Christians and the Creation Science Museum

[princesa]

OK, I'm pretty sure there are multiple other threads debating whether Young Earth Creationism is true. This thread is about the Creation Museum, though.

True indeed, thanks.

But, I was curious.....

[The Curtmudgeon]

Well you might considering being taught "superhyperfragilisticmicromacroevolution" is Biblical but I have some reservations myself.

I have no idea what you're on about (no, I do not watch YouTube videos), but I do believe that being taught Genesis 1-11 is Biblical. I also believe that being taught real applications of science principles supports the Biblical position, since both the Word and the World (in the more general sense of "universe") come from the hands of the same Author and therefore do not conflict.

The (humanistic theories, of course, come from ... somewhere else) Curtmudgeon

[princesa]

That would seem to be what Genesis teaches.

Maybe I need to blow the dust off my bible, but where EXACTLY does Genesis state that the earth is precisely 6000 years old?

[rogue06]

OK, I'm pretty sure there are multiple other threads debating whether Young Earth Creationism is true. This thread is about the Creation Museum, though.

As thread starter, princesa has the right to take this thread in whatever direction she desires.

[lfellows]

Uh, Curt. Would you be so kind as to list any of the evidence that points toward a 6000 year old Earth

How about producing any evidence that shows the universe is older then approximately 6000 years?

[princesa]

As thread starter, princesa has the right to take this thread in whatever direction she desires.

Oooh, I'm new here so I didn't know that, thanks!

WE SHALL RESUME THE AGE OF THE EARTH DISCUSSION.

So what I'm hearing is, we should turn a blind eye to carbon dating the age of the earth to be in the billions as well as tangible fossil evidence from millions of years ago because of a (symbollic) passage in scripture?

[Kenny]

Are you talking about the AIG one in Kentucky? My wife and I went there (for curiosity’s sake – we are not YECs). I must say that the presentation was well done. And, I think interestingly enough, they presented a more nuanced view of the philosophy of science (highlighting the role of background presuppositions in theory construction and data interpretation) than the sort of philosophy of science you get from popular science-enthusiast literature (in which science is portrayed as this completely objective, bias free enterprise). Many of the people and staff there did seem to have a genuine heart for evangelism and there was a heavy evangelistic emphasis in the way that the exhibits were organized and presented.

That’s all I can say that’s positive. The place did have a Christian-Disney-Land kind of feel to it. There was all the obnoxious AIG rhetoric that those Christians who held other than a YEC view were “compromisers.” There was the vastly oversimplistic position that belief in Darwinian evolution is the root cause of all of our social ills – everything from promiscuity to drug use to homosexuality (strangely enough, there was little mention, as far as I can recall, of things like poverty, greed and consumerist materialism, although, to their credit, they did strongly denounce racism). And while many of the people there were those that one could tell were good Christians who loved the Lord, there were a few there who seemed like they had absorbed all the worst and most cheesy parts of the Evangelical subculture.

One lady in particular came up to us and said “Are you two saved-born-again!” I heard her (because she was very loud) use the word ‘saved-born-again!’ as an adjective several more times. There were also some Amish (or maybe Menonite?) people who visited and the same women said very loudly (loudly enough for the Amish people to hear) to her children (rough quote), “Those are Amish people. I wonder if they’re saved-born-again! Some of them are and some of them aren’t”. She also told my wife, who was pushing our youngest child in a stroller at the time “Don’t worry honey, the baby weight comes off after a while!” The woman was a caricature of herself. (Okay, okay, before anyone gets mad or anything, I’m not saying that this women is a typical representative of the YEC movement or anything like that. But she was one of the most memorial parts of our experience of the museum, and I just had to rant about her a little )

[rogue06]

I have no idea what you're on about (no, I do not watch YouTube videos), but I do believe that being taught Genesis 1-11 is Biblical. I also believe that being taught real applications of science principles supports the Biblical position, since both the Word and the World (in the more general sense of "universe") come from the hands of the same Author and therefore do not conflict.

