Two questions for Creationists?

Question

So there's a new $27million "Creation Museum" that just opened in Kentucky, and one of the things that it states is that man and dinosaur exsisted at the same time.
Question #1 is this: How was man able to survive not only being the prey of dinsaurs, but also the mass extinction event(s) that destroyed the dinosaurs? (a subquestion would be this: if dinosaurs were around up until the Noah & flood story, why is there no mention of them?)

Secondly, the museum officials claim that it has two main audiences: "non-Christians who need to be saved, and Christians who need scientific evidence to bolster and defend their faith."
Question #2: Isn't it flawed logic, and/or even hipocritical to use science (which states that creationism is a false hypothesis) to "prove" something that is a matter of faith?

Two things were raised so far: The Leviathan & Bohemoth from Job... so are we to also belive that according to Creationism that dinosaurs were able to breath fire? If so, how could that be even possible? Wouldn't you have to have something in the mouth or sinus that was hundreds of degrees to cause ignition? How could this be without setting the creature ablaze from within itself?

Also, as far as the T-Rex, they were not hunters. They were scavengers. Hollywood just likes big scary monsters for the movies. It would be the smaller, faster pack reptiles that would've been the biggest problems for man (if coexsisted)

Also, why do Creationists say that there is no evidence of Evolution? What makes Darwin's work (which has been recreated several thousand times with the same results) not evidence?

The reason for science's falsification is this: Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
Because the Genisis Creation cannot be repeated (in both variable and control form) it is unable to tested. That is why it is a "false hypothesis," wnich does not mean "not true." And yes, science does (by it's very nature) evolve. Scrutiny is key to the scientific method. All science is stated to be possibly false.... So if religion is using science (which, by it's own admission, may be false) to prove itself, istn't religion therefore admitting that it too may be false? That's what I mean by "hipocritical." Religion (in this case I will use Christianity) is telling us that there is only 1 god and that god is absolutly true, and that is unquestionable. The introduction of science into that claim, allows for the question of exsistance as well as the admition of falsehood.

Answer 1

The idiots that made that museum need a swift kick in the butt for being stupid. Its not even a museum. A museum deals in facts, not fantasy. I could easily have a huge collection of fantasy authors, but that doesn't make what they say into fact, it makes it library.

Answer 2

Personally as a Christian I have no problem with the earth being old. Millions or what ever although I will add that there is strong disagreement about how old it really is. Not exactly an exact science. 2nd question. Science doesn't state creationism is false. Science says nothing. People make these assumptions based on what they feel is the best evidence available and through the lenses of their own personal bias. I habe no problem with people prmoting alternate viewpoints. If they are wrong they should be easily refuted. And actually working against their own cause. What I do like is the because school is so rigid about the way they teach evolution which is ridilled with errors and exadurations there needs to be a place where people can see other points of view. The intelligent desing movement gets trashed regularly in here and yet I have seen little evidence that more than a few have ever even read any of their literature for themselves. They have a number of credible and peer reviewed scinetists who are doing lab work and are proposing intersting thoughts that much of the world is being censored from.

Answer 3

Well, it seems to me what you are asking about is a matter of opinion and a matter of interpretation of evidence. There are always at least two sides to every question, and I do not necessarily mean a right one and a wrong one.

Let's take dinosaurs for example. There is evidence that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries, and even that they survived right down to modern times. So the extinction event, and/ or Noah's great flood, neither one got them all. As for how mankind survived them, especially the big carnivorous brutes - they were awesome and ferocious looking, but apparently not all that fast on their feet. The ones that were fleet of foot were fairly small. The velociraptors could have been a threat, but probably no more so than the tigers and lions and bears that early man had to contend with, even if man was not living back during the Jurassic period, like the cartoon "Alley Oop" portrayed. Why no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible? They may have been. In Job 40 & 41, two strange, unknown beasts are described that some feel could be dinosaurs.

It is entirely possible that our dating methods for prehistoric fossils, etc., could be flawed and therefore unreliable and incorrect. I remember reading that some such test was conducted on a living snail, and it was indicated that it was millions of years old.

