The Creation Museum [Archive]

Joel Merrill

19th June 2007, 03:38 PM (15:38)

Another thing they believe is that the earth is only 6000 years old, not billions. This is a excerpt from their web-site. www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org) Check out the "get answers" page for some other things they believe in or don't believe in.

So a simple calculation is:5 days
+ ~2000 years
+ ~4000 years
______________
~6000 years
I know they have a very literal view. There is still a LOT of scientific evidence that supports creation and a lot of lies that support Evolution. Your kids are hearing the lies about Evolution from all sides. That should concern you more that a few differences of opinion in this museum. I have been reading evidence about creation for years. A lot of this is not new to me. While I agree that the earth may be more than 6000 years old, it is definitely not millions and billions of years old. I also don't have a problem with man living with dinosaurs. But those are small issues compared to the big picture. Kids are not hearing the truth about creation. They are being told that there is no scientific evidence to support it and the is. They are being told that evolution is a proven fact and nothing could be farther from the truth. Christians need to quit nit picking over small things and work together on this. It is Satan who wants to divide us over little things.

Joel

Joel Merrill

19th June 2007, 03:41 PM (15:41)

All I've heard about the museum is how they are passing it off as science when it is really nothing of the sort.

It's probably not a discussion I care to be involved in, but I doubt there's anything in that museum I would agree with short of "God created the heavens and the earth."
You are hearing that from people who have never been there. You need to go see for yourself.

Joel

Ryan Scott

19th June 2007, 03:44 PM (15:44)

I'm perfectly ok with people believing whatever they want to believe, but my issue is that people try to pass off their faith statements as science.

There is no way science can prove God or that God created anything. They're totally different realms. If someone could show me scientific proof that God created the universe, I'd probably stop believing in God.

By faith I know that God is the creator of everything. It is by science that I learn and understand more about that creation.

I will never understand people's need to prove everything they believe. It leaves no room for the mystery and wonder of God that comes with faith.

Ryan Scott

19th June 2007, 03:44 PM (15:44)

You are hearing that from people who have never been there. You need to go see for yourself.

I'm certainly not paying $19.95 to go see it. Wow. That's expensive.

Sara Sheppard

19th June 2007, 03:54 PM (15:54)

I know they have a very literal view. There is still a LOT of scientific evidence that supports creation and a lot of lies that support Evolution. Your kids are hearing the lies about Evolution from all sides. That should concern you more that a few differences of opinion in this museum.
Joel

Joel,

I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't go or take their kids. I just want adults to be well-informed on WHAT they are going to see. They need to be prepared to answer questions about the issues which they still may not agree with. I said in my original post that I have mixed feelings. I'm glad to see something that does educate children that God created the world...I just think adults need to be ready for the possible questions or explanations they are going to face from kids who catch on that dinosaurs and humans are in the same exhibit. That's all I'm really suggesting.

The museum, as a whole, is very well done. Its not "cheesey" like some Christian oriented things are.

Sara

Kevin Rector

19th June 2007, 04:03 PM (16:03)

My issue with things like this is that they have spent considerable money and resources to create this museum and the only people that are going to go there are people who are already convinced that God created the world. Seems a huge waste to me.

Furthermore I wonder why you think the world can't be millions or billions of years old. I just don't get that.

Finally I have to agree with Ryan that any faith that can be proved is not faith. I want no religion that can be proved I want no religion that has no mystery to it.

Marsha Lynn

19th June 2007, 04:22 PM (16:22)

If someone could show me scientific proof that God created the universe, I'd probably stop believing in God.

By faith I know that God is the creator of everything. It is by science that I learn and understand more about that creation.

I will never understand people's need to prove everything they believe. It leaves no room for the mystery and wonder of God that comes with faith.

Faith absolutely depends on incomplete knowledge because by definition it means believing what we cannot see. If I know something for sure, there's no need (or room) for faith.

I'll cast another vote for making "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" the totality of our creation faith statement. It doesn't matter to me how much, if any, of evolution is true because it has no impact on my faith. Even if every bit of it is true (other than the 'all by chance' part, which is another kind of faith statement), I can still say, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Marsha

Ryan Scott

19th June 2007, 04:30 PM (16:30)

We've been given a wonderful gift of complex, analytical minds. We explore our world, that's what science is all about. I'd love to learn as much as I can about my world. Obviously we'll never learn it all, but shouldn't we do the best we can?

Cindi Hammons

19th June 2007, 04:36 PM (16:36)

I live two hours from the "museum" and I will not be visiting it. I have never been impressed with Ken Hamm or his group.

God created the Heavens and the earth. I don't really care how. I don't even care if he used evolution. All I need to know is that "God created," and this I believe wholeheartely. I do not believe that Genesis was ever meant to be a science book explaining creation.

It would cost my family $80 to visit this exhibit.

