The recently opened Creation Museum is yet another example of Biblical spoon-feeding...
Ya gotta love the Creation Museum that recently opened in one of America’s true cultural and intellectual hotspots, Petersburg, Kentucky. As far as dumbing down religion, the beliefs espoused at this “museum” rank up there with the Catholic Church’s long-held assertion that the sun revolves around the Earth.…
Article comments
176 - SteveS
Evolutionist have to believe the following:
Actually, only Creationists HAVE to believe something. Evolutionists can change what they believe when God reveals more to us through science. It is Creationists who have to believe one unchanging thing.
And evolution doesn't teach that anything 'gets tired', but most like adapts to new environments and explores for new food/resources.
Creationists can teach what Creationists believe, but this thread alone is ample evidence that Creationists cannot speak on behalf of science/knowledge or Evolution.
177 - SteveS
Christopher the only reason you would ban RayJ is because he is a Christian
Was it God who gave you the ability to read another man's mind/motive?
178 - bliffle
Every civilization records floods. Because so many have occured. Even with people to record them we can find (by scientific method) floods NOT mentioned in bibles. For example, the megaflood that swept across Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, etc., when the ice dam retaining Lake Wyoming burst 10,000 years ago. Oh , wait a minute, that was before your 6000 year limit! And that lake was left over from the Ice Age that occured 18,000 years ago.
Chinese teachers use all kinds of mnemonic devices to remember characters. I stil remember, from 50 years ago when I studied Chinese, that the characer for WAR is 2 women under a roof, etc.
179 - Elroy Balgaard
I believe that it was "The Flood" that created the badlands and canyons out west, have you ever seen the Grand Canyon that must have been some flood. Scientist are now beginning to think that it was a flood that drained quickly that created these formations and not a river flowing over millions of years. And that this happened within the last 10,000 years. Close enough for me.
As far as the ice age, a Creationist theory is that what caused the flood in the first place was a meteor that hit our planet 4,400 years ago. This meteor like a lot of meteors was in the form of ice.
When it struck it did a lot of things, released the ground water, brought down the protective ice shield in the outer atmosphere, tilted us on our axis and created the poles. This explains how Woolly Mammoths were frozen instantly in there tracks with tropical vegetation still in their mouths. They've been found in Antarctica as well.
And we have been thawing out ever since. That is why glaciers are now disappearing. Most glaciers have been shrinking ever since we've been studying them. The ancient polar ice that is breaking up is a blue color, this is most likely from the Meteor or outer ice layer.
There was a calendar found at Lake Titikaka which has 290 days in a year. Either they were very poor with math or the earth sped up in its roation or moved out further in its orbit as aresult of the meteor strike. Plus, Lake Titikaka is an ancient city that is at 13,000 feet, it was probably at sea level before the flood and was pushed up when the Andes were formed after the flood. And as Lake the lake continues to drain more and more buildings are being revealed.
The theory continues that after the flood the earth was covered in water, then there was a violent shifting of tectonic plates which instantly caused deep canyons in the oceans and created large mountain ranges above the water, this caused a violent runoff of water, hence the Grand Canyon.
A mile high mountain range instantly appeared at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean in 2004 which caused the Tsunami. A submarine ran into it because it was not charted.
So more and more we are seeing that geological characteristics are more a result of cataclysmic events in a short amount of time rather than say a trickle of water over billions of years.
180 - sr
Elroy. I have been to the grand canyon several times. When we were told the Colorado River carved the canyon and Im looking out over this vastness I thought to myself this is not logical. I was 10 yrs old at the time. I told my father it looked like a flood went through it. For the first time I think your on to something. Never been to Lake Titikaka however Ive seen my share of tit's. I dont worry about a meteor strike's. Will leave that up to the scare tactics of the media. The rest of your comment has got my attention and worth looking into. Very interesting sir.
181 - sr
Elroy. Do you believe in creation or evolution?
182 - Elroy Balgaard
I believe in Creation. I used to be way into Evolution, but than I started doing my own research and foudn a lot of holes.
