Comments on: Creation Museum Part 5

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:42:32 +0000

No. I am not using the “same argument as the creationists” and my “so called science” is not just belief. If no scientists has ever been able to explain to you why parts (?) of the Earth are more than 6,000 years old, then you really haven’t talked to any scientists… or read anything relevant.

Rather than taking the time, effort, and space to reiterate the evidence here in a comment thread, I’ll simply direct you to any public library for plenty of books explaining the relevant evidence.

You have said multiple times that your mind is open to evidence and reason, but have shown just the opposite in your statements.

By: john

john — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:14:23 +0000

Dan, whilst I am not saying I agree with the 6000 year old earth, I do find you guilty of using the same argument as the creationists for your so called science, which are really only beliefs. No scientist has ever been able to explain to me why they think parts of the earth are more than 6000 years old. Simply we think it is 150 million years old because we think so!!!!!!! Duuuurgh! What kind of logic and science is that.
Is carbon dating reliable, and how far back is it accurate and it’s only a theory, right or wrong. Just trying to find the truth here. So easy to ridicule but where is your evidence or is it another case of. “Evolution must be true because so many people believe in it.” ?!!

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:34:39 +0000

First, they say that there’s not enough time for nature to evolve all the myriad species we have.

Then they say that Adam only had to name 200 or so “kinds” of animals, roughly cooresponding to our modern day taxonomic families. So I guess he named horses, but not zebras.

Then they continue in that vein, with Noah only having to find room for those 200 or so named “kinds”.

And then, after the flood, all those “kinds” spread out across the world and develop into the millions of species we see today.

…in a few thousand years, without constant miraculous intervention.

…when it’s impossible for it to occur naturally over a timespan a million times as long.

*ping*

Damn, broke ANOTHER irony meter!

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:50:23 +0000

I agree. There was a plaque that said that when God created everything, he knew it would get borked up and already had a plan in place to send his Son to save us all. Seems silly to send a flood in the meantime to wipe everyone out.

I guess that was part of his plan.

“Let’s see. I’ll create this flawed creation but plan to fix it later. I the meantime, I’m gonna screw with these people and slaughter them.”

Brilliant.

By: Mike Haubrich, FCD

Mike Haubrich, FCD — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:25:55 +0000

I have a quick question regarding the Flood. Why? If the Jesus plan was in place way back in 4004 BC, it seems odd that God grew impatient waiting for the Romans to come along and crucify Christ, so he decided to wipe the slate clean for some reason.

I really don’t understand why Creationists cling so solidly to the Ark story since it really is a contradiction of the overall message of the totality of the Bible as read through fundamentalist eyes.

By: MutantJedi

MutantJedi — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:55:40 +0000

“What part of “every living substance was destroyed” does Ken Ham have trouble understanding?”

Every part that doesn’t fit into his interpretation.

By: Cubist

Cubist — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:09:14 +0000

Ah, yes… “rafting”. A perfectly sensible way to account for how some creatures might survive Ye Olde Floode without being on Noah’s Big Boat. Alas, the notion of Things Surviving Outside Ye Olde Arke is flatly contradicted by the Bible — you know, that document which is the One True Word of God, and literally true in every word? I quote, with emphasis on appropriate bits:

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both ***man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air***; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Gen6:7)

And God said unto Noah, The end of ***all flesh*** is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (Gen6:13)

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy ***all flesh***, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and ***every thing that is in the earth*** shall die. (Gen6:17)

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and ***every living substance that I have made*** will I destroy from off the face of the earth. (Gen7:4)

And ***all flesh*** died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of ***every creeping thing*** that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: ***All*** in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of ***all that was in the dry land***, died. And ***every living substance*** was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and ***they that were with him in the ark***. (Gen7:21-23)

What part of “every living substance was destroyed” does Ken Ham have trouble understanding?

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:57:30 +0000

On the other hand, I am much cheered up by the rafting Rhinocerotidae

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:50:43 +0000

I’m glad all the sinner babies were all drowned before the last, desperate, scrabbling up the rock scene. That wouldn’t have been nice to look at, even though they were, after all, sinners, and so deserved it.

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:55:27 +0000

Good thing you were tired by the time you reached the Babel room. That’s where they try to scientifically justify their racist attitides, particularity their vile Hammite Theory of Origins, in which Africans are the cursed descendants of Ham.