Yay!!!! It’s open! I can hardly wait to visit. I’m not posting this to debate the theory of evolution with anyone. I’m posting this because I am of the young earth creationist belief and I’m excited that the Creation Museum is now open. If you wonder what exactly young earth creationism is, I would suggest looking at Answers in Genesis. They are real scientists and have real answers.
By Andrea Hopkins
PETERSBURG, Ky (Reuters) - Like many modern museums, the newest U.S. tourist attraction includes some awesome exhibits — roaring dinosaurs and a life-sized ship.
But only at the Creation Museum in Kentucky do the dinosaurs sail on the ship — Noah’s Ark, to be precise.
The Christian creators of the sprawling museum, unveiled on Saturday, hope to draw as many as half a million people each year to their state-of-the-art project, which depicts the Bible’s first book, Genesis, as literal truth.
While the $27 million museum near Cincinnati has drawn snickers from media and condemnation from U.S. scientists, those who believe God created the heavens and the Earth in six days about 6,000 years ago say their views are finally being represented.
“What we’ve done here is to give people an opportunity to hear information that is not readily available … to challenge them that really you can believe the Bible’s history,” said Ken Ham, president of the group Answers in Genesis that founded the museum.
Here exhibits show the Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah’s flood, dinosaurs coexisted with humans and had a place on Noah’s Ark, and Cain married his sister to populate people the earth, among other Biblical wonders.
Scientists, secularists and moderate Christians have pledged to protest the museum’s public opening on Monday. An airplane trailing a “Thou Shalt Not Lie” banner buzzed overhead during the museum’s opening news conference.
Opponents argue that children who see the exhibits will be confused when they learn in school that the universe is 14 billion years old rather than 6,000.
“Teachers don’t deserve a student coming into class saying ‘Gee Mrs. Brown, I went to this fancy museum and it said you’re teaching me a lie,’” Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, told reporters before the museum opened.
Actually, I think they do deserve that. Of course, intellectual debate should never be a part of the public education classroom. Just believe everything the left wing liberal teachers say.
A Gallup poll last year showed almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Three of 10 Republican presidential candidates said in a recent debate that they did not believe in evolution.
Comment posted by Million Dollar Magpie In Thermopolis? « Political Cowboy
at 6/8/2007 9:24:59 AM
[…] how about the possibility of the dino-bird only being 4,ooo years or so? Yea, I’m “one of those yahoos” that questions evolution and the timelines they […]
Comment posted by Scott
at 5/31/2007 8:42:58 AM
Thanks for making my moderation known to everyone 
Yes, Wordpress has that pesky two-link rule for comments (though that can be adjusted to your liking, though two links is typically the threshold for spam comments; I have replied on my own blog with 2+ links and had to drag the comment out from the moderation cue, all the while thinking, “This is my blog; why?????“)
Comment posted by wytammic
at 5/30/2007 11:13:21 PM
Hey Scott — that’s the twice I’ve had to pull your comment from the moderation queue. Not a problem — must be the terrific links you’re leaving.
Comment posted by Scott
at 5/30/2007 10:38:42 PM
OK, so right now we can’t duplicate a supernova. Should we stop studying it, no.
Actually, Creationism does depend on evidence. So does Evolution. It just happens that you and I are using the same evidence (we’re just interpreting that evidence differently). I look at fossils and see billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. You see a historic timeline.
Creationism is also measurable. Genesis 1 and 2 give the account of what God did. It doesn’t say when exactly this happened, but God made His creation with apparent age. Adam and Eve were adult humans, not babies. Fowls of the air (birds) were created, not eggs. Hmmm, that answers the question Which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Here in Cody, we have a mountain (Heart Mountain) that drives geologists crazy. It is perhaps historically more known for the consecratoin camp that was there in WW2. Anyway, there is a huge chunk of rock on top of the mountain that slid some 30 miles to rest on top of this mountain. To add to it, the huge chunk of rock has fossils that are “older” than the ones below it!
For a Creationist, this is no problem. All fossils (dead things) were created at basically the same time (a worldwide flood). All those critters died in an instant. They didn’t wait years up on years for the dirt to settle on them (I can see some creature now going, “Oh, wait, I want to look like this when I become a fossil!” 
)
Evolutionists have problems with this mountain. How does a huge chunk of rock travel thirty-some odd miles? How did these old fossils get on top of the young fossils? Oh, yea, the huge rock slid some thirty miles, but how does that happen?!?!?!?!?
I’d love to continue on, but alas, I must get ready for work. However, before I go, let me recommend a series of DVD’s called Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution. Each DVD explores some of the amazing animals on this earth that evolution just can’t explain:
Dr. Jobe Martin was a traditional evolutionist, but as he studied animals, his scientific and medical training was revolutionized as he studied animals that challenged the scientific assumption of evolutionism.
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution presents powerful evidence that proves that animal designs can only be attributed to a creator. They cannot possibly be explained by evolution. This film will inspire you to look more closely at the world around you.
Dr. Martin endeavored on this study because of a challenge from his students, who gave him a list of animals to study in detail and see if he could come away still believing evolution.