183 - sr
Thanks Elroy. Would like to hear more. Im always searching for answers on each side of the pancake. One thing I do know is Im a conservative and detest liberals. Just like Michael Savage says, liberalism is a mental disorder.
184 - Elroy Balgaard
For instance the top of the Grand canyon is 1,000 feet higher elevation then the Colorado River. The river would have had to flow uphill to start carving it out.
When Mount St. Helens blew it created a huge temporary lake that was dammed with dead trees, When the dam gave way a very large canyon was carved out in a matter of minutes, complete with strata.
185 - Elroy Balgaard
You should checkout my website.
Minnesotans For Global Warming
186 - sr
No wonder Ruvy stays out of this. For most of you all I can come up with is Holy Fuck Batman. I do not exempt myself. At least we have a lot of interest with this Blog. Will minds change. No chance but it's fun to comment.
187 - Elroy Balgaard
I agree this probably won't change anybody's belief system, but at least its a place for an actual debate. And I bet some people have heard things they've never heard before.
188 - sr
Elroy. Your correct however people only hear what they want to hear including me. It's late and I need my beauty rest. Take care. Later.
189 - SonnyD
Elroy: Re #179 Is this some wild daydream of yours or are you smoking some really good stuff? I wish someone with a background in Geology would answer you with some references that would clear up all the nonsense you wrote.
I've only had one college level Geology class and I can see dozens of things that would be impossible in what you say. Start with the Grand Canyon. First the Colorado River is not a trickle of water. Before it was tamed by the dams that are now controlling it, it was an extremely violent river, especially when it was at flood stage in the spring. It did not need to flow uphill to erode the land. It was flowing across the land before the land went through a stage of uplifting. As the land gradually lifted, the river ate through it. Much of the vertical erosion that you see is caused by windblown sand and also by freezing and thawing each year that causes rock to crumble away.
Now, look at the walls of the canyon. Many, many layers of various types of rock that were laid down over millions of years are exposed.
The sudden ice age that you dreamed up would not, in any way, resemble glacier ice. Glaciers result from many years of snow that does not melt year round. The weight of many years snowfall compresses the lower levels into solid ice. Each year's accumulation contains various elements according to what was in the air at the time it was deposited. e.g. dust, volcanic ash, pollution from DDT, etc.
In addition, glaciers move. Their weight causes them to creep downhill and in the process they grind away soil and rock that becomes embedded in the ice and is carried away. When glaciers start to retreat, they melt away at the forward edge leaving behind a deposit of the stuff they have been carrying. Ridges of this debris are called eskers. There are other names for other types of junk left behind by glaciers that I can't seem to pull out of the old memory vault at the moment.
190 - SonnyD
Elroy: As for the rest of the stuff you came up with, it wouldn't even be acceptable in a poorly written sci-fi or fantasy novel. It sounds like you have put together snippets of things you have heard and not remembered accurately. First, the earth has always had poles. They were not caused by a meteor. The poles have always moved around some and that has been recorded in historic times. At some time in the far distant past - more than a few thousand years - the poles must have been located quite differently.
As I read recently, oil deposits are formed by centuries of tropical growth and shallow water marine life. It takes a very long time for enough growth and decay to take place to form pockets of oil large enough to be worth drilling. Then thousands or millions of years of the deposits being buried under layers of earth and rock so that the pressure and heat from being buried creates oil. Now, we drill for oil in the Arctic, so at some time that part of the earth must have been in the tropics. There is your connection between tropical growth and the Arctic. Whether the shift in the poles was gradual or sudden is still not known; but it was much longer ago than you are talking about.
Now, about the woolly mammoths. Think about it. Woolly mammoths were woolly because they lived in very cold climates. One was never found with tropical growth in its mouth. I think I've read that one was found with plant material in its digestive tract. Someone may have written that a frozen mammoth was found with plant material in its mouth, it makes a better story that way, I suppose. But the thing is, it didn't have to be flash frozen at that instant in order to be preserved.
