Creation Museum?

Question

What is this? Is this a ploy to suck more people into Christianity? They have dinosaurs throughout the whole thing and they say they are only 6,000 yrs old, even though the fossils prove that they are millions of years old. The link below to a video about it says that evolution is definitely wrong and the bible is 100% correct, even though the evidence points to the opposite. Exactly what do they base the info on in the museum besides the bible? Seems like everything they are teaching in this museum is against common sense and is just a ploy to suck in more christian folk. What are your thoughts on this new museum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc

happy pilgrim - Tell me how this museum reflects science? There is nothing inside of scientific literature to back this stuff up. Really, I want to see the scientific evidence, I want to look at it.

John The Baptist - I can see why you want to spend all this money and check out this museum, you are completely ignorant of science. First of all, you can NOT carbon date a living thing because Carbon dating involves measuring the concentration of the radioactive isotope carbon-14. It is assumed that an organism will have roughly the same carbon-14 concentration while alive as it is constantly exchanging atoms. When the organism dies, it stops maintaining the carbon-14 levels, and the carbon-14 begins to decay into nitrogen. The amount of carbon 14 is then measured to see how old the organism is. Carbon dating can read accurately up to tens of thousands of yrs old, after that there are other methods that can be used to find how old it is that involve radioactive isotopes with longer half-lifes. Please educate yourself before believing everything you are told.

John The Baptist - In your original post you say they carbon dated a live snail. Then in your edit you said we didn't know if the snail was dead for a short or long period of time. The point is you can't carbon date something living, and carbon dating is not the only dating technique used.

Answer 1

Presented by morons, for morons. Just bring $$.

ADDENDA

JTB: jsts22 shot down your lame carbon dating argument before I could. Let's dismantle your other long-in-the-tooth bogus claims...

Receding moon:

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddly-squat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

Niagara Falls:

The age of Niagara Falls is not the age of the earth. Geologists estimate that Niagara Falls originated about 7,000 years ago, sometime after the end of the last glacial episode. This says nothing about how old the rest of the earth is, though.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD610.html

Earth's Rotation Slowing:

The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

Oceans Getting Saltier:

The saltiness of the oceans has nothing to do with the age of the Earth, and everything to do with the chemical residency time of sodium chloride (salt) in solution in the oceans. This argument comes originally from Henry Morris, and can be found in his small book The Scientific Case for Creation (1977). Table 1, pp 55-59 presents 70 "uniformitarian estimates" for the age of the Earth, and of those 32 are based on the influx into the ocean of one or the other material. The estimates on the age of the Earth run from 100 years (!!) for aluminum to 260,000,000 years for sodium. It's an entirely bogus trick, which should be fairly obvious. Who would suggest that this is a reasonable way to estimate the age of the Earth, when the result is 100 years?? The average and standard deviation of these 32 "uniformitarian estimates" on the age of the Earth works out to be about 17,600,000 ± 53,400,000 years, which looks like a not much worse than 50/50 bet that the Earth does not exist yet.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar00.html

and

Dr. Hovind is assuming that salt cannot be removed from the oceans. The more sophisticated creationists, such as Melvin Cook, know better than to make that assumption. Here's what Cook had to say:

The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73]

(Dalrymple, 1984, pp.115-116)

Thus, salt is being removed from the oceans as quickly as it is being added by the world's rivers. Consequently, no age can be calculated, save a minimum age based upon an assumption of initial salt content. There is no comfort here for the young-earth creationist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html

Fish Fossils on Everest:

Come on, now. Are you too dumb t figure this one out on your own? Everest used to be below sea level, as was the top of my local Sierras (14,000'), which have fish fossils, too. In case you don't believe me:

Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Not Enough Dust on Moon:

The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.

The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

It appears that YOU are the WILLFULLY IGNORANT one. By all means, bring on your "many more" pieces of "evidence". Be sure to search all your creationist sites for all the scoop. We'd love to debunk them. Again, and again, and again...

TTFN

JBT re snails: You're really a glutton for punishment, aren't you? Willfully ignorant only begins to scratch your surface. FYI, you could have researched this, too. It took me about 10 seconds to reference the files... Check the references yourself.

Living snails were carbon-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old, showing that the dating method is invalid.
Source:
Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp
Response:
The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. The article discussed the potential errors that the presence of "dead carbon" would introduce into the dating of mollusks. For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are. This is a type of "reservoir effect."

The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:
Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.
In other words, the apparent age of 27,000 years for these snail shells is another example of the reservoir effect. The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.

Contrary to the complaints of creationists, conventional scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. This is not the fatal flaw to radiometric dating that some creationists claim it to be. It just shows that dates from mollusks from streams and lakes need to be carefully evaluated as to their reliability. Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, bone, and hide, would remain unaffected by this type of reservoir effect. If found with shells in the same layer, these materials could be dated to determine if shells are locally affected by the reservoir effect and, if so, how much their radiocarbon dates have been skewed by it.

