Creation Evidence Museums...

Buz,I don't consider artifacts junk. I guess by "junk" I was commenting more on the methods and content and direction the museum takes. If you dress things up and make them look official and cloak it in religion...you trick alot of people. The from of their web sitehttp://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.htmlthere is a bit about human and dino foot prints together. Do you think this is real? Native American pottery that is supposed to have show eye witness accounts of dinos? Come on. He's so amazingly wrong its almost funny, but he's serious.ST

I haven't seen where anybody's effectively shown the coal artifacts bogus. As for the footprints, there's been erosion, which distorts some, but I consider them to be valid.

Based on your degree and training in paleontology, I presume?

When you presume you make a 'pres' out of u and me...wait that doesn't work.

There are thousands of private museums that are not funded by any government source.The existence of public funded museums has no bearing on what is included in private museums and everything to do with what is accepted as {scientific \ educational \ historical} validated material.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Here is a website that critiques the founder of the Creation Evidences Museum in Texas, one "Dr." Carl Baugh.IBSS - Other Views - Carl BaughI found all kinds of stuff debunking this guy, from theories he proposes (such as a vegetarian T-Rex) and his dubious credentials. Even with all the questions about him, he still has a TV show on some religion only network call Trinity Boadcasting. Go figure.ST

I hope your not talking about the ScopesTrial because as you know just about evey evidence shown at that trial have all but been rejected by Evolutionists themselves...(Neandethal is human,Piltdown was a ape,Horse evolution,Useless organs etc) Evolutionists no longer belive jus about everything that they said..And as for the religion thing..Evolution is a religion because all religion is is a belief system and since Evolution is still a theory and not fact,Then its a religion...

You hope correctly; I was referring to such cases as Edwards v. Aguillard, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Daniel v. Waters. In each of these cases creationism was ruled to be a religious position, and not a scientific theory on the same standing as evolution. Gravity is a theory; is gravity a religion? Germs are a theory; are germs a religion? The kinetic theory of gases is a theory; are gases a religion?If everything that is not a fact is a religion, then you've expanded the definition of "religion" so far as to be meaningless.Evolution is not a religion, just like science isn't a religion. The proof is trivial - technologies based on science work whether you believe they will or not. But Christians seem to agree that faith is required for their beliefs - God won't have anything to do with you unless you believe he will.I'll take the stuff that works without belief anyday. That's evolution, if you weren't paying attention.

Congratulations! This part of your post just made it to the common straw man fallacy thread.

---

The Laminator

​

Gravity,Germs,Kinetic theory are facts because they can be observed in the present using your 5 senses.When science call Evolution scientific they are merely redefining science.Not to get off topic here or anything but science began to flourish in God believing nations.God taught man that the earth is real,consistant & possible to investigate.Every branch of science has either been founded,co-founded, or dramatically advanced by men who belived in Creation & the flood...Back to topic at hand..Practical science gives so much to life..computers,man on moon,modern medicince etc etc,It goes on forever..However all these are based on doing tests in the present.There conclusions are based on experiments therefore there is little room for speculation.This everyday science is called operational or practical science.However there is another type of science which is called historical or origins science.When it comes to working out the past science is extremely limitid because it only has the present and history cannot be repeated.This is the only conflict with Evolution & Creation..Unfortunately the respect earned by the success of practical science has led many into beliving that the claims of the past carry the same proof and authority..It all matters on what the scientist belives in..There is no dating method that can prove the age of the earth thats why the age constantly changes..Evolutionary view constantly changes because it is built upon assumptions and frameworks...Evolutionists claim life evolved billions of yrs ago but they cannot prove this because they werent there..Evolutionists insist that if they could create life from non life/chemicals then this would prove evolution.In fact all this would prove is that intelligence is needed to make life,not chance..I dont want to get into a whole Refuting Evolution thread here but i might do that one day because alot of ppl here arent open to such evidence since most of the world now is very much evolutionized.My conclusion is that Evolution is religion because it cannot be tested and because its built upon assumptions..Since its such a theory it is a religion..Evolution is the science of Humanist and Creation is the science of the Bible..It is science vs science not science vs religion!...This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-05-2004 03:56 AM