Mt. St Helen's is a good example. When it blew, it took out one side near the top and a wall of gasses, ash, rocks and anything that was in its path blasted down the mountain side at extremely high speed. The gas would force the air out of its path and kill any animal instantly from lack of oxygen. The animal would be buried in ash that would tend to preserve it as winter came on and it would be frozen solid. If it were in a valley between two ridges, it would be under many feet of ash and could remain frozen even if the surface thawed in the summer. Now, if an ice age were coming on and temperatures stayed below freezing year round and a glacier started working its way down that valley it could scrape away most of the ash in its path and form itself over the animal and even carry it right on down the hillside with it.
Okay, that's about enough from the master of the run-on sentence, eh?
191 - Elroy Balgaard
This is way too complex of an issue that I can explain on this blog.
For more info here is a good article on the subject.
Young-Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon
192 - SteveS
Elroy, do you even read what you link to? It's interesting to note that Evolutionists on this thread use their own words, but you repeatedly resort to just linking to someone else's words.
At the link you provide, in comment 191, it offers two explainations for the Grand Canyon. Evolution and Creationism. At the bottom of the page, there is a link that says "What can we conclude from all this?"
If you click on that link, you will see that it concludes that Creationism is false. You didn't finish reading it, apparently.
193 - bliffle
Creationism is a deadend: it goes nowhere. Creationism is totally consumed in justifying it's own preconceived notions. You will never find a cure for cancer by studying creationism and/or the bible. You will never invent the automobile by studying creationism.
It is science that has made our lives longer, easier and more rewarding, not bible study.
Science triumphs because it can do one thing that creationism cannot do: discard old faulty theories when they are proven wrong. Creationism cannot do that: it is devoted to defending old faulty theories.
194 - SteveS
At the link provided in 191, it gives the young Earth theory, and then concludes on the following page with this:
I don't think there can be any doubt that the young-Earth, catastrophic model for the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon fails in a great many ways. It does not explain the known facts, despite calling on a number of unjustifiable ad hoc hypotheses. It is internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the known evidence. Quite simply, it doesn't work, and there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage it so that it does work. Rationally, the only conclusion is that the young Earth model fails, and it must be discarded.
195 - Elroy Balgaard
#192 Yes, but at least I think it does a pretty good job laying out the arguments. I of course come to a different conclusion.
196 - SteveS
Clearly you do, Elroy, clearly you do. One that fits in with your agenda.
197 - Elroy Balgaard
One that fits in with your agenda.
Yes, but don't we all do that?
The Grand Canyon doesn't come with an owner's manual. All we can do is study it and come up with "theories". The theory we come up with depends a lot on how we view the world or our "worldview".
All I'm saying is that there is actual scientific data behind our theories.
198 - Elroy Balgaard
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean its not true.
199 - SteveS
Yes, but don't we all do that?
No, we don't all disregard facts just so we can cling to a disproven theory.
All I'm saying is that there is actual scientific data behind our theories.
And the article you linked to, dispels that scientific data as flawed.
Just because you believe in somethig doesn't make it true.
Words to live by, Elroy.
When this site gets up to a certain number of comments, the page no longer loads for me, in Firefox or IE. I had to load an old operating system and go all the way back to netscape navigator to load this page. I'm done here.
200 - Elroy Balgaard
Boy, people are so touchy on this subject.
201 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Elroy,
You're wasting your brain-cells on this young earth garbage. Invest some money and some time and buy the works of Dr. Gerald Schroeder, and see how a physicist makes Genesis and quantum physics mesh nicely. You won't find Jesus lurking around in his books, Schroeder is Jewish, like me, but you will see what a man who believes in G-d, and who is a scientist does to derive understanding...
Genesis and the Big Bang
The Science of G-d
and other works at Dr.Schroeder's website.
202 - Elroy Balgaard
Who's G-d?
203 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"Who's G-d?"
The Divine Entity Whose Holy Name I do not write in it's entirety - the Creator of the universe.