The (humanistic theories, of course, come from ... somewhere else) Curtmudgeon

You really might consider watching this one before supporting what the museum teaches.

Further, I would argue that it is an interpretation of Genesis that supports the Earth being 6000 years old. Much like it is a interpretation of the Bible that caused the Church to officially oppose Copernicus and Galileo's heliocentric models. It was an interpretation of Scripture that caused Christians to believe the planet is encased within a solid firmament. It was an interpretation of the Bible that caused us to believe that the Sun. Moon and stars were literally affixed to that solid firmament. It was an interpretation that caused us to believe that the Moon is a source of light rather than merely reflecting sunlight. It was an interpretation of Scripture that caused Christians to reject even the possibility that humans could be living on the opposite side of the Earth (antipodes)... Should I continue or have I made my point?


Each of these beliefs was supported by a clear and simple reading of the Bible. In each of these cases that reading was wrong.

[rogue06]

Ok, I admit this is a gratuitous cheap shot, but what the heck

[The Curtmudgeon]

OK, I'm pretty sure there are multiple other threads debating whether Young Earth Creationism is true. This thread is about the Creation Museum, though.

As thread starter, princesa has the right to take this thread in whatever direction she desires.

I actually agree with Rogue on this one; I merely would prefer to see the thread in the proper forum if it's not going to focus on the Museum proper. After all, we have separate forums for a reason, I should think. But the Mods can decide that (hint, Rogue).

Uh, Curt. Would you be so kind as to list any of the evidence that points toward a 6000 year old Earth

Not if you're going to insist on an exact figure. If you know any science () you know that no science can pin anything down that exactly.

But if you only mean "an Earth that is around 6-10K years old" (although, to be perfectly blunt about it, I personally do believe that the correct figure is around 6000, based on historical rather than scientific evidence), then it's easy enough to do.
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
Design and Origins in Astronomy, Vol. 1 (there's a Vol. 2, but Amazon doesn't have it)
An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood
Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth
The Missoula Flood Controvery and the Genesis Flood
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
The New Answers Book, Vol. 2 (there's a Vol. 1, of course, but Amazon doesn't have it)
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Results
Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth
Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation

There's plenty more, of course; this is merely what I have at hand.

Maybe I need to blow the dust off my bible, but where EXACTLY does Genesis state that the earth is precisely 6000 years old?

Nowhere as you phrase it, of course. However, Genesis, along with the other historical books of the OT, is full of lists of people's life-times and when their children were born, and it takes only a slight effort to add up all the numbers. And if it is too much effort, there are plenty of others who have already done so.

What about carbon dating and fossil records dating back millions of years?

First, you do realise that those are two different questions, right? I only say this because some people don't -- radiocarbon "dating" has an effective timespan of around 50,000 years, even on the uniformitarians' assumptions, and is not used for dating anything beyond that span including most fossils. And fossils are not dated, as such, by any radioisotope methods, because other than carbon (which, as pointed out, doesn't "reach back" far enough for the uniformitarians' theories) the chemical elements used (except potassium, for the K-Ar method which has been generally discarded by even uniformitarians since it won't conform to their theories rigourously enough) do not occur in animal tissue.

Radiocarbon dating has been primarily used by archaeologists, since the human artefacts which they deal with fall into the proper "time frame". But, funnily enough, radiocarbon dating has generally not been used very much by ANE archaeologists, because the numbers ("ages") generated by the method do not agree very well with historical accounts, even non-Biblical accounts (archaeologists in other parts of the world generally don't have well-dated historical records to use). Since the invention of the dendochronological adjustment scale for radiocarbon dates, the method has begun to be somewhat more popular, since now the archaeologist can simply apply the sliding scale to get a "date" that works, rather than what the radiocarbon method itself indicates.

