Creationism museum to be protested...

[dannyh23]

Oooohhhhh. See, that is what happens when I don't keep up on threads. I wondered why some of the uproar. I get it now. Thanks.

danny, it makes sense to me that they would want people working there who believed in their point. It would be like a creationist going to work in the natural history museum, and telling people that all the dates are wrong.

Well, based on the statement of faith, if you are any religion except a Fundamentalist Christian, you need not apply. It would be interesting if a more qualified muslim or athiest applied for an accounting job wasn't hired simply due to religion.

I understand your point, but most Natural History mueseums are public or at least get some money from some public funds because they actually teach science. They don't require people to sign "statements of faith" to work.

Science is not being taught at this "museum" -- it's entertainment and/or preaching and it's probably a great place for other young-earth creationists to gather and "feel good" about their beliefs. ...but for anyone to suggest this "creation museum" is real science (as it will most likely will be portrayed by the staff), is laughable.

I believe in God, but I believe in science more than a literal Genesis. Some of us "evil" evolutionists do believe in some type of "higher power".

 

[meandtheguys2]

I see your point. I just don't have a problem with this for this private museum. I don't see any harm in people believing through faith that this earth is young, etc. I also don't have a problem with geological data (we collect rocks and fossils.)

Thanks for a polite answer. These topics get snarly so often, and I was concerned I'd stepped into a bad one in my contemplative mood!

 

[cardaway]

I believe in God, but I believe in science more than a literal Genesis. Some of us "evil" evolutionists do believe in some type of "higher power".

Yup. IMO higher power sparking evolution.

 

[dcentity2000]

Yup. IMO higher power sparking evolution.

Or even the reality that naturally gave birth to the laws of science. God's certainly skilful and powerful enough to make a self sustaining reality



Rich::

 

[BuckyFan04]

My church teaches the same thing, however, I'm not able to say for certain that I believe that.

There are some places in the world today where it is daylight for months, the sun doesn't rise and set every 24 hours.

I don't have a conviction about this topic either way. I do believe the Adam/Eve account though.

That's a good point. Maybe it's referring to a complete rotation of the earth rather than when it actually becomes light or dark outside? Yep, I definitely believe the Adam/Eve account, too.

Well, anyway, I don't believe that this issue (the 24 hour days vs. "days" that may actually be 1000 years) is one of the essential beliefs for Christianity, so I think it's okay that people have slightly different views. It is kind of fun to discuss these different views, though!

The Bible does say that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of God though so it makes one wonder.

Yep, I see what you're saying. Since "time" as we know it doesn't apply to God, it is hard to rationalize things like this.

 

[freckles and boo]

Or even the reality that naturally gave birth to the laws of science. God's certainly skilful and powerful enough to make a self sustaining reality



Rich::

Is that anything like switching on the Roomba and having a martini?

 

[ford family]

I do believe that a day with God is like a thousand years.

I've come across people like that as well, really boring. You find yourself stealing glances at your watch wondering if they are ever going to shut up.

ford family

 

[JoyG]

I've come across people like that as well, really boring. You find yourself stealing glances at your watch wondering if they are ever going to shut up.

ford family

You got me. I should have said 1000 years is like a day with God not the other way around.

 

[jenfur]

The scripture you used does make it clear it's a parable - but it's the writers that make it clear, not Jesus. Jesus almost never felt the need to say, "I'm about to tell you a parable". He just told a story and figured people could figure out that it was a parable. For most of Jesus' parables, we don't have either Jesus or the writer telling us it's a parable. We are able to tell from the context. Every story in the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally.

The creator stories in Genesis are told as stories, not as history. That's how I believe we should take them.

If you would read further, you would see that Jesus made it clear he was teaching in parables, he would always explain the meaning of the parable after he taught it. He also made it very clear why he taught in parables.

 

[jenfur]

Pretty hard to discount evolution since it continues to happen to this day.

I guess if somebody was to deny evolution ever happens, but I would like to see that argument if that's what they believe.

There is no evidence that evolution is happening today, if you mean adaptation then yes, we all accept that.

 

[jenfur]

Honestly, science shows us that the universe developed in a way that isn't described in Genesis; it certainly didn't take 7 days after the Big Bang (if that's how the universe was created) until humans walked the earth. Also, the idea that the writer(s) of Genesis couldn't have comprehended something like the Big Bang with the knowledge at the time makes sense. I was never taught that the Genesis creation and fall of man stories had to be factual, but that the important messages are that God created everything and it's best to obey him. It's hard for me to comprehend the thinking of people who take the Bible literally, especially in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

In addition to science disproving the creation story in Genesis, there's symbolism in it that could be linked to other religions/beliefs of the time. For example, a serpent being a symbol for enlightenment/awakening isn't something that originated with that piece of literature. ETA: In addition to the story of Creation, Genesis talks of the flood and Noah. There are similar tales from that part of the world: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#NearEast To me, this suggests borrowing from other texts, not being divinely inspired with the infallible word of God.