Joel, I'm glad you and your family enjoyed the exhibit...I don't want it to seem that you are being ganged up on. People are just expressing their opinions regarding creation and certainly not intending to slam you personally. At least I am not!

Glenda Harvey

19th June 2007, 05:04 PM (17:04)

I don't think it is as much a matter of us proving creation as it is whether or not science has proven evolution. There hasn't been definate proof of species to species evolution or that all life evolved from a single cell. It isn't really possible to prove through accepted scientific methods (observation) even the skeletons that have been found have not proved ape to man evolution. While there is a Natural Selection process of evolution within the species it does not prove complete evolution as it has been presented by evolutionists.

Joel Merrill

20th June 2007, 01:31 AM (01:31)

Joel, I'm glad you and your family enjoyed the exhibit...I don't want it to seem that you are being ganged up on. People are just expressing their opinions regarding creation and certainly not intending to slam you personally. At least I am not!
Thanks for saying that. I am really surprised at these replies. I think it is very sad, but I am finding that I have less and less in common with Nazarenes.

Joel

Hans Deventer

20th June 2007, 02:04 AM (02:04)

Thanks for saying that. I am really surprised at these replies. I think it is very sad, but I am finding that I have less and less in common with Nazarenes.

Joel, the Manual says:

903.8. Creation
The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind. However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator. (Articles I. 1., V. 5.1, VII.) (2005)

I don't know if that would be contrary to your beliefs, but it seems to me all views expressed here fit that paragraph.

Sara Sheppard

20th June 2007, 04:17 AM (04:17)

Thanks for saying that. I am really surprised at these replies. I think it is very sad, but I am finding that I have less and less in common with Nazarenes.

Joel

Joel,

I think you'll find many Nazarenes who DO believe a more literal interpretation of the Bible and you'll find some who don't affirm to believe more than God created. That camp chooses to say "how do we know what a day is to determine what the 7 days was?" They also tend to believe that God might have had an evolutionary path with HIS creation.

I don't think either of those thought lines are UN-Nazarene. Let's face it, the Bible wasn't all that clear and didnt' lay out the details. Which tells me a few things - 1) its not important for me to know this in order to have salvation 2) I probably wouldn't have understood it anyway. LOL

It doesn't surprise me that many Naznetters would have the 2nd train of thoughts I mentioned above. I think many many wonderful Nazarenes, however, would have the more literal view point.

When I responded to you, I just wanted to throw out there the "whole picture" so adults would be prepared BEFORE they arrived at the museum IN CASe they do not follow the more literal view point.

I still contend the museum is well done and it certainly focuses on God as creator.

Sara

Garth Lahana

20th June 2007, 04:50 AM (04:50)

I also think it's sad that more and more people are believing that God isn't as powerful at the Bible says He is. To me by saying that God needed millions of years essencially degradess God and His word. A very sad state of affairs in my book. The problem in my opinion is that by saying that God created all things through time, essencially says that God is bound by time, and I don't believe that at all. He created time. In my Bible, the word day is used to as the last word in Genesis 1:5 The last sentence of this verse reads as follows:And the evening and the morning were the first day <03117>(KJV). When I look up Strong's No 03177, the origonal meaning of the word is a single day, not a period of time, like some would suggest. The same word is used for example in Genesis 7, when God tells Noah that in 7 days He would send the rain to start the great flood. These were also 7 literal days, not any period of time.

What I have against using the idea that God used a period of time, is that for someone just coming to faith, these sort of questions can be used to sow seeds of doubt into this person's mind. They might think, if this God we worship is so great, why did He need time to do His work? Also if we say this part of God's word is in error, what is going to stop us from saying that other parts of the Bible are wrong, and where would we stop? I realize that I'm going on a bit here, but am trying to convey, what I think, is a very important issue.

Garth

Hans Deventer

20th June 2007, 05:11 AM (05:11)

I also think it's sad that more and more people are believing that God isn't as powerful at the Bible says He is.

Garth, I believe God is as powerful as the Bible says He is. I believe He could have created the whole universe in a split second. He can do that. He will create a new heaven and a new earth too! I also believe He very often restricts His powers, especially in dealing with us humans, but that in no way degrades who He is and what He can do.

I have always been surprised by the argument you are presenting here. The issue is creation of heaven and earth. Why would whatever developed in heaven and on earth after creation limit God's power?
In fact, reading Genesis, it seems God wants mankind to continue to create order out of chaos, so in some respects, creation goes on. Man is a creative being.

What I have against using the idea that God used a period of time, is that for someone just coming to faith, these sort of questions can be used to sow seeds of doubt into this person's mind. They might think, if this God we worship is so great, why did He need time to do His work? Also if we say this part of God's word is in error, what is going to stop us from saying that other parts of the Bible are wrong, and where would we stop? I realize that I'm going on a bit here, but am trying to convey, what I think, is a very important issue.

