do you support the museum that uses science to support biblical stories?

Question

so a museum has opened that shows dinosaurs on noahs ark and other biblical stories, using science and historical evidence to dicpict the bible. they also show that the universe is 6000 yrs old and the grand cannon was formed by a flood. do you support this idea? what effect do you think this will have on children? science always teaches evolution and such as a theory, not a truth, so what about this museum?

dinosaurs are a real part of science, but they are being perverted to tell the story the museum creators wanted.

Answer 1

The Creation Museum is a hot topic today. With it, the pseudoscience that is Intelligent Design.

Some Christians love ID as it appears to be a scientific explanation for what is written in the bible.

There is a huge difference between a Christian who is a legitimate scientist and performs legitimate science in his/her chosen field of specialty and a Christian who attempts to validate and justify his/her own religious beliefs by selectively picking and choosing pseudoscientific theories.

ID is NOT good science.

I certainly don't mind religious people performing good science with a solid hypothesis with the intention of determining the truth. Hell, the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a monk!

Our problem is when religious people fake science to justify their beliefs. It would be akin to Richard Dawkins rewriting The Selfish Gene using thou's and thy's and expecting it to be treated as a religious text supporting the selfish gene theory!

Also, I have respect for the word "museum" so I object to the word being used in this context.

Answer 2

Let's mention the lies in this question, shall we?

1. "dinosaurs on noahs [sic] ark and other biblical stories"
The Bible does not mention dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. Nobody knew about dinosaurs when the Bible was written.

2. "using science"
There is no science at the creation museum.

3. "[using] historical evidence"
None of that there, either, I'm afraid.

4. "they show that the universe is 6000 yrs old"
No, they don't. If the universe were only 6000 years old, then we wouldn't even be able to see most of the stars, which are father than 6000 light years away. Are you saying God created light coming from events that NEVER HAPPENED? Even then, the Bible is a lie, because it says God created the stars, not light coming from imaginary objects.

5. "the grand cannon [sic] was formed by a flood"
Ridiculous. Flood geology has been so thoroughly debunked it doesn't even merit mention here. I thought even the crackpots mostly abandoned it by now.

6. "science always teaches evolution"
Science is a methodology for examining the natural world, not a teacher or classroom.

7. "as a theory, not a truth"
You show a fundamental ignorance of what the word "theory" means to scientists. Go pick up a book, please, and not a creationist book.

Answer 3

This is not a museum that uses science to support biblical stories. This is an amuzement park that TWISTS science to support biblical stories. It's a disgrace to absolutely any student of any branch of science. Right up there with "Scientologists" (say WHAT?!?!) and "Christian Scientists" (which belongs in the dictionary under "redundant").

Are these really the people we need elbowing their way into our educational system?

Answer 4

Personally, I think the Creation Museum is long overdue. The fact of the matter is, museums shouldn't speculate about areas that are not able to be proven, but considering that museums have been promoting evolution for decades, I think that people, especially children need to see an alternative view.

Science has not always taught evolution, in fact science does not teach it today. Many scientists believe it because that is what they have been taught. Evolution is NOT based on science. It is an article of faith. Many scientists today are afraid to take a stand against the prevailing view.

There are scientists who were employed by the National Academy of Science who lost their membership because there research didn't support "Global Warming". When science is for sale, it is no longer science. It becomes one more vehicle of propaganda for the ruling elite.

ءراقيسكْس

Answer 5

Macroevolution is merely a hypothesis and it is taught in schools as fact, i.e. as a SCIENTIFIC theory. So why are evolutionists crying 'foul' when another hypothesis is put forward? I greatly welcome the concept.

I see here a lot of close-minded people on the other side who constantly claim that Christians are close-minded. They cannot accept that reputable scientists accept the idea of creationism and the Holy Bible as being authentic. So, consider the three quotes below:


(1) Dr. W. F. Albright, perhaps the most famous archaeologist of the twentieth century, said: “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.”
—Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1942), p. 176.

(2) Millar Burrows, from Yale: “On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine.”
—What Mean These Stones? (New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941), p. 1.

(3) K. A. Kitchen: “In terms of general reliability. . . . the Old Testament comes out remarkably well, so long as its writings and writers are treated fairly and evenhandedly.”—On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), p. 500.

The age when people unquestionably accept macroevolution is over. Many reputable scientists TODAY are questioning the valadity of evolution. And many of them are evolutionists themselves !!

Answer 6

People keep saying that if you don't support this museum, you're "close-minded". If you want to believe that the world is 6,000 years old, or that men and dinosaurs co-existed, then go ahead. But the issue here is that they're calling it science, and it's not. They're giving people the impression that scientists are entertaining these ideas, and they're not. The evidence supported by the scientific community overwhemingly points to the conclusion that men and dinosaurs did NOT co-exist. If you want to ignore that evidence and believe otherwise, then fine, but don't tell other people that your viewpoint is all of a sudden a fact, or lead people to believe that there's a debate going on among scientists -- because that's wrong, and it's misleading.

Answer 7

With the singular exception of evolution the is not any contradiction between mainstream technological know-how and the Bible. Then there is evolution. each and all of the info used to assist evolution (which includes those in text fabric books) has been disproved - a lot of it over one hundred years in the past. while coping with the age of the Earth, there is plenty greater info discovered to assist the Biblical attitude. bypass forward and do impartial analyze on the issue.

Answer 8

Thats a mouthful. It is good to have a place where people can promote one theory. Seeing is they aren't allowed to question evolution in the science class. Do I thnk the world is 6000 years old. No but I do think people are entitled to their own opinion and they are using their own money not yours to prmote this belief. Furthermore they are not requiring or testing anyoone on this. As far as science suggesting this is a theory just look around in here and you will see how fast that people will tell you that it is a fact not a theory. I wonder if those who are opposed base any of their criticisms on what they have seen or on their own bias?

Answer 9

Clearly, if something is not verifiable, it must be presented as a theory in the scientific sense. So yes, Creation Science must be viewed as a theory as well.

As to whether I support using science to support biblical stories, the answer must be "yes," if the evidence is there. Wouldn't all scientists agree that it's better to prove the Bible with science than to try to prove science with the Bible?

Answer 10

They should be made to put a warning sign saying that everything you see inside is purely based on belief, and not a single SCRAP of evidence has been found to show that anything inside has any merit at all.

Science? They don't use science! It's religious dogma. Nothing more.