Radioisotopic methods, in general, are used to "date" geologic, not biologic, material. But the geochronologists throw out any radioisotope "dates" that do not agree with the presupposition of the evolutionary time-scale (i.e., biochronology). They also downplay the number of times when separate measurements of samples from a single source give disparate "dates". They also throw out any "dates" that contradict the presupposition that higher deposits are necessarily "older" than lower deposits -- or else, assume an "overcrop" event even when any geological evidence for an overcrop is totally missing.

The general method underlaying the various radioisotope "dating" schemes rely on several unprovable assumptions:

• There is a known amount of daughter isotopes not caused by radioactive decay in the sample, generally assumed to be 0.
• There was no influx or outflux of either parent or daughter isotope material from the sample from the time it formed to the present.
• The sample has not been exposed to any physical or chemical process which would affect the decay and/or amounts of material in the sample.
• The radioactivity decay rate(s) of the isotopes are known exactly and have been unchanged from the time the sample was formed.

The last assumption is the most contentious, of course. The first one is completely unmeasurable. The middle two have been proven wrong on multiple occasions, even by uniformitarian scientists.

This isn't just some theological stand that is preached in churches deep in the backwoods of southern US states; all of this can be substantiated even by reading uniformitarian scientists themselves. The trick is, they keep their dirty laundry out of the public view. But if you read enough scientific publications (hint: high-school textbooks and newspaper "Science" sections are definitely not scientific publications) or even read surveys of such, you can generally pick out the evidence (although a lot of it is weasel-worded, e.g. they don't come out and say "We discarded 7 out of 10 dating results", but rather something like "of the three good dating results we obtained ..." when the only measure of good v. bad is the presumption of the uniformitarian theories).

Oooh, I'm new here so I didn't know that, thanks!

WE SHALL RESUME THE AGE OF THE EARTH DISCUSSION.

So what I'm hearing is, we should turn a blind eye to carbon dating the age of the earth to be in the billions as well as tangible fossil evidence from millions of years ago because of a (symbollic) passage in scripture?

As mentioned above, "carbon dating" tells nothing about the age of the earth, even to uniformitarian scientists -- the fact that many people making the argument don't even know that much about the subject tells us a lot about their own understanding of what they're talking about. And your "tangible fossil evidence" doesn't come with date-tags attached; the "dates" are arrived at by applying highly suspicious procedures and throwing out the results that don't please. And the "symbol[ism]" of the passage is an assumption to make it conform (or at least, not contradict) uniformitarian theories that begin with the assumption that the God of the Bible does not exist.

The (if I missed stepping on anybody's toes, I apologise and promise to stomp on them next time) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

You really might consider watching this one before supporting what the museum teaches.

Rogue, I've been studying science as well as the Bible for probably longer than you've been alive -- do you really think that that video has anything new I haven't read? If the author does have something new scientifically, point me at their publications.

Further, I would argue that it is an interpretation of Genesis that supports the Earth being 6000 years old.

Some of the most learned Hebrew language scholars, including ones that do not accept a literal understanding of the Creation or Flood accounts, admit that the Hebrew language as used in those passages is written with the intention of portraying a literal six-day Creation week and a year-long global Flood.

Your contention is like saying "It's noon locally" is merely an interpretation of the statement "The sun is at its zenith."

Much like it is a interpretation of the Bible that caused the Church to officially oppose Copernicus and Galileo's heliocentric models.

BOOOOOINNGGGG! Thanx for substantiating your lack of knowledge in this area. No, what caused the medieval Church to reject the theories of Copernicus and Galileo was the fact that the Church fathers had chosen to make Aristotle's philosophical ideas the filter through which to interpret the Bible text. The arguments against Copernicus and Galileo were made by the scientists of the day, and their theories were condemned because they conflicted with Aristotle, not the Bible.

It was an interpretation of Scripture that caused Christians to believe the planet is encased within a solid firmament. It was an interpretation of the Bible that caused us to believe that the Sun. Moon and stars were literally affixed to that solid firmament. It was an interpretation that caused us to believe that the Moon is a source of light rather than merely reflecting sunlight. It was an interpretation of Scripture that caused Christians to reject even the possibility that humans could be living on the opposite side of the Earth (antipodes)... Should I continue or have I made my point?

You've made the point that you have no understanding of the origins of these interpretations. The problem was never with the Biblical text; the problem was the acceptance of Aristotle's philosophies as "inerrant".

Each of these beliefs was supported by a clear and simple reading of the Bible. In each of these cases that reading was wrong.

No, these beliefs, when and where they were held, were supported by an appeal to Aristotlean ideas. Where Biblical texts were referenced at all, they were filtered through Aristotle.

The (studying the history of science is something that I highly recommend to anyone engaged in these arguments) Curtmudgeon

[rogue06]

I actually agree with Rogue on this one; I merely would prefer to see the thread in the proper forum if it's not going to focus on the Museum proper. After all, we have separate forums for a reason, I should think. But the Mods can decide that (hint, Rogue).



Not if you're going to insist on an exact figure. If you know any science () you know that no science can pin anything down that exactly.

But if you only mean "an Earth that is around 6-10K years old" (although, to be perfectly blunt about it, I personally do believe that the correct figure is around 6000, based on historical rather than scientific evidence), then it's easy enough to do.
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
Design and Origins in Astronomy, Vol. 1 (there's a Vol. 2, but Amazon doesn't have it)
An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood
Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth
The Missoula Flood Controvery and the Genesis Flood
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
The New Answers Book, Vol. 2 (there's a Vol. 1, of course, but Amazon doesn't have it)
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Results
Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth
Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation

There's plenty more, of course; this is merely what I have at hand.


The (if I missed stepping on anybody's toes, I apologise and promise to stomp on them next time) Curtmudgeon

I don't have any (double checks to be sure) authority in this forum though I agree this would probably be best in Cosmogony (I can't post in Protology*).

Thanks for the sources. I'll delve into them tonight when I can afford them the proper attention.


* unless of course that was the point



An on a totally different note, if you or anyone else finds me obnoxious and arrogant you can SHUT ME UP for a couple days and weeks

[RBerman]

Oooh, I'm new here so I didn't know that, thanks!

WE SHALL RESUME THE AGE OF THE EARTH DISCUSSION.

So what I'm hearing is, we should turn a blind eye to carbon dating the age of the earth to be in the billions as well as tangible fossil evidence from millions of years ago because of a (symbollic) passage in scripture?

If you believe Genesis 1-2 are symbolic, then there's nothing more to talk about. If you believe (as I do) that they are historical, then everything else we see in the world needs to be interpreted through that lens. Not a blind eye, but a recognition that forensic science is just guesswork compared to eyewitness testimony.

[princesa]

The Curtmudgeon - Thank you for your great answer. I do believe I will print it out and study it some more. Thanks again for its thoroughness, I appreciate it.

Thank you as well to Rogue (great responses from you too), RBerman, Kenny and IFellows and whomever else decides to answer this post...

[The Curtmudgeon]

I don't have any (double checks to be sure) authority in this forum though I agree this would probably be best in Cosmogony (I can't post in Protology*).

* unless of course that was the point

Certainly, it was not the point (I don't doubt that you know this, I'm responding lest anyone else reading this get the wrong idea). I don't want to shut you up, I want to educate you.

Then, of course, you'll shut up on your own.

An on a totally different note, if you or anyone else finds me obnoxious and arrogant you can SHUT ME UP for a couple days and weeks

I'm broke. Access to my bank account is controlled by Liberty Seminary and Amazon, between them. I'm lucky they let me eat lunch, most days.

The (actually, I'm philosophically -- but not Aristotileanly -- opposed to the ban auction) Curtmudgeon