It IS an important issue. It comes down to what the source of truth is and how reliable that source is.

Now Jesus says that HE in fact is the truth, and that the Scriptures testify about Him. I've often wondered if we as a church did not overlook this statement too much, especially when we try to defend each word in the Bible. For heaven forbid a mistake would be found, for then the entire system collapses. That is, if we believe that the BIBLE is the truth. Which I don't, I believe Jesus is.

Of course a serious answer would become very long indeed. But the essential thing is that the object of our faith is Jesus, not a book. The book is useful as it testifies to Jesus and God's revelations in general. And indeed that is what it does.

I really and totally love the Article of Faith we have on the Scriptures. In my view, it is brilliant, saying exactly what needs to be said and putting the accent on where it ought to be:

IV. The Holy Scriptures
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith. (italics mine)

The Scriptures have a purpose. It is not to teach us geology, physics, history or whatever realm of science there may be. It is "to reveal the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation"

And that is what it does. Inerrantly.

So when people come to faith, it is crucial to teach them that their faith does not rest on literal interpretations of the creation story nor a 6 x 24 hours creation of a 6000 year old world. It is in God who revealed Himself, most prominently in the Lord Jesus Christ. And no scientific discovery can shake that faith.

Cindi Hammons

20th June 2007, 08:45 AM (08:45)

Joel,

If you had access to people from the Evangelical church in the same way as you do here on NazNet, you might be surprised at the responses you got from them as well. Just a thought.

Ryan Scott

20th June 2007, 09:53 AM (09:53)

To me by saying that God needed millions of years essencially degradess God and His word.

See, even as I was raised with picture books depicting dinosaurs and humans living together, this one never made sense to me. It has always seemed a whole lot easier to just speak and make something than to create a process of evolution that is so open ended. It seems like there are a lot more "details" inherent in an ever developing system than just putting things together. I equate it to trimming a hedge, verses engineering seeds in such a way as to grow the hedge in your desired shape.

Our lives are a process, our minds develop, our bodies develop, our relationships develop. Everything around us is in process. To me it makes more sense that its always been that way.

To me the limiting of God comes when we decides that some realm of human learning alters or damages the "correct" understanding of God. God is so much larger than anything we can come up with. Another million years of scientific advances and development will not relegate God to the sidelines. We might have to change our understanding of how God works; our angle of vision might be different at different times, but God is still the same and every new piece of learning I've encountered whether in physics or biology or psychology or history just leaves me more in awe of how mighty God truly is.

Michael B. Ross

20th June 2007, 10:06 AM (10:06)

You came to central Indiana and didn't suggest having coffee! :basic04 Next time?

Regarding the museum, it looks interesting. My initial reaction to your post was wondering why we make creationism and evolution exclusive of each other. An extreme view of one might exclude the other, but couldn't a belief in the evolution of life also include a faith that God is the source and sustainer of all life?

While I was visiting my daughter in Indiana, she took us over to Kentucky to the new Creation Museum. All I can say about it is WOW! It is very well done, very scientific and very evangelical. There is so much bad science and out right lies in Evolution. There are so many facts about creation and the flood that are just ignored by the folks who do not want to believe in God. Go here, take you children and youth groups here, you will believe! They will believe. Many of you are within driving distance of it. I might write more later. I'm out of time now.

www.creationmuseum.org (http://www.creationmuseum.org)

www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org)

Joel

Marsha Lynn

20th June 2007, 10:31 AM (10:31)

Thanks for saying that. I am really surprised at these replies. I think it is very sad, but I am finding that I have less and less in common with Nazarenes.

Joel

Actually, Joel, I think you probably have a lot in common with most Nazarenes. What you are observing is the culture of NazNet that brings together those who "think outside the box". Much of what has been said in this thread would be seen by typical Nazarenes as reminding us that the internet is a dangerous place, particularly as a source for theology. You're OK. We're the ones who are not. That's why NazNet is so important to me. It's the best place I've found to hang out with other people from the "not OK" crowd. :basic03

The problem in my opinion is that by saying that God created all things through time, essencially says that God is bound by time, and I don't believe that at all. He created time. In my Bible, the word day is used to as the last word in Genesis 1:5 The last sentence of this verse reads as follows:And the evening and the morning were the first day <03117>(KJV). When I look up Strong's No 03177, the origonal meaning of the word is a single day, not a period of time, like some would suggest. The same word is used for example in Genesis 7, when God tells Noah that in 7 days He would send the rain to start the great flood. These were also 7 literal days, not any period of time.

