A Trip to the Creation “Science” Museum

Oh Boy. Oh Joy. I live in Cincinnati, home of the “Creation Museum”. In case you didn’t know, it is a “museum” dedicated to a literal interpretation of the bible. Earth is only a few thousand years old. God created all life on earth as we see it today. Evolution is wrong, never happened. The earth was completely flooded, and all land life would have perished, but for Noah’s Ark.

Down the highway, a few miles past the airport. Take the Petersburg exit and you’re there. It’s a Saturday afternoon and the parking lot is full. I quickly counted vans and buses from seven Baptist churches, one Methodist, the Junction City First Christian Church, and a couple of Christian schools. The kids are filing out of the cars and church vans, eager to enter, anxious to learn.

It isn’t cheap, twenty five bucks, and I hate to pay, but I’m curious. So I’ll pay, so you don’t have to. Let’s take the tour.

The place is packed and the moving slow. There is a large group of Amish. And another group of about 50 kids with tie dye T-shirts, with big blue crosses on their backs.

One of the first exhibits shows dinosaurs walking around with people. Sort of like Jurassic Park. But this is serious, not a novel. Of course the Bible tells us that all animals were vegetarians before Adam ate the apple. So why do some snakes have venom? We are told that maybe those nasty chemicals used to do something else when the snakes ate plants. And we learn that God gave the Tyrannosaurus Rex big teeth to crack nuts with. And what ended the dinosaurs? Why don’t we still see them today? Well, read on and find out.

Of interest, we see some nice fossils in the museum. But, the museum explains that the dating methods of science are flawed, and that none are really more than a few thousand years old.

Some of the exhibits were more two-sided than you would expect. For example, one shows Human Reason on the left side, starting with the Big Bang, followed by the evolution of galaxies, and solar systems, and the earth and moon, and the continents, all taking millions and billions of years. Then on the right side there is God’s Word, quoting Genesis, describing how God created earth and life in just six days, about six thousand years ago.

A thinking person walking through the museum might conclude that God’s word isn’t always very reasonable.

I was surprised, however, to see some serious concessions to science. For example there is a small exhibit showing a copy of a book by Charles Templeton, titled “Farewell to God”, and a quote saying that it is simply not possible to believe the biblical account of creation. And in a later exhibit I was shocked to see the following statements. “Natural selection is an observable process that occurs in the present.” “Natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically.” The museum actually supports the conclusion that one species can give rise to many through natural selection. But it somehow separates this from evolution by saying that there is no evidence for more dramatic events, like lizards giving rise to birds. Pretty interesting.

We also see pictures of great canyons, like the grand canyon. While science claims that it took millions of years to carve these out, the museum clarifies that these things can happen in a much shorter time through the power of floods.

And this brings us to the great flood. The museum is actually building a full size replica of Noah’s ark. You’d think it would have to be pretty big to carry all of the species we see on the planet today. It turns out there was no room for the dinosaurs. And how on earth did Noah get the kangaroos back to Australia? Maybe the ark made an extra stop not mentioned in the bible. Or, the museum suggests that before the flood there was only one continent, which then divided into several in the past few thousand years. Wow, pretty fast.

And what about those fresh water fish? If the oceans rose up to swallow the continent(s) then all of the lakes and rivers must have disappeared. And anyone with an aquarium knows that you can’t put fresh water fish in salt water. They die. So I think that maybe another lost section of the bible described how one floor of the ark was dedicated to fresh water aquaria to save the fish. I’m personally especially glad that Noah was able to save the Rocky Mountain trout.

The bible is quite a nice book. It sold a lot more copies than any of mine. There is some interesting history in there, and many fascinating stories. Maybe you like the God thing that it pushes, or maybe you don’t. But whatever your religious view, please, oh please, one thing that we can all be sure of, you should not take everything in the bible for literal truth.