204 - Dr Dreadful
Elroy, as you probably know full well, Ruvy is merely following the Jewish practice of not writing the full name of God.
Or are you really that dense?
205 - sr
Im out of here. This reminds of the movie with Lee Marvin, Ship of Fools.
206 - STM
I suppose if you lived in Minnesota, you'd be praying for global warming.
207 - Mark
"With these constraints removed, reconciliation of science and the Bible is possible if one considers that evolution is an ongoing process used to implement Creation."
Actually, this is not true at all. If you had actually visited the museum or the answersingenesis website, you would know that the Bible holds there was no death before sin. How can there be 100 million year old fossils of dinosaurs if humans weren't around until 60 million years later? The Flood provides the solution to fossils.
Carbon dating has proved inaccurate.
It's so easy for you to name-call when your own beliefs in atheism and evolution are challenged. Perhaps you should interview one of the "backwoods" PHD's from the Creation Museum instead.
208 - Mark
"If someone like Jerry Falwell tells you that based on his interpretation of the Holy Scripture that he quotes and interprets for you, and his conversations with God via prayer, the sun does revolve around the earth, and that all opposing scientific and visual evidence is just an illusion created by Satan in order to tempt us away from seeing the truth, would you believe him?"
Interestingly enough, evolution doesn't have the science or observations to provide any real support. Darwin came up with a solution to the problem "how do we account for our existence without involving religion" first, and his followers have been unsuccessfully trying to prove him right ever since. His theory didn't come up with all the facts and then discover what happened. Evolutionists and atheists have already decided on the conclusion, but ignore any science that doesn't match that conclusion. Creationists have a different conclusion given to them from the most reliable source there is, and guess what! All the science supports it!
209 - Dr Dreadful
Mark's First Law:
If the vast preponderance of scientific evidence does not support your beliefs, ignore it.
Mark's Second Law:
If ignoring it doesn't work, deny that it is science.
Mark's Third Law:
Maintain peace of mind by being completely oblivious to how foolish you look.
210 - Elroy Balgaard
Darwin was just floating a theory, and it came with 2 conditions. That there would be a huge amount of transitional fossils and that cells, which science was just discovering were simple. He said if these things proved otherwise he theory would be bogis.
Well I hate to tell you, both of those ships have sailed.
211 - Elroy Balgaard
I know you guys hate it when I link to things because that's cheating. Well I'm no PHD, but I have couple in my barn (post hole diggers that is) but here is a really good movie complete with PHD's.
Actually, it won't let me link to it cause it's banned.
Sot Google Video "Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life"
212 - sr
My friend Doc the funney guy says please dont confuse me with facts. I have a life to live and I will live it my way. Doc old man please sing that great song by Frank Sinatra, I Did It My Way. louder, I cant hear you. In the morning, in the eveing ain't we got fun. Doc lets drink some rum and have some fun. Do da do da all day long.
213 - sr
Hey Doc, heard you singing. Your no Lady of Song nor will you ever have the class she does fool.
214 - Dr Dreadful
sr, I resent that. I'll have you know that, just like dear old Jerry Falwell, I possess a PhD in Music from the Online University of That Rest Stop On I-80 Somewhere In Rural Nevada. I paid $80 for it and it was money well spent, I can tell you.
Now where's that rum, matey? Arrrrr!!!
215 - MadSat
Well, if the creationists didn't constantly show they do not read or understand ANYTHING about evolution, then I might respect their views.
Example : Evolution of new species has been observed and reported numerous times, Faroe Island mouse for an animal example, the doubling of the genes in goat weed for another. The new goat weed seems to be pushing out the old species, and is apparently more successful.
Noah's ark - OH COME ON! This is a known MONUMNENT built by CRUSADERS! It gets rediscovered about every ten years by the Weekly World News. There are actually at least two of them, and the two I know about have been carbon dated to the crusades and there are even supposed to be records of the construction. I am very very tired of this constant "rediscovery" of an artifact known for many years.
