$27 million Creation Museum opening soon
March 29th, 2007
A new Creation Museum being built by Answers in Genesis outside Cincinnati is almost complete.
Tyrannosaurus rex was a strict vegetarian, and lived with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
There were dinosaurs of every kind aboard Noah’s ark. Some dinosaurs managed to hang around until just a few hundred years ago. The legend of St. George slaying the dragon? That probably was a dinosaur.
Exhibits showing all this and more will be at the Creation Museum, a $27 million religious showcase nearing completion in Northern Kentucky.
Of course, evolutionists are all flustered by it.
But Eugenie Scott, a former University of Kentucky anthropologist who is director of the California-based National Center for Science Education, said the information provided in the museum “is not even close to standard science.”
Scott visited the museum recently as part of a British Broadcasting Corp. radio program. Although she didn’t get a tour, she saw enough to know that the museum will be professionally done. And, she says, that’s worrisome.
“There are going to be students coming into the classroom and saying, ‘I just went to this fancy museum and everything you’re telling me is rubbish,’ ” Scott said.
Here’s the BBC article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm
I have been able to tour this facility twice, and I’m eager tour the finished product. It is indeed a museum; not a “theme park” as it was recently called by Dr. Michael Zimmerman of Butler University.
This is cool. I would love to have the opportunity to visit this some day.
Me, personally, I don’t have a clue if dinosaurs lived 200 years ago or 100,000 years ago. I don’t know if Bush had all the information about Iraq before going to war or if he was hungry for money. I don’t know if the ozone layer is has a whole in it or if there even is one… all I know is what I am being told by those who say they know who say they have the instruments, the background, and the understanding to know.
These things are waring ideologies that no lay person would ever “know”. All we can do is choose who we wish to believe and what makes sense to us. The information that we get is not first hand and even then we don’t know if we can trust it, i.e. carbon dating, etc.
I find it hard to be passionate about things that I cannot know for sure as it is not my argument that I am defending.
With that being said, I do find it very easy to be pasionate about one thing that a majority of the world would ridicule; that being the scriptures. Why? Because I did not choose to believe in them, but God chose to give me a heart that causes me to believe in them. God gave me a heart to believe His gospel command and therefore I do.
j razz
I agree, J Razz. Which is why I belive in a literal six-day creation; just like Genesis states. Because if the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not literally true, then how do we know if any of the Bible is literally true? Why be passionate about that which you cannot trust?
“…the information provided in the museum ‘is not even close to standard science.’”
You’re right - it’s the truth.
Hey j razz, check this article out, it’s by some really awesome author: http://www.timellsworth.com/?p=342
I have toured this facility about a year ago and it is really impressive. It will be worth seeing.
Thanks for the link Scott, I think that the author is a pretty smart guy. I also think that we have come to the same conclusion in a sense: we both agree that we don’t know what the facts are and in a broader sense, it is by faith that we believe in anything of which we do not have first hand experience with.
Very good though- how old were you when you wrote this?
j razz
Ah, we get to a very contentious topic. Not a surprise that it’s contentious between Christians and Secularists, but it is surprising that there’s debate within the Christian ranks (I’m excluding, of course, the groups who sold out to liberalism long ago, not much Christianity left in them).
Being in the scientific field, I have found that many PhDs accept the general theory of evolution (and everything that it implies, mainly that the Biblical record is incorrect) not based on inquiry but by faith. The passion with which some of my colleagues defend naturalism is astounding and is more emotion-laden than any Southern revivalist. That such “reason-led” folk give themselves over to such displays of emotion (mainly anger and incredulity) merely reinforces the FACT that GTE is both a scientific theory and worldview accepted by faith.
AiG is one of my favorite ministries and I recommend it to anyone who hasn’t settled this issue in their minds.
Jason you’re right we don’t know for sure how old the earth is, but based on the Biblical record it’s hard to accept the estimates given to us by scientists. The methods they employ are highly suspect for they are based on naturalistic assumptions. Besides most of these scientists defend the dating methods without having a clue as to how they work or what assumptions are made.
Well let’s see…That was the second semester of Freshman year, so, 14.
Is it posible to be an “Old Earth Creationist” and still be a Christian?
Is it posible to be an “Old Earth Creationist” and still be a Christian?
Scripture dictates that the only requirement to being a Christian is to believe the gospel command. (Believe is a key word here.)
j razz
Scripture dictates that the only requirement to being a Christian is to believe the gospel command. (Believe is a key word here.)
Does faith in Jesus dictate that one take a literal view of Genesis?
Of Genesis or of the view of creation? Those are two seperate questions.
If you do not hold to “through one man sin entered the world”… then I believe Christ’s purpose in coming has been severely altered for just as sin entered the world through one man so many will be made righteous through Christ. Why the parallel if it was only figurative?
If you are talking about just creation’s timespan, well, how do we know that there were 24 hours in a day before the sun was formed? Before the earth had form? Is not 1,000 years but a day to the Lord and visa versa?
Now, having said that, I have not looked into the issue of 6 days vs everything else as I am still trying to fully understand what was accomplished on the Cross.
So, if not being a stuanch, literal pro 6 day creation person causes one to not be a Christian, then I have been living a lie for a long time. I don’t think it is a salvation issue and it is one of the last things I think I would argue with someone over.
Just as a note though, I personally hold to the 6 day timeline just b/c God said it that way through scripture.
j razz
What was Jesus’ view of Genesis?
Suppose you have the equation, “x^2 + x = 6.”
(”x^2″ is “x squared.”)
Suppose you tell John that the answer is odd, and suppose you tell James that the answer is greater than zero. John will solve the equation and tell you that x=-3; James will do likewise and say that x=2.
Is it any wonder they reached different conclusions? THEY BEGAN WITH DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS. Those assumptions weren’t contradictory; they were orthogonal. Orthogonal assumptions can lead to identical conclusions (assume x is even, assume x is positive), but not always.
It seems to me that Christian theology asserts a truth that is — at best — orthogonal to the assumptions of science. We know that God intervenes in the universe in ways that could not be predicted from the state of the universe up to that point, but scientists assume either that the universe *generally* behaves predictably or that it *always* behaves predictably.
Science has no choice but to make one of these assumptions in order to draw conclusions about the data it gathers, but these assumptions are simply assumptions and therefore cannot be proven and can in fact lead to conclusions that do not reflect reality.
This doesn’t bother me all that much: it’s an inherent limitation of science. But because science is based on (at best) an assumption that’s orthogonal to Biblical truth, I don’t understand the passionate desire to reconcile the present-day theories of science and the assertions of Scripture.
The Bible is God’s revealed and inerrant message to man. It may be that Genesis 1 contains figurative language just like the apolyptic prophecy of John, or it may be perfectly literal (except for the sun being personified as having sovereignty over the day); how God actually created the universe may be a series of events that science can deduce, or it may be something it could never conceive of given its assumptions. None of this bothers me.
It’s far more important to learn from Genesis who God is than it is to figure precisely how many seconds between “Let there be light” and the exodus from Egypt, just as it is to know that Christ literally and historically died and is risen than it is to theorize about how entropy and decay were halted and undone in His now-glorified body.
We must have our priorities.
Nice argument Bubba and conclusion to the matter.
j razz