About the Author: Steve Potter, PhD, is a Professor of Pediatrics, in the Division of Developmental Biology, at Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati. He has authored Designer Genes: A New Era in the Evolution of Man, published by Random House 2010 http://www.amazon.com/Designer-Genes-New-Era-Evolution/dp/140006905X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310842010&sr=1-1. In addition he has written over one hundred science papers, and co-authored the third edition of the medical school textbook, Larsen’s Human Embryology.

 

155 thoughts on “A Trip to the Creation “Science” Museum

  1. The creation museum is in greater Cincinnati, across the Ohio River, near the Cincinnati airport, in Petersburg Kentucky.

  2. Thank you for your interest in attending the Creation Science Museum. I was disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, that a man of your scientific credentials took so cavalier a look at the topics you wrote about. With all due respect, the “problems” that you posted with the creationist perspective on science, all have very scientific and accurate explanations if you take the time to actually apply scientific thinking and look at the evidence rather than just writing it off because it doesn’t line up with the flawed evolutionary model you’ve apparently been indoctrinated with. Having not actually been to the creation museum myself, I cannot not speak directly to the displays you encountered. However, I’ve studied much of the Answers in Genesis materials along with many other creation science materials that easily explain the issues you mentioned. Their explanations, when looked at objectively and in light of the actual evidence, make way more sense than the lame explanations I was taught in public schools and in college, and have studied from evolutionary scientists since. The examples you brought up could be easily explained and knocked out of the park by my 8th grade son and his homeschooling mom (me). There isn’t enough space or time to explain them all. I am sure that a man of your learning could very easily actually research these if he were actually interested in truth rather than political correctness. Yet I will acquiesce to explain the foundational flaw in “evolutionary” explanations of how life changes over time. There is NO evidence of evolution between kinds. This is a problem that evolutionists still struggle with as they continue to search for “the missing link”. A number of examples have been tried, but all have been debunked. The changes that have occurred among humans, Darwin’s finch beaks, the spotted moths we all read about in high school science, even the salt water vs. fresh water fish you mentioned has to do with vast genetic variation within a created “kind”. Thus any “kind” has a huge range of genetic options built into it and can adapt to the environment within those parameters. While finches can get larger or smaller beaks, they never change from being a finch and certainly never change from being a bird. It is the difference between macro-evolution (changing from one kind to another) which has NO scientific evidence and microevolution (variation built in to the genetic code of a given kind) which occurs regularly all around us and throughout history. The saltwater vs. fresh water fish topic is addressed specifically in the book “Answers Book 3” by Ken Ham, Chapter 20. As for the dinosaurs, the average size of a dinosaur was the size of a sheep. True, the Tyrannosaurus and Brachiosaurus, etc. grew to be very large, but of course even the largest animals started out as small babies. It is very possible that small or juvenile ones were transported on the ark. Yet as with many species, the dinosaurs did not adapt well to the post-flood environment and most died off. Also, the flood model accounts much more successfully and thoroughly for the evidence within the fossil record than the evolutionary geological explanations. I’m sure that if you had taken the time to read/listen to the explanations at the Creation Museum instead of just writing them off on the surface, you would have had most of your questions answered. But that is unfortunately the way most modern day scientists from academia deal with creation scientists. At this point in history, it is vastly the so-called “scientists” that are stuck in their evolutionary religious dogma while the Bible-believing folks have stepped back, looked at the evidence, and been able to reconcile the Biblical account with the scientific evidence we see around us, which even some honest evolutionists are beginning to admit begs for an intelligent designer. Of course this makes total sense because the God who was the intelligent designer, created the scientific laws we see around us, and he also authored the Bible. Our world and the Bible work together perfectly as they have the same creator. Where there are or have been apparent contradictions, the Biblical account has always eventually been proven true, as will be the case with any current apparent problems. With time, true scientific discovery ends up proving out the Bible. If you really want answers to the above problems you encountered, rather than just conveniently writing them off to absurdity based on your worldview, I would encourage you to actually study the issue and look to the writings of those true scientists who look to the evidence and the author of science for their theories and answers. As the Good Book says, “Seek and you will find”. PS: my 8th grade son, just came in and saw what I am doing, read your posting and my comment, and would love to type all day answering the questions and criticisms in your piece. And he could do so. I told him that my reply is sufficient for now. Yet I admire his enthusiasm and knowledge. I am encouraged that young scientists like him who have been taught to look at ALL the evidence and theories and draw their conclusions accordingly will someday prevail over the publicly schooled students that only get to look at one very flawed theory and are taught to marginalize and reject all others. Thus, contrary to popular belief, it is Christian students, mostly homeschooled, who have the freedom to study both evolutionary theory and creationist theory that are the most informed and objective. The evidence is there for all to see if they have eyes to see the truth, rather than to just defend their worldview. Perhaps you will see fit to dig deeper. A love of science deserves no less.

