Ken Ham's Creation Museum

What might it
Creation, Science, Bible History, & Dinosaurs | Creation Museum
be a museum of? Regardless---what might one learn?? Ken Ham | Answers in Genesis For me it not about whether it is a “museum” but what might the “exhibits” enable one to imagine?? This is NOT a museum of natural history for me, despite its appearance and name. It is a display of creatures from the western frontier of NY, a presentation of local biodiversity and illustration of “surface forms” as Kant wrote of it in the Critique of the Judgment. This however may not be what the child or student or even professional takes from it. After seeing the British Museum I had more respect for my Granddads labels on the specimens which often provided MORE information than any museum. For me it showed me how many different forms of creatures I had to imagine to become a biologist. It provided me with an insight on what to expect in the tropical world. The tropics did not seem to possess any but a spectral difference.If you were led to the Ontario Science Center you would see Page Not Found | Ontario Science CentreAccess deniedI was not led astray "at this museum" by the display of science books AND Dawkins Selfish gene popping out for me, there.
Access deniedThe little bit I saw of the British Museum was not in the exhibits for me but in the words attached to the exhibits to which I found not very helpful ... for my imagination about the relation of dinosaurs to reptiles ((the simple pterosaur) skeleteon at the Clemson Geolgy museum did that for me, much later).AMNH was disappointing because I brought a 4-H herpetology club there and because of the way the exhibits were postioned around the hall various things that I been able to teach were rapidly dissipated as the members SPREAD OUT both within and beyond the hall and only focued on “key” exhibits. This was not creation vs evolution information I had taught but strictly things that would have been debated among herpetologists. I found some the exhibits which focused the attention on certain species to be disabling.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
So the question of AIG’s is not about what the looks of the book store may impart to the vistor (visible in this video)or what cost buys into the change that it was true but what *image* will remain for the vistor who truly tries to “interact” or learn with the exhibits, given individual differences.Accoridng to this page Ken Ham | Answers in Genesis ImaGINE THIS:

quote:

---

Biblical Authority Room

---

That Chirstianity making one moral is all that one needs to believe provided one has Russell idea that belief in a proposition is true or false and NOT what James was suggesting at Harvard thus working out Kant’s question of if the trainbearer or torchbearer of the conflict of faculities via the university not silenced thus facilitating the modern discussion of “scopes” legally under distributive justice within a period of time LONG enough to reflect. Long enough to read my “product” WEB DU BOIS .doc at the bottom of
http://aexion.org/product.aspx

quote:

---

Starting Points

---

Starting Points

quote:

---

Same facts, but different views . Why?” Throughout the room, a variety of exhibits demonstrate that we all have the same facts”the same fossils, the same universe, the same rocks, the same plants and animals, the same apes and humans. With each of these “same facts,” however, there are two different views.
The different views are based on different starting points - Man’s Reason or God’s Word.

---

This clearly places one in Kant’s Conflict of the Faculities, perhaps the museum is nothing but what oppression Kant experienced while he wanted to discuss Vital Forces seperatly combined in THE ONE BOOK.

quote:

---

Culture in Crisis

---

“neutral science”? Russell on “truth”It is not the external vision As this would not look significantly different than secular PRI
Click for full size image
PRI
which had to sell part of it's total look to a “massage” school It is the person's horizon in crisis constructed differently by different people according to Kant’s logic as enhanced by Russell.
Between these two next rooms

quote:

---

The Wonders Room

---

quote:

---

Wonders of Creation

---

One works out whatever thoughts one began and allows the rest of the exhibits to unverslize the images as they are presented.
AT

quote:

---

Dinosaur Dig Site

---

I would find hopefully
the entire issue of dinos and birds being written in the direction perpendicular to my avatar otherwise than as it continues to land me under ground than along the dark black line and under water today.Perhaps I would think about
Dominion etc.

quote:

---

Counsel with many advisors

---

If one has questions they could now be addressedAND HERE

quote:

---

The death march of the horseshoe crab

---

I would think
How the form remained the same for so long (both literal and figurative) despite the idea that there have been so many dino type changes reflected on during the tour before me etc.

quote:

---

Exhibit Update”Tower of Babel

---

Confusion of language etc. Chimp vs Human debateOn reading Russell some more yesterday, I now understand why Chomsky had poster of the man on entrance to his space at MIT. I saw directly on the page how what Chomsky did with Brackets ““ Russell had rather in “(“ paraentheses. Perhaps I followed Derrida a bit prematurely but these two extra lettered composition means can are often not noticed. They are not noticed on the web much yet especially as we can, here on EVC, hide them in BB codes.I had called Ken before a lot of the designs for the Museum had been finished and I tried to find out if they might be interested in my own visions for what phantoms need to be ~universalized but I was not what he was looking for. He wanted someone who could produce a more large theme park feel. I guess that was correct. My focus on shapes and angles would probably tend to clutter his own vision. Ken and crew chose to work aournd the 7 Cs instead.The ICR “museum” worked for me to create this power pointhttp://aexion.org/product.aspx
business speech.pptEdited by Brad McFall, : ~

I did end up posting the outline in a hurry. Sorry for that. I was meant to be a perspective of what one might imagine as one "walks" the property. I had intended to include differences of views on "truth" from Russell's vs James' perspective (the confusion of propostional functions and propositions while deciding what can be said to be "true" or "false", when we commonly say , "I believe x,y,z). This I will do in response to Larni. That would have made the post twice as long ( I was starting to combine the pictures offline to conserve on space but in the end real time caught up with my own sense of "virtual" time).Yes I am trying to "defend" it in a way. I know this has not been the tone of this thread. I wanted to make it clear that evolution musuems themselves can also mislead the vistor. What one needs to start with is the person who still has an open mind, as if there was such a thing. If the student is smart they will never take what they hear as true based on authority ( I was surpised how Gould relates how he was feeling bad about Goldshimdt being the "whipping boy" but that he did not object. When Will Provine said things about "free will" that I disagreed with him on, I was not afraid to tell hims so. This may have cost me some place at Cornell but it was the better and probably truer thing for me to have done. When I disagreed with Simon I told them so. This is not where the problem comes in, it only comes in when one tries to substitute what one is told with something else. I am not imagining the visitor to go out and create a museum in response but simply to have the walk through cause questions to arise and imaginations to be fired up, such that some mental resolution is afforded in part due to the display itself. The universialization of the exhibits is not what I am defending I am only trying to present that an "image" may remain neither particularized nor generalized that rids the viewer of "phantoms" in the process of imagining/learning/interacting.So, the past tone in this thread is, in my own way of expression saying something like AIG is creating more phantoms than it is dissolving. To decide this one way or the other one needs to get a vision of the what the walkthrough would Gestalt or impress on the walker. This will depend on the various backgrounds of the participants obviously. For instance otherwise, I still have never developed a sense of dinosaurs as birds because my visual series of amphbians to reptiles takes up too much "" of my occipital cortex no matter whether I have a triune brain or not.

quote:

---

unless it is possible to have more than one history.

---

Well, I dont think this is quite right. I think that the notion of "contingency" is being used differently by evos than creos. It can not be that there is more than one actual history. I do think that evos are finding that there is a second wall against evolution within academia rather than admitting to a potential social utility of a double theoretical model plausibility. It has been hard enough for secular evolutionists within universities to argue for their own science correlated to events than to double the discussion with dual correlation discussion of the same materials. Both sides are to blame for this state of caused social redress. AIG's "musuem" is an institutional outlet for the claim that some good can come from the continued criticism of evolutionary thinking. I understand that many here on EVC think otherwise. From my own understanding of resistance within academia to alternative ideas I find that only an external see saw will change this state (evos will continue to be too preoccpied within their own walls to see the seal has already been made) I do not advocate politcal action however. I think education is the better way. I think this is what ICR decided long ago.There may be a point that Larni and perhaps Dawkins would like to make but seeing how he Richard responded to the likes of Kurt Wise in Adminmooseses link it is the very duplicty of thinking that bothers Richard. But I think this doubleminded thought is only a mature one. The young vistor simply has not decided about some particulars either way. This is the participant that one should imagine walking through. But my position is that we will need to see more Wise's on the creation side before the cultural phenomenon can play out its last act. Terrorism is only making this destination one of prolongation rather than simple behavioral modification.Yes, Ok, I was born an atheist"" but look, It took me only a few pages of writing at the age of about 14 to realize that it makes no sense to START that way, because IF GOD exists he could simply alter any atheist design I as a scientist could find and defend plasuibly. There is no reason to play dice except to learn about infinite induction.I have not attempting to become actually a part of ICR or AIG anymore precisely becuase of the "well it it was in the past no one can "get" it" attitude. You can know that I wrote to Henery Morris asking if he wanted to collaborate with me on "predicting" the gaps of evolution but by then Gould had already muddied the waters by taking this domain of disjuntion for his own purposes. The seperation is larger for the creationist than any evolutionist I know of but only the difference of continuity vs disjunction is what is discussed else all becomes "a digitial" thing etc.As for the direct dino and man thing again, well... I got started with herpetology because contrary to Gould who liked the giant dino fossils I could not stand the things because there was no way to try to figure them out because they were all bones. Actual reptiles and amphibians were said to be their relatives and I could walk outside and pick them up. I got three genera of salamanders (Plethodon, Eucrycea, Desmognathus) in 15 minutes yesterday for instance. So for me is birds vs herps living with dinos that is the issue no matter how many footprints are faked or on display. AMNH had a huge Komodo Dragon display which prevented students from reading the details of other displays. Size is not all that matters. Man doesnt matter either, Life does...As for "outside" interference I had my grandparents who were still atheists or agnostics or converts from Christianity and my partents who were believers or reacted to my grandparents. It can not be said that I had "interference" I had a choice and I chose the creatures that could answer for me. It was not authority of man nor the somethimes worship I do do.My youngest brother "Was" reared on "Star WARS" but 'the dark side' is simply Europe for him and video gameing and being less religious than my other brother who also is PHD physicist but was not young enough to have Star Wars around for all the times of his youth.Now it seems you have raised the issue of special vs general revelation. THe last time I tried to work on that I found that I simply had to reject Locke which I had already done on purely historical trajectories in science readings reasons.Does this help??Edited by Brad McFall, : not

As a third post in this series you deserve a better response. I am working up a more detailed answer to each of your points but it is taking some time as I relate Haeckel on Darwin's chorology, Gould on Darwin's diversity and the difference at nonessential and essential age in the creationist percept of creation with the appearence of age.
If the image retained from going through AIG's property is:

quote:

---

ig.com.br

---

then I have no problem paying the entrance fee.

Ned's only remembers that he does not remember anything. That is not a fair criticism. Nighttrain's is closer to a truth.I need time to develop the creationist concept of creation with the appearence of age WITHIN a phylogentic lineage BETWEEN the views of AIG and ICR in order to explain some of the following issues in Russell between and object and a content of a presentation or exhibit. Part of the solution is the retention IN MEMORY of AN IMAGE but not a DELUSION. Dont get stuck on the latter.You are asking me for MY BELIEF not AIGs or ICRs lets keep this distinct. Saying that no one understands me DOES NOT. You might as well not want to discuss at all.I want to be clear and go slowly. I have already outlined 5 pages of info but it would LOOK like my first post to you and you deserve better, but please cool the jets, I am not a giant nor a football player.I take it you do not appreciate that one may learn something by engaging a pedagogy, a teaching insitution, a book, a musuem, a worship hall that is not what the creators of such places intend, but all I have ever sensed has never been precisely what was being taught. This is an example of thinking subject not a solidified object. Please let not the side comments get you distracted. You have made three clear points and I will hit and answer each one DIRECTLY. To do so I am finding that I need to re-write some Darwinian history in the process. This is real stuff not the hot air of Brady in INHERIT THE WIND. It is not a simple slight of image as in the past deft use of words can propagandize. Please listen to the positive not the negative. I am not presenting creationists as "simple minded" nor unintelligable.