You've observed the kinetic theory of gases? You've seen atoms in motion exerting pressure on the walls of their containers? You must have some exceptional eyesight.Those things are theories, just like evolution. They don't stop being theories just on your say-so. Oh? Did it? Maybe you can tell me what culture it was that invented gunpowder, the printing press, paper money, and noodles.Maybe you can tell me what culture it was that developed medicine light-years ahead of it's peers and basically invented astronomy.On the other hand, maybe you could tell me what culture it was that floundered under a millenium we now refer to as "The Dark Ages." The Flood was disproved in the 1800's - by people who were creationists. If your own founders were convinced that the flood never happened, what hope have you of convincing anybody else it did? You're quite right. Those advancements come from the basic scientific methodology: that natural events have natural causes. That assumption has been the basis of all the marvels you just described.There was, however, a time when another assumption held sway: that things are the way they are because God does it. What do we call that time? The Dark Ages. Maybe you want to look up what that was like - it's not pretty. I'm open to whatever evidence you think you have, and I'll make you a bet - I'll stake my belief of evolution on the evidence and your inability to falsify the theory. I'll even tell you what evidence you have to show to prove evolution wrong, ok?But you have to be willing to do the same. What evidence could I show you that would prove creationism wrong?Here's another question: if the book of Genesis didn't exist, would we be having this conversation?

To tell you the truth i dont know what kinetic gases is i just knew that they well at least most of them were things that are proved in the present not in the past so i jus put that in the list..You must realise the difference between practical and historical science..The law of gravity is fact because we can jump of building and test it..Its fact not theory.Are you talking about America with all those things? because if you are then i got no problem because America was also founded in Christianity.America prospered because there thinking was based upon Gods word..America & England both were aware of the consequences of rejecting Gods word..All they had to do was look at France..The violent birth of pure socialistic humanism
The dark ages was just a time where ppl werent sure about the infallibility of Gods word..Today the Bible still stands tall against Evolution..I dont really understand what i should be refuting with your dark ages claim cuz im a bit confused..But anyway thx for the challenge..The Flood has not been disproved..Yes there are some who disprove but yes there are others who dont.Im not getting into flood proof but its there.I would need to go get my books and other reasearch things but im not gona do that today...
Ok so youve challenged me to prove Evolution wrong..Im not going to write a whole essay on it even though one day i might and have in the past.But ill try write something very short & relevant...What can you do to make me refute Creation? well you just gotta attack my only foundation..The Bible..Hit me with all the errors ,contradictions,whatever you can to undermine the only thing i can base my belief on...Before i try my refute evolution thing ill answer your last last question about Genesis no i dont think we would be here but thats merely because there would be no life as i dont belive in evolution..So no genesis no life no earth in my view...Refuting Evolution:When Darwin put forward his Evolutionary theory there were 7 major scientific discplines that had not yet been established and/or invented at the time,While others had not been put on the side of world that Darwin was living..And if these principles had of been known? Evolution would not have gotten off the ground..So todays Evolutionary theory has loopholed this..And there are many Evolutionists who would have trouble refuting this argument..Think for abit and ask yourself what the mainstream world of science which is all Evolution and what they would have done to Creationists who tried to put there theory through established scientific principles?..What are those 7 facts??1.GENETICS - This had not yet been established.The laws of hereditory & genetics.Showing that the characteristics were passed on from parent to offspring through precise mathematical ratios.They do not arise from chance,random processes in what Darwin called blended inheritance.So Mr Darwin was ignorant of genetics as was most of the world so his theory was swallowed by the science community2.1st LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed this had only just been based by Lord Kelvin showing that the universe could not have created itself.3.2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Which says that the energy of the universe is running downhill.Its called the "Heatdeath" of the universe.The universe runs downhill & thats a fact it doesnt run uphill as Evolution suggests.4.NON-LIFE TO LIFE? - Louis Pasteur was just beginning to experiment that life comes from life never from non-life.They used to think that humans or anyother living thing could come out of a rubbish tip through spontaneous generation.Yes you can laugh at it now but they thought this was fact that was good science back in that time5.MATHEMATICAL LAWS OF PROBABILITY - Showing that life occuring by chance are effectively zero.About 1 to the power of 165,000 (So thats a 1,with 165,000 zeros after it).And example would be leaving your computer on with no operating system or software and giving it chance and time the computer may do the calculations you would want it to do.6.MACROBIOLOGY - Had not yet been established showing how complex the cell happens to be.1 cell is more complex than New York City.And we have around 100,000 billion of them.So evolutionists wave around a magic wond of millions of yrs to give the impression that anything can happen.7.FOSSIL RECORD - The fossil record had not yet been fully studied to show that there are no transitional fossils.Darwin being the intelligent man that he is acknowlegded the need for evidence and stated that "If my theory is right you will find intermediate fossil forms from one specie to another.And to this day the missing link is still missing and there are no links between species.Darwin stated that "My theory has got problems" But of course the athiestic world didnt want to spoil his great idea of Evolution in order to get God out of the picture so they just left it,shoved the fossil thing aside,hoped it went away and didnt talk about it as muchConclusion:
Evolution cannot withstand critical examination.Theres alot more ive studied that i could write but i guess ill see how we go from here.

