40 · May 31, 2007

Mallon said:
I agree with you entirely, Digit. But the a priori rejection of evidence that contradicts your preconceived belief is VERY unscientific. It is anti-science. Yet this is Ham's approach to both his ministry (AiG) and "museum." To quote from the AiG website:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

"When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account."

This is circular reasoning, and has no place in science. Again, Ham -- indeed, anyone -- can believe what he wants. But it is a mistake to confuse beliefs for science.

Definitely agreed. What Ham is engaged in is NOT science. It's propagation of a certain belief system based on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11. I did some checking and found out that the exhibit on the Grand Canyon isn't even correct.

http://www.answersincreation.org/creation_museum.htm

I quote the following:

In fact, if you proceed up the geologic rock column in the western United States, you would not find any dinosaur fossils until you reach the Kayenta Formation, which is another 3,000 feet above the top layer of the Grand Canyon. This formation contains only trace fossils (dinosaur footprints), but no actual dinosaur bones.

If I want to visit a museum with a Natural History exhibit, it won't be the one run by AiG. I'd rather go to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago again, or the Indiana State Museum.

Digit · May 31, 2007

Mallon said:
I agree with you entirely, Digit. But the a priori rejection of evidence that contradicts your preconceived belief is VERY unscientific. It is anti-science. Yet this is Ham's approach to both his ministry (AiG) and "museum." To quote from the AiG website:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

"When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account."

This is circular reasoning, and has no place in science. Again, Ham -- indeed, anyone -- can believe what he wants. But it is a mistake to confuse beliefs for science.

Hey Mallon,

Ok, I understand that and find it quite acceptable. I do not believe he is saying if it contradicts his belief, he is saying if it contradicts the Scriptural record. That is different though, from what you said and I read their site regularly and find their scientific approaches to be quite good. They actually don't claim to know everything, but they do often point out where modern science has been accepted as fact despite heavy inconsistencies and holes.

At the end of the day, what would happen for you, if secular science said that something happened a certain way, and there was no room for Biblical leniancy? That is, no room to make a passage figurative/literal to fit that new find into your belief?

My answer, is that I would reject that new scientific find as I believe God is the truth, what is yours?

Digit

Edit: I also do not believe it to be circular reasoning. Circular is saying cats don't give birth to dogs, because they are cats. AiG are saying that facts have been incorrectly understood, and assumptions have been made that are presented as fact, yet when you re-examine the evidence, and relate it to the Biblical account, it actually confirms it, you don't need to warp the Biblical account to fit around the evidence. Maybe it's just me, but I find that far more amazing, than having to change my belief in the Bible.

Jadis40 · May 31, 2007

Hey Digit,

One of the biggest problems I have with AiG is their insistence that the only accurate historical record is the Biblical record. I have a degree in history, and nothing frosts me more than YEC attempts to rewrite history to fit their belief system. Egypt is one example, but the YEC 6,000 year old earth with a flood in 2348 BC requires a much larger rewrite of history. This would include the antiquity of Mesopotamian cities, like Uruk, which dates back to at least 3200 BC, if not further back, along with the rest of Mesopotamia and India as well.

What's interesting is that there are Biblical archaeologists who acknowledge in their OWN work that the sites are of much older antiquity than the YECs will allow, who insist that all civilizations, such as India and Egypt arose after the Flood.

http://siteofmegiddo.tripod.com/

The city, which was inhabitied continuously from 7000-500 BCE, was no doubt defended and conquered so many times due to its position along antiquity’s major superhighway, the Via Maris. From Megiddo its rulers were able to exert control of an entire region, having only to defend the extremely narrow Aruna pass. With its seemingly endless cycle of conquest and revolt, it is no wonder the Hebrew mythmakers set the final battle known as "Armageddon" (literally the mount of Megiddo) here.

Area J

According to the current excavators, "Area J contains the most spectacular sequence of temples ever found in the Levant, from the Early Bronze to the Late Bronze Age" (Finkelstein et al., The Megiddo Expedition). The first occupation of this area dates to the earliest occupation of the site (4th millenium BCE. Among the things discovered within the last year is a "monumental" compound from the Early Bronze 1B (ca. 3100-3500 BCE). The compound consists of stone walls some 4 meters wide that run parallel to one another. Between the walls were "hip-deep" faunal remains assoicated with ritual sacrifice. Excavation of this area is on-going.

Galle · May 31, 2007

benonymous said:
people here are just as blindly sure of themselves as anywhere else, regardless of reality. I visited the creation museum the day it opened, and it is awesome. It's historically and scientifically accurate and well-designed.

This is going straight to FSTDT!

I'm tired of being ridiculed for my beliefs. I was looking for a cool forum with nice people and it looks like this one isn't it.

Please note that not all beliefs are equally valid and we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we acted as if they were.

Digit · Jun 1, 2007

Hey Jadis40,

Do you find an issue with the possibility that the Biblical record may be inaccurate?

Digit

Jadis40 · Jun 1, 2007

Digit said:
Hey Jadis40,

Do you find an issue with the possibility that the Biblical record may be inaccurate?

Digit

If you are asking if I believe that the Old Testament in particular is the record of the selecting of the forerunners such as Abraham, Issac and Jacob to form the Jewish nation, their continuing rebellion against God after leaving Egypt and settlement in Israel, the prophecies which point to Jesus Christ, then the answer to that question would be yes. And if you're asking if it is possible that the Bible has a few inaccuracies because it deals with such a limited slice of the totality of human history, then that would be another yes. It's like the story of the elephant. The people involved weren't getting the whole picture of what an elephant really is, only small fragments.

It's comparable to trying to learn about Russia while only reading about Russia within the scope of American history. There's a much bigger picture.

Galle · Jun 1, 2007

Digit said:
Ok, I understand that and find it quite acceptable. I do not believe he is saying if it contradicts his belief, he is saying if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

No, it's saying that if the evidence contradicts creationists' beliefs about scripture, then that evidence is to be ignored. This is massively dishonest, and about as unscientific as one can get. Science is about deriving explanations from evidence and then modifying those explanations when the evidence warrants. Creationism, as the AIG website shows is about making up a conclusion first, and then cherry-picking or forcing the facts to fit (and ignoring the facts that don't fit).

At the end of the day, what would happen for you, if secular science said that something happened a certain way, and there was no room for Biblical leniancy? That is, no room to make a passage figurative/literal to fit that new find into your belief?

This wasn't addressed to me, but I feel obligated to answer. If the facts revealed that my beliefs (whether those beliefs were religious or mundane) were incorrect or incomplete in some way, I would modify my beliefs. Anything else would not only be self-harming, but rather dishonest as well.

Digit · Jun 1, 2007

Jadis40 said:
If you are asking if I believe that the Old Testament in particular is the record of the selecting of the forerunners such as Abraham, Issac and Jacob to form the Jewish nation, their continuing rebellion against God after leaving Egypt and settlement in Israel, the prophecies which point to Jesus Christ, then the answer to that question would be yes. And if you're asking if it is possible that the Bible has a few inaccuracies because it deals with such a limited slice of the totality of human history, then that would be another yes. It's like the story of the elephant. The people involved weren't getting the whole picture of what an elephant really is, only small fragments.

It's comparable to trying to learn about Russia while only reading about Russia within the scope of American history. There's a much bigger picture.

I find it interesting you need to qualify my question.

But ok, jokes aside, you find no issue in the possibility of Biblical errancy? That is, you think that the Bible has errors in it, whether big or small is not relevant, simply the fact that it could and indeed does contain some things which are in fact, false?

Digit

Ham's Creation Museum

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

New Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency