What scientific evidence could possibly be displayed in the Creation Museum.?

Question

Mark Looy, a vice president at Answers in Genesis, said the museum has received at least $21 million in private donations. He said two anonymous donors have given $1 million, and he expects the museum to be debt-free when it opens next May.

John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, an organization that promotes creationism, said the museum will affirm the doubts many people have about science, namely the notion that man evolved from lower forms of life.

“Americans just aren’t gullible enough to believe that they came from a fish,” he said.



LMAO Shouldn't his name be Looney as in Looney Toons!

Answer 1

This answer is more in response to the incorrect assertions given by hoff_mom above:

There have been hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils found. The vast majority of all fossil species ever discovered, anywhere in the world, in any sediment, of any age, in any biological phyla are transitional fossils, in that they represent transitional anatomy and physiology in between those of earlier forms and the structures seen in later forms.

The really, odd, puzzling fossils are the ones that don't seem to have any obvious antecedents or descendants - like conodonts or machairoidians. But these are in the vast minority when compared with the huge number of fossils that show transitional anatomy.

Anyone who has told that there are no transitional fossils is straight out, flat lying to you.

In your example of a duck with hands instead of wings, that would not be a transitional form. As you say, such a mutation would likely be detrimental and that individual would die.

However, there are fossils, such as the bird Archaeopteryx, which show a transitional form between the clawed forelimb of a terrestrial bipedal reptile, and the fully formed wing of later birds. Archaeopteryx still bore functional digits with claws on them along the leading edge of its wing. This is one example of what we call a transitional form.

Another exists in the living bird known as the hoatzin (aka stink-hen). As a juvenile, the hoatzin has functional claws on its wings which help it climb through the thick mangrove swamps in which it lives. If it were born with a fully formed, duck-like wing, it would not be able to climb and it would probably die.

The proponents of evolution do not ignore the gaps in the theory. In fact, there are entire scientific journals dedicated to the study and explanation of those gaps. However, just because there are gaps in the theory, does not mean that it is unproved. Every piece of evidence gathered has supported the idea that inherited changes in allele frequency within a population over time have resulted in the physical biodiversity and geographic distribution of the living species we see today.

If you have a murder suspect with the victim's blood all over his hands, gunpowder residue on his clothes, video footage of him commiting the crime, ballistics matches that indicate that the pistol with his fingerprints on it fired the bullet it doesn't mean you haven't got sufficient evidence to prove the case because you haven't shown where he got the gun, bought the bullets, or why the shoes he was wearing when arrested don't match the ones that left footprints at the crime scene.

It also doesn't mean that the rival explanation that an angel came into the room and killed the victim because the victim was gay is scientific.

Simply positing another idea, whether it be 'aliens', 'god', or 'my cat did it' does not make it a credible alternative theory.

Creation science is labelled 'bad science' not because it runs contrary to the findings of evolutionary science, but because it doesn't have any testable hypotheses, and because it doesn't actually fit any of the physical evidence gathered in any field of scientific inquiry. At best, it tries to cram scraps of evidence into the tiny pigeon-holes allowed by the previously constructed theological conclusion, and ignores anything that contradicts it. That truly is bad science.

This apparent Creation Museum will likley use a few of these pigeon-holed examples, and a whole of lot of outright lies and manufactured data, along with numerous pieces of outdated information that were debunked by evolutionary biology more than a hundred years ago.

They will also likely use examples like the hoaxed Piltdown Man to try to prove that scientists can be mistaken. They somehow think that proving that scientists can make mistakes will somehow mean that their theory is invalid. They will fail to point out that it was scientists (not theologians) who discovered and pointed out that Piltdown was a fake.

What's really sad is that people are apparently willing to donate tons of money towards this, but many excellent, reputable museums and universities are always starved for funds.

Answer 2

As I understand it there are claims at the museum that the world is something like a few thousand years old. There are animatronics of humans and dinosaurs being on the world at the same time along with the claims that dinosaurs did exist but only a short time ago.

This ignores the overwhelming evidence which has been accumulated to show that the literal word of the bible about the age of the world is not true including carbon dating of dinosaur bones and the capcity to date crystals which have been show to be millions of years old or thae fact that evolution can be seen in the way bacteria can evolve beyond antibiotics. Fossil records also show the evolution of given species and can be followed over thousands of years. So basically no scientific evidence it just a display of religious belief and should not be represented as anything other than that but they are welcome to show it if that is what they wish to do.

Answer 3

As soon as creationism gets any scientific evidence that supports it, I'm sure they'll display it.

...I'm not betting on that, though. :-P

Edit: Yes, hoff_mom, I see what the topic is. My point is that they have no scientific evidence that they CAN display. So I don't know what they're going to be filling the entire museum with, but it's surely not going to be scientific evidence, because that doesn't exist.

Edit #2: Look up the definition of "scientific theory" and get back to me.

Answer 4

I've seen some of it on TV. They put dino and human puppets/statues in the same display, to make it appear as if they existed in the same time. They keep on going about the, to creationists apparent, fossilized "human" footsteps that once were found next to dino footsteps, while regular science really has very different thoughts about these by water eroded footsteps in an old river-bed.
In fact they don't show nothing new, it's the same nonsense as creationists are already fanatically spreading around on the web. It's just another page in the biblical hoax and it proves again that the believers money is taken away from them to pay for their own delusion.
Nowadays "sciences" like "creationist physics" and "creationist chemistry" are appearing. I wonder what they are teaching that's different than regular physics and chemistry.
Who wants to be deluded, will be deluded.

Answer 5

Aparently they have 6000 year old dinosaur fossils at Liberty University.

Richard Dawkins has a brilliant response to this claim:
"If it's really true, that the museum at Liberty University has dinosaur fossils which are labelled as being 6000 years old, then that is an educational disgrace. It is debauching the whole idea of a university, and I would strongly encourage any members of Liberty University who may be here... to leave and go to a proper university."
-Dawkins at a talk in Lynchburg

Answer 6

Well, when they can figure out a way to make faith into a substance tangible for all to see, I might actually go to this museum. However, I don't really think they can do so. They'd probably have more of a plausibility of working on a really good rain dance and making THAT happen, though. It's ALL about FAITH. PERIOD.

Answer 7

"As soon as Creationism gets any evidence, I am sure they will display it." Hello? See the topic of this question??

I had to sit through evolutionary baloney through high school; it might behoove you to get educated on the opposing viewpoint before shooting it down. I had to.

For everyone's information, there has never been a transitional fossil found. While obviously creatures adapt to their environments, there has NEVER been a ghost of evidence that anything ever changed into something else, and I defy you to prove otherwise. Think about it; if one day a duck had baby ducks with hands instead of wings (for example), what would "natural selection" have to say for the poor little freak of nature? It would die. It would almost certainly never get a chance to reproduce and carry on its mutation.

You proponents of evolution ignore the great big gaps in your theory (Yes, since it is UNPROVEN, it remains, as ANY biologist will tell you, a THEORY) and then accuse anyone who posits another possibility of "bad science." Hypocrites.

Answer 8

That would be a totally empty museum. I'm sure there would be bogus cr-p like castings made from the dinosaur footprints that look like a person's.

Answer 9

The same type of evidence that George Bush will put in his library to let everyone see how great of a president he was.

Answer 10

I think the idiocracy of this museum will prove that creationism is a bunch of crap.