I don't get it. How does drawing the definition of the word "day" down to a 24-hour period free God from the constraints of time? It seems to me that doing so constrains God to our timetable rather than freeing Him. I see the eons as more typical of how God works. I've seen how much time He invests in molding a single human character trait in a person. Why would He not work in the same leisurely fashion to create the universe? It seems that patience is a prime attribute of God. If He indeed created the heavens and the earth in six 24-hour periods and made them look old in the process that's all right with me, but I'm certainly not going to fight for an idea that, besides running up against difficulty with scientific observation, seems so out of character for the God we find in the Bible.

What I have against using the idea that God used a period of time, is that for someone just coming to faith, these sort of questions can be used to sow seeds of doubt into this person's mind. They might think, if this God we worship is so great, why did He need time to do His work?

But if they're going to fall from faith asking these questions about creation, wouldn't they also fall from asking the same questions about the "works in progress" around them? If this God is so great, why is He taking so long to fix up all the broken things in the world, including you and me?

Marsha

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

20th June 2007, 11:06 AM (11:06)

I think the key issue is not whether Creation science is right or wrong but that we affirm God is indeed the Creator. The "Who" is much more important than the "How."

I think a visit to the museum would be an interesting experience. I don't have to buy into it all to appreciate the effort that has been made to put it together. As part of their education children are exposed to the most radical views of Darwinism, maybe the Creation museum would at least remind them that there is more than one point of view on the topic -- with the truth probably somewhere in between.

Ryan Scott

20th June 2007, 11:26 AM (11:26)

I guess my issue is more a reaction about the way science is treated in many Christian families. Kids hear that evolution is evil and that scientists are just out to eliminate God. It's a rough way to be brought up. Science is just a discovery of God's creation. It is an exploration of the world God has given to us. Science makes no claims about God at all. The people behind this museum do not present science in this way.

When a scientist presents evolution and says "this is why I don't believe in God." That's their judgment based on evidence. I see the same science and say, "wow, God is even larger and greater and more powerful than I thought before."

I think this book (http://www.amazon.com/Oracles-Science-Celebrity-Scientists-Religion/dp/0195310721/ref=sr_1_1/105-7740055-5769213?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182353068&sr=8-1) is probably a good one to look at. It examines how atheist scientists and philosophers jump from the scientific evidence to faith claims and in the process leaves the scientific realm.

Joel Merrill

20th June 2007, 08:11 PM (20:11)

Marsha Lynn

20th June 2007, 10:18 PM (22:18)

I'm out of here. Joel

How do you mean, "out of here"? Do you mean, like, done with this discussion or done with NazNet? Do you mean, like, for the rest of the day or forever? I hope you just mean out of this thread for today. We would miss you much if you took Pella off the NazNet map, Joel.

I apologize for my part in the "discouraging words". Even as I posted it, I wasn't comfortable with the way my first post followed a pattern of dismissing your enthusiasm for this museum.

As to believing the evolutionists, the truth is, I don't listen enough to either believe or disbelieve them. I don't know the hows of creation and don't worry about it. However it happened, I believe that God oversaw the entire thing.

On the other hand, I have listened to Ken Hamm enough that my hand goes immediately to the dial whenever his radio spots come on. Obviously, many people appreciate his "proofs" from Genesis. I just don't happen to be one of them. He is my current least favorite Christian radio personality. If I can't tolerate a 60-second radio spot, I doubt that I would find much to like about his museum.

On the other hand (lots of hands), I much appreciate your contribution to NazNet and wish this thread had not turned so sour for you.

Marsha

Cindi Hammons

20th June 2007, 10:20 PM (22:20)

Joel,

I did not have to visit the exhibit to know what they were saying. I am quite familiar with the materials from Ken Hamm and Answers In Genesis, who have produced the exhibit. I am quite aware of many of his thesis in response to science. So, my response was not a knee-jerk homage to the demonized "Evolutionists." I have been thinking about this issue since my husband went to a Ken Hamm service over 10 years ago. I have been thinking...hard...and have made my decision. It may not be your decision, but it is mine.

I respect your decision and I would ask that you not dismiss me because my decision is different than yours.

Marsha Lynn

20th June 2007, 10:45 PM (22:45)

I think a visit to the museum would be an interesting experience. I don't have to buy into it all to appreciate the effort that has been made to put it together. As part of their education children are exposed to the most radical views of Darwinism, maybe the Creation museum would at least remind them that there is more than one point of view on the topic -- with the truth probably somewhere in between.

May I respectfully disagree?

1. I tried hard to avoid exposing my children to the view of the Bible that says that if it is not scientifically true then we can't trust it for spiritual truth. If someone buys into that view, it only takes one proven error to discredit the entire Bible for them. What if they see both sides and evolution makes more sense to them? Will they give up their faith because they've been taught that they cannot believe in both the Bible and evolution?