​

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v623/BradMcFall/wind.jpg
In the intermission you can look into the following pages of Russell. It should help you see why an image is very important here.
I work full time, have friends and go to Church as well as serve on a committe for Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation. I do not have a bizzlion free hours to dedicate to answering for any angle of the creation evolution controversy as it appears on-line but I do not get drunk and fall down on the last day of classes, I still have too much to learn to do that, that which happens at Cornell every year.

quote:

---

Logic and Knowledge by Bertrand Russell Capricorn Books 1971 pages 168-175

---

​

The only reason you recieved the link was because we need to attribute our sources & the other pictures were from AIG's website and TROPICAL FRESHWATER AQUARIA from Bantum books. The applet I created. I have some other outstanding questions here on EVC and answering you is causing me to respond in detail to them as well.

​

Perhaps you would also like to get familiar with my personal websites rather than my public image on EVC. The issue will come down to differences of opinion about the center vs the perifery, that is all one needs keep in mind. There was nothiing wrong with Nightrain's use of "a posteriori".

​

Axiomatic Panbiogeography
The Trainer

I guess I was getting into it a bit deeper than what I see you asking now. The convolution and exfoliation of thought that creationists use while addressing things such as radioactivity dating and relations to the current taught geo-column linearization of time can be "creation with the appearence of age" which in terms of specific minerals amounts to some vague notion of "homologous amounts". I was writing to you what I believed about that. I was going to post on how the difference of essential and nonessential age creation may be applied to depictions of forms changing across the scale of time used by geologists expanding the creationist percept as best I can apprehend it. This may be a bit more than you would like. If you want more of my own ideas then I will be more than happy to oblige. Now that you have the attention of other posters you may not need to get into my "brain" further than Ned.Perhaps this website
Appearance of Age - Mature Creation
&
Apparent Age & Theology - Appearance of Age in a False History?
and this below will help.

quote:

---

Miller wrote

quote:

---

The appearance of age, by their logic, must have applied to everything, including the geology of the planet and even the cosmos:
Both parent and daughter elements in each radioactive chain were created at the beginning, probably in "equilibrium" amounts. The amount of originally created radiogenic end-product in each chain is uncertain; it is likely, however, that homologous amounts were created in all such minerals so that all such elements would, when created, give an "appearance" of the same degree of maturity or of age.
The key statement in this passage is that all elements would "give an 'appearance' of the same degree of maturity or of age." In other words, if you're going to create radioisotopes and all of their potential decay products fully formed on creation morning, you have to decide what proportions of all of those decay products will be present in the minerals of your universe. And, lest you, the Creator, be thought of as confused and disorganized, all those minerals should all be set to the same radiometric clock. Whitcomb and Morris say this explicitly:
It is more satisfying teleologically, and therefore more reasonable, to infer that all these primeval clocks, since they were "wound up" at the same time, were also set to "read" the same time.

---

Account Suspended

---

60$ does seem a bit high but I have not got a completely clear vision of what that pays for yet.==================================================
Here was how I had started to answer you.
What do creationists mean when they say something is of the same “age”?John Morris wrote

quote:

---

If a scientific observer today, with no knowledge of Adam's creation, traveled back in time to Day Seven and tried to determine Adam's age (or the age of a rock, or the age of a star), how could it be done? The scientist would rely on today's human growth rates (or rates of radioactive decay, or the speed of light), and calculate how long it would take for this state of maturity to develop, and would come to a wrong conclusion.
The Institute for Creation Research

---

Since you said (“i.e. post-Adam and Eve”) then an absolute time of this age must be after that John wrote of, provided that AIG was in correspondence with ICR. A creationst might think by the way you asked the question if pre-day 7 and post day seven are “in” the same age. This is simply admittance of the New Testament even while it might be argued for from the Old. I don’t really have problem believing truly with that. It might be false for me to so believe but to think I was believing thus truly seems obvious to me. I do not think that this is what you asked me however.

Very Interesting.The video format fails achieve as wide a
"seperation" as has been achieved on EvC.The seperation was attempted by the host AFTER the term "semblence of science" was raised counter to Ham. But this host failed to recognize that the adjective was the "mystery" and thus the "fair and balanced" was supposed to be that the host also reads the Bible.Blah.Creation and Evolution was not something that could be scripted in advance.======
Also the link by Nightrrain above showing the human vs the chimp/Lucy Kind is were the disucssion needs to be targeted at. I am still not certain how I am to read that diagram of the past.