Gotta be going for now!
Comment posted by theobromophile
at 5/30/2007 1:20:29 PM
Scott,
I disagree. If science must be “observable, testable, and repeatable,” then I take it that we should stop studying astronomy, as we cannot repeat a supernova.
While Wiki isn’t the greatest, it lists the following criteria for the scientific method: observable, empirical, and measurable.
If you want to define “science” in such a way as to exclude anything you don’t like, such is your prerogative; however, your views will not be accepted either by mainstream society nor by scientists and engineers.
Evolution is observable in that there is a fossil record. It is empirical (definition: dependent upon evidence) and measurable. Creationism is not observable, empirical, or measurable.
Evolution can be subject to testing: you can try to replicate primordial soup and see what happens. You can determine what early atmospheres were like and determine whether they were capable of sustaining the life that was theorised to be around then. While you cannot wait another 4.6 billion years, you can test discrete parts of the evolutionary theory. What you can’t do is ask God to pretty please create another miracle. That is why evolution is considered to be scientific and creationism is not.
For years, people thought all sorts of things about the human body that we wrong, from how blood flows to the four humours to the reasons for infection. Some of it was good (trepanation, for example, could be effective, and the ancient Egyptians had some remedies that are still used today); some were total b.s.. We didn’t really know much about anatomy until vivisection. Should that stop us from theorising about anatomy and stop moving forward with our examination of the human body? No scientist worth his salt requires a theory to be perfect; what they do require is that it be based on evidence and be subject to modification.
Comment posted by Scott
at 5/29/2007 10:45:02 PM
Evolutionists also assume things in their writings. They assume a big bang, or a bolt of lightning and a puddle of goo.
In one of Ken Hamm’s videos, he explains that Creation is no more scientific than evolution. Science must be observable, testable, and repeatable. Neither Creation nor Evolution can fulfill those requirements. Thus, Creation, no matter how factual I see it, is still a theory.
We are both looking at the same evidence (fossils, layers of rock, etc…), but we are interpreting that evidence differently.
As Creationists, we rely on the Word of God being absolute, thus in six days everything in the universe was created by God from nothing.
Evolutionists rely on whatever it is they rely on and come up with the theory that the universe slowly evolved into what it is over millions and billions of years.
Then there’s some “creationists” that want to give evolutionists some credit, so they say God used evolution to create the universe.
Either way, we have theories. I wasn’t there when God spoke the heavens into existence (nor were you there when whatever it is you believe brought the universe into existence).
Comment posted by theobromophile
at 5/29/2007 6:25:04 PM
I read some of the AIG stuff. My big issue is that it assumes what it is trying to prove. For example, the carbon dating part assumed Noah’s Ark and the Flood story to be true in order to prove that Genesis is literal truth. Logic doesn’t work that way!
It also fails to quantify variables. It doesn’t say whether, for example, increased industrial pollution would change the carbon dating clock by a factor of 2, a thousand, or 0.01%.
My big scientific issue with creationism is that it doesn’t provide two things that are necessary for scientific theories: testability and predictability. A hypothesis or theory should be testable (and able to be disproven) and should provide predictive value. Creationism doesn’t tell us how genes mutate, how bacteria develop resistance, or anything else that is really helpful from a biological perspective.
Comment posted by wytammic
at 5/29/2007 5:54:56 PM
Hi Bridget,
Because I’m not a scientist, I will point you to the AIG link in the original post. Hope you enjoy it — the scientists are very credible. The museum might be fun to check out too!
TT — Yes, my family definitely intends to visit the museum. I will do my best to refrain from pepper spraying any protesters Let’s just hope that I don’t feel threatened 
. However, we’ve had our fill of travel for a while and still we have to head to Denver for a post surgery follow up for Ted this week. So, it might take us a while to get to KY!
Comment posted by theobromophile
at 5/29/2007 5:16:23 PM
I’m an evolutionist. I believe that the earth is really, really old and do believe that various animal forms have been around for millions of years.
That all said, I’m not afraid of debate. In fact, I think it is the best way for truth to win out, and, as a scientist, I want to find it.
In high school English, we were taught that one of the best ways to go through a thesis paper is to present the other side, point out its flaws, and then propose an alternate. For example, “Shakespeare did not intend “The Merchant of Venice” to be a feminist piece of work, despite x, y, and z.” Explain x, y, and z, explain why they are wrong, and then present your own evidence and analysis.
The same goes for any debate. The same goes for sales. You want to overcome the obvious objections of the other side and then present your own side, which looks stronger.
Comment posted by totaltransformation
at 5/29/2007 2:19:08 PM
“I’m posting this because I am of the young earth creationist belief and I’m excited that the Creation Museum is now open.”
The evo’s are up in arms. Some are even talking of going and protesting or harassing those going into the museum. I for my part plan on going with my wife and daughter.
Sphere: Related Content
This isn’t to say that I think Vick is guilty, but if he is, he is a freaking idiot. Who is entertained by dogs fighting? Ridiculous.
What Others are Saying