2. I often recall a story (from The Body by Chuck Colson, I think) about a girl from the U.S.S.R. who came to believe in God simply because her teachers spent so much energy denying His existence. We don't beat into our children that the Easter Bunny isn't real or Santa Claus or Mickey Mouse or that they have no fairy godmother. I fear that those who rail the loudest against the "myths" of Darwinism actually end up helping the evolutionists more than hurting them.

My husband and I were discussing the upcoming 7th Harry Potter book today and he mentioned that J. K. Rowling is the richest woman in England. I expressed the opinion that the contribution of the Christian community to her success has been tremendous. Without the outcry of Christians, children would have still read her books because they are good children's literature. A few parents (and librarians) would have read her books to see what it was that was attracting their children to them. But not nearly so many adults would have been aware of their existence if not for the negative publicity about them. As in many other cases, here too, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I see a parallel between these cases where something is given validity by the hysteria of those fighting against it, whether that thing is God, Harry Potter, or evolution.

Marsha

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

20th June 2007, 10:51 PM (22:51)

May I respectfully disagree?

Marsha

I don't mind at all. I thought folks were being pretty hard on Joel and wanted to show a bit of support for his interest in the museum.

Sara Sheppard

20th June 2007, 11:05 PM (23:05)

My biggest beef is how many of you automatically were against this when you have never been there or heard what they have to say. Yet you believe everything the Evolutionests tell you.

I'm out of here. Joel

Hi Joel,

I'm sorry you've felt beat up on. Its probably my fault as I introduced some potential "red flags" to the museum. However, I HAVE BEEN too the museum and met many of the staff, so I felt it was okay to speak up since I had the first hand experience. I think the museum has a lot of value, as I've pointed out and I'm glad you went and enjoyed it. There were many things about the museum I did enjoy. ;)

Sara

Bob Evans

20th June 2007, 11:34 PM (23:34)

Joel

Thanks for reporting on your vacation. I have yet to figure out how it became a debate. I am also unclear where I stand on some of these things as well but that was not the theme of the post.

What town is the Museum in?

Christine Josephson

21st June 2007, 09:02 AM (09:02)

Joel,
If I ever get to Kentucky, I would be very interested in visiting the Creation Museum. I will tell my brother and family about it they live a little closer in Arkansas.
Thanks for the report.

Ryan Scott

21st June 2007, 10:45 AM (10:45)

Joel, I am sorry if you feel attacked. I did not intend to convey that. As I said, I am more than happy for anyone to believe whatever they want to believe. I do have more of an issue with the museum itself. I've stated before that the view of scripture and science presented there troubles me a great deal. Marsha said it best:

1. I tried hard to avoid exposing my children to the view of the Bible that says that if it is not scientifically true then we can't trust it for spiritual truth. If someone buys into that view, it only takes one proven error to discredit the entire Bible for them. What if they see both sides and evolution makes more sense to them? Will they give up their faith because they've been taught that they cannot believe in both the Bible and evolution?

This is scary to me. I know so many people who have no faith in God anymore because of being taught this or similar ideas as children. The fact that someone would go to the tremendous expense to create a museum in the hopes of teaching others this view of the Bible is extremely troubling.

No, I haven't been to the museum and ideally I think it would be important for me to go to fully give a better perspective. I have refrained from referencing specifics I have been told second hand for the very purpose of not wanting to misrepresent the museum. I have a friend who went and took pictures of the exhibits and the display information etc, but I do not even want to trust those completely.

However, I have had experience with the answers in Genesis program and it's very public knowledge that the museum's purpose is to raise awareness of their explanation for a literal 6-day creation and a 6,000 year old Earth, both views that are really only held by people who hold the above view of scripture that is so troubling to me.

Again, I don't begrudge anyone believing whatever they feel most comfortable with. That is how we all have to operate, but I'm pretty convinced this museum is doing more harm than good.

By the way, I'm not exactly sure what an "evolutionist" is persay, but I don't make it a habit of just listening to people and changing my mind. I spent a good deal of time examining the evidence and science, as well as the theology using the Wesleyan tradition, reason, experience and scripture model that I believe in and have come to these conclusions.

I assume you have done the same and made a difference conclusion. I apologize if I made it seem like I was insulting you.

Billy Cox

21st June 2007, 01:48 PM (13:48)

The problem in my opinion is that by saying that God created all things through time, essencially says that God is bound by time, and I don't believe that at all.

If an all-powerful God is not bound by time (which I agree with), does it really matter how long it took him to create everything?

I don't see any meaningful difference between the power required in order to create over millions of years versus the power required to create in seven calendar days...or seven seconds...or instantly.

Billy Cox

21st June 2007, 01:50 PM (13:50)

I wouldn't take my daughter to the creation museum until she is old enough to appreciate the value of farce. (which is what the creation museum is)

Hans Deventer

21st June 2007, 01:55 PM (13:55)

I wouldn't take my daughter to the creation museum until she is old enough to appreciate the value of farce. (which is what the creation museum is)

Considering how this thread went, I think this remark is hardly helpful, Billy.