    • I really appreciate your enthusiasm and, as a scientist, really enjoy competing theories. I think, however, that either your religious convictions are overshadowing your understanding of “science” or your unfamiliarity with the Creating Museum is causing you some problems with your arguments.

      For example: the Creation Museum uses ‘rafting theory’ to explain the repopulation of animals all over the world (it doesn’t, as this author suggested, say that Noah did/didn’t drop off animals). Rafting was, indeed, a seriously considered possibility for plant/animal distribution across the globe. However, further evidence for this theory/model didn’t continue to support the evidence we find. To quote Mathew B (from creation.com) “The reason our theory requires a Flood is that our theory is based on revelation.” As a science teacher, I know you understand that we do our best to avoid clinging to theories that ‘require’ external, unsupported conditions.

      There is plenty to discuss when it comes to the dogma that accepted science breeds. Plenty of solid models have been dismissed by the establishment only to be adopted later. However, there is a difference between science and what the Creation Museum call “Creation Science.” Science is based on the idea that a model is created to help understand the world around us. As our evidence changes so do our models. This has lead to nifty things like cell phones and germ theory. Creation Science is, however, devoted to finding evidence to support it’s requirements – the Bible. This means it’s not science. You can’t simply redefine science to be only evidence that supports one’s own point of view. As a teacher, I hope that is part of your curriculum.

      Perhaps unlike other scientists I don’t have any problem with competing theories of creationism, intelligent design, Scientology, or any origin theory. They are simply not science. By using the flexible modeling that science adheres to we may eventually find conclusive evidence of our origins.

      • eventually find conclusive evidence of our origins. That sounds a little like 100 years faith walk with no results. You realize you are standing in creation saying it didn’t occur. As a scientist you were taught; non-life cannot produce life. Matter can’t be created or destroyed (by us). Things don’t get better with time. The only science we have for sure is operational science. Which with there is no controversy whatsoever.
        Anything before recorded history is pure speculation. Yet you talk about an old earth like you were there. God claims He created everything including time and commissioned someone to write it down. That should be easy enough to check. The only real question is does operational science back up Genesis as a history book or the science of Darwin. 1. Is everything made after its kind? Genesis 100%, Darwin 0% but we have faith, not religious faith, that in the next 100 years someone will find something. As a realistic scientist you know we would have already found thousand’s of transitional life forms. Is isn’t like there trying to hide.
        As a scientist you know we are made out of dirt, but how did the writer of Genesis know that, how many thousands of years passed before that was proven? One more thing, when we say something is good. We mean it’s OK. When God says something is good it’s perfect and I can’t think of a way to improve an Eagle. But there is a lot of things that would improve the Earth. Obviously this is not the Earth that the Creator said was good. Because we don’t know what the Earth was like per-flood, we have no idea of the level of destruction. If you were born in Alabama today, you wouldn’t know about pre-tornado Alabama.
        Lets ask better questions; what would the Earth have to be like for man to have a thousand year life span?
        Reptiles grow from the minute they are born to the minute they die. A thousand year life span would give you dinosaur’s and because of their small nostril size the oxygen level would have to have been through the roof. Genesis describes the the pre-flood Earth as a tropical forest watered from underground and no rain. If you post this I will get into why Creation is such great news, until next time.
        Practical Thinker

    • If your beliefs were true then scientists would agree. If you claim creation ‘science’ is more scientific than actual science and actual scientists disagree with you, then you are either spectacularly out of touch with reality or lying.