Is it possible that the similarities of these stories is not a matter of borrowing from different cultures, but all cultures having some knowledge and remembrence of their beginning? It would be like hundreds of eyewitnesses all giving their account of the actual event. Some details may be different, but the event still took place.

 

[jenfur]

I've often wondered why dinosaurs were not mentioned in Genesis. Is it due to the fact that the people who "wrote" the bible did not know such being existed? Because I mean, if this was really the true story as to how earth came about, one would think that dinosaurs (who dominated the earth for 150 million years) would be included.

I don't have a Bible and my fingernails are wet so I am not looking, But I do believe if you check, it mentions the creation of cattle, birds..ect. and then clearly mentions beasts which do not fit into other catagories.

 

[jenfur]

It did however go into how big the ark was, and as much as it's already impossible, dinos would only makes it more so.

Thats assuming they took adult dinosaurs on board right? You will also notice it does not say two of each animal, but two of each kind which is much more limited, for example they took two dogs, not two dobermans, two pugs, two yorkies. (Yes, I know they would have been wolves back in the day.)

 

[jenfur]

Same thing, longer time span.

No, not same thing at all.

 

[BuckyFan04]

Right, macroevolution is the type of evolution that creationists would typically reject. This is evolution from species to species, like saying that birds evolved from dinosaurs, or **** erectus to **** sapiens.

Microevolution is changes within a species, for example typically domesticated dogs coming from wolves. These changes could be due to natural selection, where favorable traits are passed down to successive generations, while unfavorable traits are not. This helps to promote survival of the species. They could be due to mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, etc.

 

[dannyh23]

Thats assuming they took adult dinosaurs on board right? You will also notice it does not say two of each animal, but two of each kind which is much more limited, for example they took two dogs, not two dobermans, two pugs, two yorkies. (Yes, I know they would have been wolves back in the day.)

Not to debate, but are you saying that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man, despite a fossil record that shows otherwise? I don't want to put words in your mouth...

Are you also suggesting that the wide variety of dogs that exist now all evolved from two dogs on an ark a few thousand years ago?

 

[Laura]

Is it possible that the similarities of these stories is not a matter of borrowing from different cultures, but all cultures having some knowledge and remembrence of their beginning? It would be like hundreds of eyewitnesses all giving their account of the actual event. Some details may be different, but the event still took place.

Sure, but how does this make the flood story in Genesis correct over all the others? It's still borrowing from others' ideas, and these religions with similar flood stories in Mesopotamia don't have the same creation stories. It proves to me that the Bible is not the infallible word of God.

There is no evidence that evolution is happening today, if you mean adaptation then yes, we all accept that.

Wrong. Evolution is an observable phenomenon. It is a fact. It happens. There is evidence. The theory of evolution merely attempts to explain how. Now, I'd love to know how "adaptation" isn't evolution.

Thats assuming they took adult dinosaurs on board right? You will also notice it does not say two of each animal, but two of each kind which is much more limited, for example they took two dogs, not two dobermans, two pugs, two yorkies. (Yes, I know they would have been wolves back in the day.)

Not to debate, but are you saying that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man, despite a fossil record that shows otherwise? I don't want to put words in your mouth...

Are you also suggesting that the wide variety of dogs that exist now all evolved from two dogs on an ark a few thousand years ago?

Apparently.

 

[Laura]

If you would read further, you would see that Jesus made it clear he was teaching in parables, he would always explain the meaning of the parable after he taught it. He also made it very clear why he taught in parables.

Genesis wasn't written by Jesus, and it's an allegory, not a parable. Still means you don't have to take it literally.

 

[dannyh23]

Is it possible that the similarities of these stories is not a matter of borrowing from different cultures, but all cultures having some knowledge and remembrence of their beginning? It would be like hundreds of eyewitnesses all giving their account of the actual event. Some details may be different, but the event still took place.

Jenfur, are you saying that all of the stories on that page are just stories? Since all of the stories differ, they all can't be the literal truth.

Do you accept the Jicarilla Apache worldwide flood story as literal truth?
Do you accept the Smith River flood story as literal truth?
How about the Ipurina flood story?
What about the Hebrew Noah story? Is that the real true one?
Personally, I like the Cameroon story. It makes as much sense as "Noah's Ark"...

 

[wvrevy]

Is it possible that the similarities of these stories is not a matter of borrowing from different cultures, but all cultures having some knowledge and remembrence of their beginning? It would be like hundreds of eyewitnesses all giving their account of the actual event. Some details may be different, but the event still took place.

No, it isn't. There is ample evidence that early christianity borrowed heavily from religious myths of the time in order to help draw in more of the largely pagan population. Everything from origin myths to traditions like Christmas (the midwinter festival), Easter (the fertility rights practiced at the time), and the Christ myth (which borrows Zeus' birthday, the resurrection from another tradition, and several other things).

So no...that isn't a possibility.