Billy Cox

21st June 2007, 01:57 PM (13:57)

Considering how this thread went, I think this remark is hardly helpful, Billy.

I guess I missed that part of the thread.

Ryan Scott

22nd June 2007, 05:58 PM (17:58)

Here is a flickr tour (http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1c0star/sets/72157600335006271/show/)of the Creation Museum. They've done a good job of capturing some of the exhibits. I'm making no claims to the context in which these were taken, but it's better than not knowing anything at all.

Lindsey Grant

24th June 2007, 03:41 PM (15:41)

Cindi Hammons

25th June 2007, 08:52 AM (08:52)

This thread only proves that not all Christians agree with that assessment.

Bob Evans

25th June 2007, 10:21 AM (10:21)

Has anyone heard from Joel?

Sara Sheppard

25th June 2007, 11:05 AM (11:05)

No, I do not think he has posted anywhere since he said he was leaving.
:(

Sara

Gina Stevenson

31st July 2007, 10:17 AM (10:17)

My biggest beef is how many of you automatically were against this when you have never been there or heard what they have to say. Yet you believe everything the Evolutionests tell you.

I'm out of here. Joel

Joel, in case you don't see on another thread where I "splained," I certainly didn't bypass this thread before because of disinterest. As I can't read every thread anymore, either, I skipped by it, already "assuming," I guess, some of the things it might say. Before there was a Creation museum in the midwest here, you see, there was a famous one out in southern California. 'Loved it! [down by SanDiego].

Can't comment on the thread yet, as I'm only answering your comment here to which Hans referred me when I wondered what I'd missed from some other comments. Later I'll read the rest of the thread to see what it's all about, OK?

{{{ hugs }}} & blessings on your family at this hard time, Joel, Pat, Leanne & Donny, Lavonne & [I'm sorry; I forgot],

gina

Anne and Dwayne Hood

31st July 2007, 10:25 PM (22:25)

It does not hurt for us to know about things and places in our world. If we did not see some places that we might disagree with, we may, at times, miss some wonderful places, and miss out on something wonderful and possibly outstanding in many ways.
That is the way I feel about learning about different religious beliefs, in order for us to be more able to understand where a person is coming from--even though, we may not agree with them--we can still be kind and exhibit a Christ ke spirit, that they may begin thinking about how we believe.

Daniel Hamlin

1st August 2007, 08:58 AM (08:58)

I don't quite understand what the big deal is. God created the earth. He didn't create "goop" to become mankind. Evolution has no scientific basis. It never has, and it never will. I think a museum depicting what really happened is great.

I also believe that man and dinosaurs co-existed. In Job it mentions a creature called the Behemoth (Job 40 & 41), which is believed to be a type of Sauropod, which were "large herbivorous animals characterized by long necks and tails and columnlike legs." (Biology: God's Living Creation. A Beka Book, 1997)

I strongly recommend reading "Why I accept the Genesis Record" by Dr. John Raymond Hand. He originally set out to disprove creation, and in his research discovered that creation was, indeed, the only way the earth was possible.

Lindsey,

I used to be a 7 day literal creationist until I examined the evidence for myself. In fact, this journey started when I was gathering evidence during an online debate against evolutionists. While I was preparing for this debate, I found that many creationist "proofs" are either:

1) based on bad or disproven science.
2) misquoting evolutionists and taking them out of context.
3) outright deceptions.

To make a very long story short, it caused a crisis of faith for me. I recommend "Random Designer" by Dr. Richard Colling (an ONU biology professor). I also recommend listening to Dr. Bowling's podcast "God's Divine Design" available at http://rss.olivet.edu/media/chapel/011106.mp3

Dan

Mike Wooldridge

1st August 2007, 09:14 AM (09:14)

How long did it take God to create the universe? I have no idea, only estimates.
What processes did God use? They're still being discovered.
How did God make plants and animals? We're still learning.
Is God limited by ANY "timetable?" No
What DO I know? God loves me!

Jeff Scott

1st August 2007, 01:13 PM (13:13)

I teach the adult sunday school class at my church. This is the topic we are discussing right now. I believe we have "evolutionists" (whatever that means- usually they are unfairly lumped into one group of people that don't take the creation story literally), we also have fundamental creationists (whatever that means- usually they are unfairly lumped into one group of people that have any amount of disbelief in evolution), and we have whoever is left out of those two groups. It's a mixed bunch.

But we have love. A deep love for one another. And a deep love for God. After two weeks we decided that the "how?" is nowhere near as important as the "Who?" (nice point Scott C.) and this quickly leads us to "why?" which is the point of the Genesis account of the beginning of the earth.