Science is not a sacred cow. It is as open to scrutiny and investigation as any other subject, like religion or philosophy. It is always changing, yet so many people act like it is all just a great body of indesputable fact. Hardly anything could be further from the truth than that. So if evolutionists can make statements that impinge on the validity of some religion, or aspect there of (like the Genesis Creation), then turn-about is still fair play. The Creationists have every right to try to assert their point of view and defend their position. I do not know if they are right or not, but I do know they have that right - the freedom of religion. I do not know why so many often seem to want to abridge that right. They would sure not want their own freedom of speech, etc., abrogated. So I personally think the so-called evolutionary scientists could be a little more charitable. But the Creationists too could use a few lessons in manners. There is no sense in either side being so darned insulting. You are never going to convince anyone that you are right, and they are wrong, by calling them stupid or a jackass. And if you can't get along with someone or some group, I personally think the best course of action is to just leave them alone. The world is a BIG place. There is room enough for all sorts of ideas and beliefs. No sense in trying to force your own on everyone. Now is there??? (Unless you are trying to "get them saved", chuckle!)

Oh, well, no one ever said life was supposed to be easy.

Answer 4

1. Who said man was the prey of dinosaurs? You do not know what wiped out the dinosaurs. The majority dies in the flood like the majority of man. Who says there are no mention of dinosaurs-what were they called then. The term "dinosaur" is only about 200 years old. There are many drawings paintings, and carvings of many different dinosaurs that predate the term dinosaur.
2. Science does not state that creationism is a false hypothesis. Where do you find that in the text book. "Matter of faith"?? Just because someone believes something doses not make it false. If that were true, then evolution would be false. There is no proof for it.
3. Go to the museum and argue with them.
4. Do you have any idea how many scientist believe in creation-or better yet, do you have any idea how many scientist do not believe in evolution? Go to www.whoisyourcreator.org scroll down the page and click on the link for a list of scientist who have publicly gone on record as not believing in evolution.

Answer 5

as far as i know, the Bible says that man and beast got along, not well, but in harmony. i remember that God told Adam to name every beast in the earth. That's how it will be in heaven too. I dont have the Scriptural reference for this, but the Bible says that in heaven, man will play with the mighty beasts and be in peace with them once again. As far as if was the flood that extinguished the dinosaurs, I dont believe a mention of their extinction would be necessary.

For quesion #2, i feel that your question is slightly skewed. you begin with an assumption that "creationism is a false hypothesis" however, it is being debated as we speak and has not been conclusively called "false." In reference to the logic of the museum purpose, i would say that no, it is not a flawed logic. it merey states that the museum seeks to reach both christian and non-christian audiences. they further specify that for the non-christians, the purpose is to enlighten, while for the christians, the purpose is to educate and equipt.

many times "science" has been wrong. so the definition of "science" itself may conflict with its established meaning. because a word is defined as truth does not mean that it is not capable of harboring, indeed cultivating, falsities. every theory, including the Creationist theory and more, has the potential to be wrong. harboring a theory under the heading of "Science" does not prove it correct, neither does rejecting it prove that it is false. Truth is truth, beyond perception.

Answer 6

Nobody knows!

The answer to your second question is that reason and science can show evidence for God and they are not in conflict, on the contrary to just about every atheist out there that would like you to think just that. We know God to be true, therefore we dont require scientific evidence. But all too often, Christians dont have the desire to become stronger in science because in general thats not what people who are seeking God look for.

Answer 7

To answer your 2 questions, It takes more faith to believe that 2 atoms were drifting in the in the immense void and for mere causality they collided and began the big bang and everything were formed, the universe and all, from chaos to perfection. Who created the 2 atoms?

Answer 8

1- we don't believe that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor, asteroid or what ever. creatures can go extinct for many reasons. and if you realize, a person, though unable to outrun a t-rex, would be able to out-manuveur one, as they can't turn very well. dinosaurs likely died out before Noah, as they're mentioned in Job (which was written before Moses' time, sometime long ago in early times) -- the Leviathan and Behemoth [Job 40 and 41]. so they could have jsut gone extinct. perhaps they just couldn't adapt

2- I don't get what you mean. science is in the pursuit of "how it was done". since we don't know, you can't say "science disproves it" since creationism is a field of science. that make sense?

Answer 9

Even though I believe God created all things, I would not spend 1 cent on that museum as they don't have it right and are teaching falsehood.

Answer 10

I heard a theory that said the Dino's were killed in the flood, which is why we have only found bones on high ground (because they ran to high ground before drowning.