      Base your opinions on facts. That way you don’t need to misrepresent them. By denying the truth in such an amateurish manner (AIG? You seriously can’t see through those lies? Google them) you show that you haven’t thought deeply about this at all.

      Try harder. You might succeed.

      • Oh wise teacher…do you know the difference between fact and theory?

        Theory-1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: “Darwin’s theory of evolution”

        Fact-a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth

        Interesting the dictionary used evolution as it’s example of a theory.

        • As I mentioned elsewhere, evolution is a fact and I proved it. This is well known, your ignorance is indefensible. The theory is the process by which evolution occurs. Now that you have been educated once again, please admit it. Please show some intellectual honesty and admit that I have proven this to you and never make those false claims about evolution again. No honest person would need to use lies to defend their beliefs.

      • Ya, google proven fossils of evolution and you get a claw an alligator’s face and drawing. As far as real science non-life can not produce life. In every cell of your body is a 6ft strand of DNA, a computer chip way beyond our comprehension. As smart as you think scientist are, they are unable to manipulate it and change species. If your cell was the size of a cherry pit that 6ft strand would turn into 30 miles of wire. And you believe someone that says it happened by accident. And when you talk about lying God makes statements that He is not a man that He should lie and every man is a lair. If a scientist doesn’t believe there is a God that is his choice. But God says he is not a scientist, the fool has said in his heart there is no God. I have compiled an extensive list of people that need proof of God. Here it is NO ONE. God said He is self-evident and He reveals Himself to everyone. You my friend are not. If I close my eyes and plug my ears you don’t exist. But the blind, the deaf all hear from God. I’m sorry i went on like that. But when you used the term real science, when evolution negates it’s laws can it be real science. Everything before recorded history is pure speculation. Does AIG have it 100% correct? Not a chance. But evolution has been beating a dead horse for years. God made sure there is enough irreducible complexity in every living thing to kill it, it’s time to move on already. I said I would talk about why creation is good news. All the great breakthroughs come from studying creation. Everything from designing the dimples on a golf ball after a partial of pollen to George Washington Carver who asked God to unlock to him all the secrets of the universe. God laughed and said little man, your brain could not contain the secrets of the universe. But I will unlock the secrets of a peanut. George went on to develop over a hundred peanut and sweet potato apps. Google this guy you wouldn’t believe the farming contributions he brought to the world. I got to go, next time I’ll tell you about King Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived.

        • As a matter of fact we can manipulate DNA. We do this all day everyday in almost every lab in the world. We can switch things around at will and have them manifest themselves in a living organism, should we chose to. The issue is, why? What could it possibly do to benefit science?

          You can’t just go about and do as you please. There is a method, a series of justifying causes that are very specific, more so specific than proving the big picture of evolution. But aimed are breaking it down and determining its parts. to add back to the whole. So scientists do this in the smallest measurable way that gets more complex and more illuminating every time. They build on each piece of reproducible data gathered. Should they require it they develop better techniques. Then they build the next hypothesis and the next series of experiments to move forward to adding those ever so important details to the picture. Sadly these details can be lost on the uninformed or even on people who are not intimately linked to the field. However, religiously motivated thinking is blind to it.
          What seems to be issue with the newest definitions for creationism, is the unavoidable fact, facts that those who have faith, that understand the science, can no longer deny the scientific truth. So they’ve created the next doctrine. The next step in holding on to the faithful. After that, would be updating the bible to include evolution.

    • Bravo. Your comment is one of the most subtle and understated parodies I have ever read, on or off the Web.

      • Please don’t equate homeschooled with ignorant or religious. Many intelligent, open-minded people choose to homeschool for good reasons, including being able to cultivate critical thinking – a skill that seems to be disappearing from public schools.