At one point, when we were discussing evolution one of the 20-40 members of the class pointed out emphatically that "they have never found the missing link for humans and apes. It's a good point. BUT, what happens if and when they do? A discovery like that may devestate a faith that states otherwise. The "how" simply is not the point. I wonder what it was like for the church during the days of Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus when they proved that the universe did not revolve around the earth. Heresy!!! The reason I am teaching Sunday School is not to prove or disprove anything, it is so that we can learn to grasp the most important part of the scriptures

I don't come to NN often anymore, probably about once a month. I really don't deal well when the opinions of others are devalued. It happens a lot here and it makes me sad. So I don't come around very often.

I was reminded of Peter's words this morning...

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect[empasis added], keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of the people in this thread have spoken with great respect, but I'd like to point out two different instances I found troubling.

Person "A" at one end or side of the discussion referred to anything evolution related as "lies". Which infers, to me, that anybody who has offered any sort of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is a liar. There are a lot of people out there, smarter than you and me, that really believe this stuff. They may or may not be wrong, but they're not liars. They have a passion for studying God's creation. We can't blame them for that can we? Raise your hand if you feel like being called a liar shows respect and dignity. FURTHER, our Nazarene Education system is full of liars, by this standard, and we should think about dissolving the science departments at all Nazarene institutions.

Person "B" on the other end of the discussion referred to the museum as a "farce". I struggle with this statement as much as the "lies" statement. For starters the museum, as I understand it is based upon a fundamental interpretation the Bible. I haven't been there, but that is how I have understood the descriptions in this thread. Various interpretations aside, to call the musuem a "farce" (which is dangerously close to a museum of "lies") is a strong condemnation of the belief system of people who have a more fundamental appreciation of the scriptures. It certainly isn't helpful for the discussion. Joel stated that he has a strong appreciation for this museum. Raise your hand if you think calling it a farce shows respect and dignity to his faith in God.

The following quote from 1st Corinthians 8 [The Message paraphrase] is taken out of context, but I think the point Paul is trying to make fits the context of this discussion:

[...]knowing isn't everything. If it becomes everything, some people end up as know-it-alls who treat others as know-nothings. Real knowledge isn't that insensitive.

I offer that an over-emphasis on certain topics such as this one (how the earth was created) get in the way of the real issue- Who created and why. Fact is, we're here. Now what? Let's ask Jesus.

Hans Deventer

1st August 2007, 01:18 PM (13:18)

Jeff,

You wrote a great post and your point is well taken. Although not in this thread, I plead guilty for doing the same elsewhere. Thank you for your words, you are right.

Jeff Scott

1st August 2007, 01:26 PM (13:26)

I'm sure you did. I knew I was late to the discussion. But I just wanted to say what was on my heart. Your validation made it worth the two hours I put into my post. Thanks Hans. I do miss reading what you write when I'm not on NN. I can't wait to have that coffee...or tea...or whatever someday.

Bob Evans

1st August 2007, 01:26 PM (13:26)

Jeff

You did a good job saying what I was thinking as well.

Thanks for your post

Ryan Scott

1st August 2007, 01:30 PM (13:30)

Yeah, I think there were a lot of underlying issues that this thread served to bring out. Honestly, I don't begrudge anyone believing the Earth was created in six days (even if I don't really understand it and can't imagine why someone would spend millions of dollars on a museum about it). People are entitled to their interpretation and to believe whatever they need to to make sens of the world.

I did see a lengthy photo tour of the museum, which showed many of the explanations for each exhibit. I think they are more than free to tell people that the Earth was created in six days, but to claim that there is valid scientific evidence for such claims is, in fact, a lie. It's irresponsible.

To espouse the beliefs espoused by this museum is the right of the owners. I don't contend with that, but to pass those views of as scientifically based is deceitful and wrong. "Farce" is the wrong word, because no one takes a farce seriously. This is a very serious issue for many. You're right, we can't call it lies, because people are rigidly devoted to both sides of the issue, but I think there is a distinct lack of integrity here.

You're right that we should focus on the why and the so what; I think perhaps that is the most apt criticism for the museum.

Billy Cox

1st August 2007, 01:59 PM (13:59)

Person "B" on the other end of the discussion referred to the museum as a "farce". I struggle with this statement as much as the "lies" statement. For starters the museum, as I understand it is based upon a fundamental interpretation the Bible. I haven't been there, but that is how I have understood the descriptions in this thread. Various interpretations aside, to call the musuem a "farce" (which is dangerously close to a museum of "lies") is a strong condemnation of the belief system of people who have a more fundamental appreciation of the scriptures. It certainly isn't helpful for the discussion. Joel stated that he has a strong appreciation for this museum. Raise your hand if you think calling it a farce shows respect and dignity to his faith in God.