Well lets take a look at your list of sciences:Genetics: Integrated into evolutionary theory - and solved a major problem. "Blending" inheritance is an obstacle for evolution.1st Law of Thermodynamics : Appeared shortly before Darwin published. Irrelevant to evolution.2nd Law of thermodynamics : Irrelevant to evolution (which says nothing about any overall trend towards order in the universe).Non-life to life : Not refuted by Pasteur who was dealing solely with specific ideas - not the general principle.Mathematical laws of probability : Do not state that you can make up a number and use it to declare something impossible. There is no valid calculation of the relevant probability so all you have is made-up numbers,Macrobiology : An argument from personal incredulity. Completely invalid.Fossil Record : Plenty of transitional forms have been found. Also misrepresents Darwin who offered an explanation of why transitional forms were rare.Looks like it is your refutations that do not stand up to critical examination.

I think we have some entries for the creationist strawman thread, ladies and gentlemen...1. Random chances are involved in genetics: you never know what traits a child inherits from his parents. But indeed Darwin was wrong about some matters on inheritance. That's why we don't teach Origin of Species but the modern synthesis, which includes genetics.2. Has nothing to do with biological evolution.3. 2LoT does not apply to open systems, which the Earth is.4. Indeed, Pasteur showed that mice did not spring from rubbish heaps and such. Fortunately, abiogenesis is not about that.5. The chance of your DNA appearing would be about 1 : 4^3000000. Do you not exist or is something from with these probability calculations?6. While there is still a lot to find out, there's no evidence now that causes any problems for evolution7. There are a lot of transitional fossils. Hers's a bunch of them.

1ST LAW OF THERMO...Yes it is relevant if energy cannot be created on its own how could the big bang occured? How could nothing turn into an explosion of life?2ND THERMO..Its relevant because evolution suggests the world his heading towards some sort of utopia.Natural selection.Suiting environments.Evolution by nature evolves into better and more capable things.Isnt that why evolutionists say humans are what we are?MATHERMATICAL LAWS OF PROBABILTY - All i hear on here is how blind faith Creation is but we have a Bible that stands tall and has plenty of proof to be Gods word (We know you have evidence against the Bible but we also have evidence for it).But Evolutionists just have chance and millions of yrs anything can happen.Like i said before they are both religion just different interpretations of the evidence.I pray for the day when evolutionists agree that yes it is the science of one vs the science of the other.FOSSIL FORMS - What specie has evolved into a another whole specie? Missing link is still missing so humans cant be proven 100% that we can from apes.Humans from amphibians? Another theory.Dinasaurs to birds? Plenty of presuppositions in those theories.Millions and billions of yrs go by and just a handful of transitions?.Disputed ones aswell appear?.There should be an overwhelming amount.Evolutionists should never have had to bring upon Puntuated equilibriam etc If evolution was fact.I read books on evolution and see different types of canine and they call it evolution? Its still a dog and will always be a dog.