    • dear science teacher mom:

      I cannot do justice to your post here, so you can (if you like) read the response here: hxxp://subverzion.blogspot.com/2011/05/let-this-be-lesson.html

      • Thanks Lee…with a post like that, you could be one of those good ol’ southern Baptist preachers you so despise! Way to try and use guilt and shame! Wow…you are so evolved.

        • People should be ashamed of being flat out wrong on these things. People should feel guilt, because they are guilty of misrepresenting the facts.

          Not that I believed your accusations. They were obviously just the lashing out of your mind trying to defend an irrational belief system. You use shame and guilt to criticize someone for using shame and guilt. You show yourself to be a hypocrite.

          I could go on, but you would just play the victim again.

          • JTK…

            What? Ha!! I’m playing the victim? That’s a first.

            You, do NOT know the difference between fact and theory. When you find out…please get back to me.

            I love “the lashing out of my irrational mind” comment…I’m laughing hysterically. It sounds like something a religious guru might say.

          • I am well acquainted with the difference between fact and theory. I have a bachelors in physics, which is obviously something you are unable to fully comprehend. You are horribly ill-informed about those topics.

            The way that people behave while experiencing cognitive dissonance is well known. I suggest you read a little, it ought to bring some of your feelings more meaning. Someone obviously taught you false things and it is not my responsibility to bend over backwards to not burst your bubble. Your misinformation will be countered and challenged quickly in public discussions.

            I have gotten back to you. Now inform yourself on these matters before you make a fool of yourself publicly again.

    • All kinds of things to disagree with, but the central assertion I disagree with is that you are a “Science Teacher”. That cannot be true.

  3. I’m sorry, but it is very sad that many of our children are being taught science by people that clearly know so little about it. A literal belief, for example, in the Noah’s ark story is just plain silly. Where did all of the water come from? One can say it rained, and rained, and rained, until everything was covered with water. But anyone with a slight understanding of science knows that rain doesn’t create water from nothing, it just moves water around. The rain comes from the evaporation of water. The water of the oceans, rivers, and lakes evaporates and then falls as rain. The evaporation drops the water level, and then the rain raises it up again. So where did the water come from that raised the ocean levels by thousands of feet, to cover the mountains? And then, when the water receded, where did it go? Local floods are a tragic reality and an important part of our history. But a global flood is just plain and simple not possible.

    But, to beat a dead horse, let’s suppose it was possible. You still have uncountable problems. Noah lived in one place. How did he collect all of the species from across the entire earth. It isn’t just a problem of getting the kangaroo back to Australia. It is a problem of getting the kangaroo on the ark in the first place.

    And then there is this dinosaurs living with people thing. Now I am not a bible scholar, but if the T-rex was roaming around with people just a few thousand years ago, then you’d think there would be numerous stories of their encounters with people in the bible. Those times when the T-rex came to town would likely be worthy of writing down.

    And then there is the rather odd thing of sort of believing in evolution, although it isn’t called that. It seems to be an attempt to explain the incredible diversity of life we see on the planet, all of which could not conceivably have fit on the ark. So some things made it to the ark, and then they made more things later. But in fact evolution is too slow for this too work. Except for domesticated plants and animals, which are subject to the very powerful forces of artificial selection, there have not been a lot of amazing evolutionary advances in the past few thousand years. These sorts of things take at least tens of thousands, and often hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to take place. The species make up of the planet hasn’t really changed much in the past few thousand years, during recorded history, excepting an increasing number of extinctions.

    Oh well, I could go on and on, and never convince you, I’m sure, and bore to death anyone with a real science background.

    • i thought it appropriate to respond to ‘science mom’ on my own blog: take a look if you can-http://subverzion.blogspot.com/2011/05/let-this-be-lesson.html

  4. Science teacher mom – i have to pay you a compliment for the best piece of black comedy I’ve read in a long time. Thanks. You made my day after a failed rapture worth living.