(See also the C14-dating of a seal for another example of the reservoir effect.)
Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R3
References:
Keith, M. L., and G. M. Anderson, 1963. Radiocarbon dating: Fictitious results with mollusk shells. Science 141: 634-637.
Riggs, A. C., 1984. Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada springs. Science 224: 58-61.
Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Science and Earth History: The evolution/creation controversy, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Further Reading:
Aitken, M. J., 1990. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. Longman, England.

Bowman, Sheridan, 1990. Radiocarbon Dating. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

Taylor, R. E., 1987. Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Orlando, USA: Academic Press.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

=======
You can lead a donkey to water...
=======
"I am aware of the Institute for Creation Research, Answersingenesis.org, Bibleuniverse.org. and several others."

Not one of which has ever presented a peer-reviewed paper, nor presented one for review. In fact, show us ONE "creation science" paper that has ever been presented for review anywhere.

I would suggest that you expand your horizons and read some of the links and references in the "cut/paste" FACTS )and clear references, which you neglected to provide for your fairy tales) I gave you, but that would be an exercise in futility. You, clearly, have the typical Xtian open mind and would ignore them in favor of "goddidit".

I feel sorry for your educationally deprived children. (Upon further review, since you state "My wife and I are homeschoolers", let me amend that to I feel sorry for your educationally deprived and brainwashed spawn.)

Answer 2

I can't answer your question about the Creation Museum,
but I would like to know how scientists determined that
Carbon-14 decayed into nitrogen at the same rate 10,000 years ago as it does today.

Answer 3

I have seen and heard about it. Haven't been there. I am going to go be fleeced of $20 and check it out.
BTW, I want to see it badly enough that I will take my family of four,($80-100 admission), 3 tanks of gas, an overnight stay in a decent Hotel with a pool, meals on the road, etc.,.....I guess I'll spend $1000 and get back to you.

Just for your information, students at Washington University in St. Louis, MO used Carbon dating on a LIVE SNAIL and got 25,000 years. I believe the Bible IS 100% correct. We must have different definitions of common sense.

EDIT:
Regarding science, I am aware that the moon is drifting away from us at the rate of 2 inches per year, Niagara Falls is eroding at 4.7 feet per year, The Earth is slowing down in its rotation, the oceans are getting saltier, there are fish fossils by the THOUSANDS on Mount Everest, and there is one-eight of an inch of cosmic dust on the moon.
ALL of the above SCIENTIFIC FACTS point to a YOUNG Earth, and I can give you MANY more. You are the one who is WILLFULLY ignorant of science. And how do we know if the snail was dead for a short period of time or not?? Would you like me to send you the NEWSPAPER CLIPPING?

Yousedummy:
I see you have the scientific ability to cut and paste. I am aware of the Institute for Creation Research, Answersingenesis.org, Bibleuniverse.org. and several others. I don't accept one false word you have spoken, which is everything you've said; nor do I expect to change your mind. Just know that I am just as sure of myself, if not more sure. Going to bed now. Fight later.

Answer 4

I'm a creationist, pretty devout too, but I realize that 6,000 years is FAR too short a time for the Earth to have formed. God doesn't use magic, he plays by the rules of our universe. Except, y'know, he's God, so he can see every possible outcome of every possible action on his part, and can choose accordingly.

Answer 5

Just shearing the flock of 20 bucks a head.

Answer 6

Phhh! What? I was laughing my head off when I saw the "man eating" dinosaur standing next to the human girl. What did the dinos eat?

Answer 7

Many Christians are coming to realise that the whole project is an enourmous own goal.

Answer 8

well, i watched it already before i read your question and i've been thinking about it the whole week..
maybe they think it is better to believe in what it is written than things that have the proof and involves knowledge of man in science..

Answer 9

I've read about their young-earth theory and I don't buy it either. Still, they have the right to believe what they want and to build a museum.

Answer 10

Friend, I would visit there and consider the exhibits before you trash it...

It is not a "ploy". The designers and creators (oops! two no-no words for evolutionists!) of the museum sincerely believe that their exhibits reflect true science. Thousands of people who have visited the museum would agree. Millions more around the globe would agree - those who believe that the bible is true, accurate, and authoritative.

God bless

Answer 11

Scientific data (or should I say, the interpretation of scientific data)..just as do the evolutionists. However, I do not choose to follow the teachings of any man when it comes to my relationship with God. It makes no difference to me what timetable was used or how God began all things. As I have a personal relationship with my creator, I have personal knowledge of his love and his power. That is good enough for me.