The nature of this forum software allows a topic to sit dormant for an extended period of time (as this one has until the last day or so). A cursory analysis of the post dates will confirm this fact.

I referred to the Creation Museum as a farce and I stand by the description. 'Farce' does not mean 'lie'.

Had I read the entire thread, I would have seen that Joel was disappointed that the thread didn't erupt into a creationist pep rally...and I would not have posted.

Gentleness does not have to silence dialogue, but it does at times when a person is to closely identified with ideas that are arguably 'nonessential.'

Gina Stevenson

1st August 2007, 02:13 PM (14:13)

Finally I have to agree with Ryan that any faith that can be proved is not faith. I want no religion that can be proved I want no religion that has no mystery to it.

Isn't there plenty of "mystery" left to it all, even if God were kind enough to let people have a peek at a few things that help "figure out" just a wee bit of His creation? After all, tho' we know He created us, there's plenty of mystery as to how on earth the body He created could be so intricately made ... how everything works together ... etc, etc, etc ............

How long did it take God to create the universe? I have no idea, only estimates.
What processes did God use? They're still being discovered.
How did God make plants and animals? We're still learning.
Is God limited by ANY "timetable?" No
What DO I know? God loves me!

The "Thanks" was for the last line, Mike. What I wonder about is why, if the Hebrew words do mean a certain thing and haven't been just guessed at in the translation, would the Hebrew "evening and morning were the first day" be a part of the narrative? Yes, there are analogies used in writing sometimes ... but would think that possibly something other than "evening & morning" ... "it was dark, then it was light again" ... would be used, and it might have just stated that "all this occurred within the first day" (i.e., "so we can keep track of periods, we're calling them 'days'.").

But, perhaps more has been found re the original Hebrew since the 7-day theory was decided upon? Or ................ ??? Again, not that it matters if it was 7 actual days, or 7 short/long periods ... but curious as to why definite one-actual-day details used if an allegory only. Nothing here said to begin any argument ... be disagreeable ... just wondering once again out loud, I guess, since we don't know 100% for sure. But, I did immensely enjoy the geological/archaeological discoveries that seem to support certain things, including the various strata that would support a flood, etc .......

Jeff Scott

1st August 2007, 02:23 PM (14:23)

I referred to the Creation Museum as a farce and I stand by the description. 'Farce' does not mean 'lie'.

Had I read the entire thread, I would have seen that Joel was disappointed that the thread didn't erupt into a creationist pep rally...and I would not have posted.

Gentleness does not have to silence dialogue, but it does at times when a person is to closely identified with ideas that are arguably 'nonessential.'

You are right. You have a better understanding of the word 'farce' than I do. I looked it up. However, did you also know it means Mixture of ground raw chicken and mushrooms with pistachios and truffles and onions and parsley and lots of butter and bound with eggs? If that's the case, I'm visiting that museum!

Thanks for your reply, I agree wit your assessment of gentleness. It's an art form!

Gina Stevenson

1st August 2007, 02:30 PM (14:30)

You are right. You have a better understanding of the word 'farce' than I do. I looked it up. However, did you also know it means Mixture of ground raw chicken and mushrooms with pistachios and truffles and onions and parsley and lots of butter and bound with eggs? If that's the case, I'm visiting that museum!

For sure ... if you'll promise to cook the mixture a bit ... raw chicken & eggs are a bit too much "raw." ;)

Mike Wooldridge

1st August 2007, 02:43 PM (14:43)

Isn't there plenty of "mystery" left to it all, even if God were kind enough to let people have a peek at a few things that help "figure out" just a wee bit of His creation? After all, tho' we know He created us, there's plenty of mystery as to how on earth the body He created could be so intricately made ... how everything works together ... etc, etc, etc ............

The "Thanks" was for the last line, Mike. What I wonder about is why, if the Hebrew words do mean a certain thing and haven't been just guessed at in the translation, would the Hebrew "evening and morning were the first day" be a part of the narrative? Yes, there are analogies used in writing sometimes ... but would think that possibly something other than "evening & morning" ... "it was dark, then it was light again" ... would be used, and it might have just stated that "all this occurred within the first day" (i.e., "so we can keep track of periods, we're calling them 'days'.").

But, perhaps more has been found re the original Hebrew since the 7-day theory was decided upon? Or ................ ??? Again, not that it matters if it was 7 actual days, or 7 short/long periods ... but curious as to why definite one-actual-day details used if an allegory only. Nothing here said to begin any argument ... be disagreeable ... just wondering once again out loud, I guess, since we don't know 100% for sure. But, I did immensely enjoy the geological/archaeological discoveries that seem to support certain things, including the various strata that would support a flood, etc .......

FYI, my "Thanks" means good points, I'm thinking about them. I don't know about the writing styles and devices used. I'm still thinking...Thanks :)