As for Darwin, in the first place, attacking Darwinian evolutionary theory is attacking something that died long ago, so you are simply proving again that you know nothing about the subject you are attacking. MODERN evolutionary theory is very different from Darwins "slow changes over eons" ideas, attacking Darwin does absolutely nothing but convince anyone with knowledge of the subject that you do not have a clue. Moreover, Darwin was not attempting to remove religion from anything, he was simply trying to explain his observations in the Galapagos Archipelago.
The originator of evolutionary theory in fact was not Charles Darwin, he simply modernized it and gave it a factual basis. The original evolutionary theory was the co-creator hypothesis, which stated that God created the Earth in an unfinished state, and man must work to perfect this creation in a status of co-creator with God. BTW, that theory was advanced by St Augustine, about 400 AD. So if you want to get back to early Christian thinking, maybe you should consider that you might have to believe in evolution to do it. And Augustine was really just picking up on the general beliefs of his time and codifying them.
216 - Elroy Balgaard
So you believe in creation, its just that man co-created with God?
217 - sr
Asked this question on another thread. Did Adam and Eve if you believe in creation have a belly buttom. Which came first, the spider or the web?
218 - Dr Dreadful
Elroy, you really are hopeless, aren't you? Enough already with your lame 'gotcha' questions that wouldn't faze a five-year-old.
MadSat was not expressing any personal beliefs. He was trying* to explain early Christian thinking about origins, and to illustrate how crazily off-beam ideas like yours are in relation to them.
*Quite lucidly, I thought... but not lucidly enough for some, evidently. As my Dad used to say: in one ear and out the other.
219 - Dr Dreadful
sr asks: Which came first, the spider or the web?
The spider, of course. The web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1993 or thereabouts. Enjoy it while you can.
220 - sr
Hey Doc, did the first spider have a belly button?
221 - Dr Dreadful
No, it didn't need one. It lived in Adam's belly button. It was able to survive there because Adam, being naked, didn't collect any belly button lint, so never needed to rummage around in there.
The spider then made the mistake of moving to Cain's belly button, which was roomier but had one major disadvantage. Cain, you see, did wear lint-producing garments and enjoyed shoving a finger or two in the old navel for a good cleanout. He would roll up any fluff he found there into a ball and flick it across the room at Abel while he wasn't looking.
The spider soon got fed up with this and abandoned Cain, hoping to find another navel to live in. Unfortunately for the spider, this was just around the time when "outie" belly buttons became fashionable. Disgruntled and disillusioned, the itsy bitsy spider realized that it had lost its footing on the property ladder and looked around for something else to climb up. And thus was created the first water spout.
222 - sr
Doc#221. You are the best. Im glad I was not drinking Capt Morgan, eating fresh oysters and popcorn reading that comment. My nose would have blown it all over my PC screen. Doc, your a funny man and keep up the good work.
223 - Dr Dreadful
Now that would make a neat creation myth, sr: a universe snorted out of the nose of a drunken superbeing laughing at a joke.
"in the beginning was the Word; and the word was 'belly-button'."
224 - Nick O'Connor
Let me see, there are now some 300 million of you morons in the great US of A, the land of freedom blah blah (unless you are black and don't want to be towed behind a pick up)or maybe homosexual (but then aren't all these preacher types constantly being caught trousers down with drugs and perverts?). Anyway, enough bashing easy targets... look, your invisible friend is er, an invisible friend...no heaven, hell, angels, guy with beard on cloud etc... the lizards were actually a little ahead of us which means they probably weren't invited along to parties in 1580 or whatever... you are a young nation, prone to exageration every now and then and we all know you have lots of military toys with which to keep your young men masterbating over and rag heads the world over dying from - gosh, how brave, purple hearts for everyone. Your preoccupation with god mumbo jumbo aside (mind you I say that a bit to glibbly - you do love this "I was anally probed in area 69" or something) have to say I have a weakness for your Leatherman (calm down boys....) multi purpose tools - great gear so probably made by a german like your rockets ya? Listen, it's good to type, wind up some yanks every now and again and