Ken Ham's Creation Museum

Due to open in only one month's time, the Creation Museum is a structure of controversy. I'm interested in knowing whether most Americans believe Ken Ham's statement that dinosaurs lived among men and that the Earth is indeed only 6,000 years old.Especially when there are other Creationist groups who argue that neither of these statements are true and the "museum" is really only one man's interpretation.I found this article and thought it was very interesting to discuss:Creation Museum Madness… | Parallel Divergence

quote:

---

I applaud Ham for this work. He will be challenged by visitors who see problems with some viewpoints, no doubt. In the end, everyone will benefit to have what he's propagating either substantiated or refuted by the evidence he displays. If it's false, it will come to naught. If it's true, hopefully he will be able to display the evidence to be observed by the visitors representative of all ideologies.

---

"If it's false, it will come to naught."Except for all those children who came to the MUSEUM and believed what they were authoritatively shown.Why is there no Santa Claus Museum that details as historical fact that a bearded fat man visits every house in the world in one night delivering presents with his flying reindeer?

Thanks for the survey stats Coragyps and for the kind welcome. 29% is a massive number to still believe we are the centre of the universe. Is it poor science teaching or conflicting education at home that's causing it.Can't be the pro-wrestling. Even I enjoy that from time to time...

quote:

---

If this is supposed to be an educational institution and not a religious institution, does that mean that it leaves Ken open to lawsuits because of selling false information

---

That's a good point RAZD. I certainly would like to see someone test his "museum". But I believe you're right, he will always have a fallback position - the protected comfort zone of organized religion.

Hi Brad,I read through your tome of a post twice and I am struggling to work out what it is you are trying to say. Is it just me? I can't work out what your stance on this subject is and I'm not sure what you have added to the discussion. I think you are defending the "Museum", but I simply can;t be sure from anything you have said.

quote:

---

What might it
Creation, Science, Bible History, & Dinosaurs | Creation Museum
be a museum of? Regardless---what might one learn??

---

According to that site, this is a:

quote:

---

“walk through history” museum

---

The vast majority of people replying to this discussion believe it is certainly NOT a "walk through history", unless it is possible to have more than one history. There is NO evidence that dinosaurs ever lived at the same time as humans. Even "Answers in Creation" have stated that: http://www.answersincreation.org/...20050509_takingdinos.htmIf the stock answer (defense) by AiG is: "We weren't there to 'see it' for ourselves, so anything could be true", then that's no justification for a museum that spreads what is otherwise false information. It certainly could not be classified as "educational" on that basis.If you're suggesting that this "museum" is a place to assist young people to "imagine" then you're saying it's more an art gallery than a history museum - but still, it bills itself as the latter. Which is it to be? I believe that Ken Ham firmly believes it is the latter and nothing to do with art and imagination.The reality is that EVERY child is born an Atheist. Without parental and outside interference (including people shoving a Bible under his/her nose), there is ZERO chance that this child could come to find, know and love Jesus. If that child was reared on the Star Wars movies, he/she would believe in The Force and avoid the Dark Side.If God was real, HE would impart his OWN glory on his people - not talk through an often proven to be corrupt human spokesperson.

Hi Brad,You've been on EVC a lot longer than I have and also have partaken in a lot more discussions here and I fully respect that. On the subject of Ham's new Museum, could you tell me (because I couldn't work out if you'd answered it yet):1. Do you believe in Ham's concept that dinosaurs and Man lived in the same age? I mean Brontosauruses, T-Rex's etc and modern man (i.e. post-Adam and Eve)2. Is it reasonable that without any real evidence that Ham's concept should be "pushed" in the guise of an educational Museum?3. Do you believe the income generated by the "museum" for all the US$60 entry fees (for a family of two adults and two young children) should be taxed? And will it? (entry prices here: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis )Edited by spasms, : grammatical error

Sorry Brad, if you don't start talking sense I'll be bailing out of this pointless discussion. The three images you provided above and the link to a spanish site are just meant to confuse. Is that your aim?Is it just me or can other people clearly understand what Brad is trying to say in his three posts in this thread? I must be stupid.

Now I've learned something. Thank you Ned.

Thanks for getting back Brad. Thanks also to Nightrain for his clarification. I have no problem continuing the discussion, but I really needed to know if this was a string-along or as Ken Ham's Aussie's put it, "fair dinkum".I'll take a look at the new images you've posted and at your websites.Did you see the report about the 150 million year old complete dinosaur bones discovered in Argentina the other day?http://news.yahoo.com/...070504/sc_afp/argentinapaleontologyOf course the response will be that carbon dating is flawed, but 150 million down to 6,000? Why have we found no dinosaur bones that are less than 6,000 years old?

quote:

---

If they use carbon dating it WILL be flawed: that's only good to 50,000 years so the best you would get is +50,000 years

---

Correct me if my math is wrong, but isn't 50,000+ years older than Ken Ham's 6,000 year old universe?Isn't this a paradox?

Fine, carbon dating is out, that's just what I suggested, but what do I know? So do they have a defense against some form of radiometric dating in continually promoting a Young Earth?