  5. So much stuff in that museum… i can make up random explanation that sounds as logicals as those and deny any cientifical evidence and/or experiment because im awesome.

  6. Can someone please provide names of a few authoritative books or scientific papers that demonstrates the “kind-to-kind” evolution that Science Teacher Mom argued against? Thank you.

  7. I enjoyed reading your story. There appear to be several Creation Science Museums around. When I lived in the San Diego area, there was such a museum in the little town of Santee. I avoided it in order not be known as one of the Santee Irish. It was run by a fellow named Duane Gish who wrote something like 5 books on the subject of “creation science”. Interestingly, although he is or was (I haven ‘t been there for something like 10 years) a professional hydrologist, he used something that contradicted a basic principle of hydrology that he put into the hydrology textbook that he wrote in order to explain the order in which we have found fossils that were put into place by Noah’s flood.

    Creation Science can be quite interesting, as the people who expound it are quite intent on challenging anything in actual science that supports evolution. Indeed there are huge gaps in our knowledge of the universe, and the development of complex systems containing gazillions of chemicals which include, for instance, a large number of proteins which are large and whose geometry is critical to causing their behavior and whose chemistry is currently rather beyond us, cannot possibly be explained after the 100 years or so of having tools that might actualy be of some good in doing this. It will be several hundred more, at minimum, before we actually understand even simple organisms and how they developed. There is also a great deal of absurd criticism that I have read of our knowledge, such as the calculation of the supposed probability that certain atoms would come together to form some specific chemicals that are prevalent in all living things.

    Science Mom, I believe you are the one who should by looking at all the evidence relating to this subject. Scientists do that as a matter of routine. Our good author, howver, is a pediatrician and not a geologist or a geneticist, or a paleontolist or a professional in any field whatsoever that includes evolution more than minimally. As doctors tend to be rather busy trying to cure sick people and have little time left over for studying evolution. He is also right that most creation science, at least such as I have seen, is pretty ridiculous in terms of what it says about the so-called science that it uses to support the Biblical explanation of the creation of the universe and the creation of life. I would, of course be quite glad to discuss all these things with you.

    I suppose I should stop rambling and try to cure my insomnia, so good night to all of you.

    Achava

  8. Dear eveloce,
    Wow, where to begin? If all we had to go on were the simple conclusions that you posted, then of course it would be silly. The fact that you honestly think that creationists haven’t thought of those questions is sad. Sir, there are brilliant creation scientists in astrophysics working on plausible explanations for the “problem of distant star light” which is problematic for both sides. These other topics that you mentioned have long since been duly tackled. However, it is clear that you have not studied these topics that you wrote about, but merely posed the obvious questions about them. There are numerous plausible scientific explanations that have been offered that could account for the “problems” you brought up. I can’t really fault you for not having heard about them, because if all your sources ever do is write off as silly the claims creationists make without actually considering the evidence, then there really can be no discussion or attempt to arrive at truth.

    When it comes to origins, both sides are at a disadvantage because neither can construct actual scientific experiments to “prove” our side. By definition, historical science is not observable, testable or repeatable. So we are left to look at the evidence and see which theory best matches the evidence left behind, just like a crime scene investigation with no witnesses. It is no more crazy to believe in Noah’s flood than it is to believe that life all of a sudden came from non-living materials or that specialized mutually dependent cellular functions “just happened”. Even given billions of years the probabilities are just nil.

    Evolutionary theorists, including Darwin himself, start from the foundation that there can be no God or intelligent designer, therefore they religiously cling to the idea that with enough time anything is possible. Even the renowned evolutionary scientist, Richard Dawkins, resorted to concluding that perhaps Earth was “seeded by aliens”, when faced with the question of how life could emerge from non-life. After spending most of an interview condemning the concept of intelligent design, he just pushed the question off to another planet and attributed life on earth to the intelligent design of an alien. Now who is crazy? He just will not even consider the idea that a wise creator actually exists and he will go to great lengths to do so. However, with our modern ability to think that things have always been as they are during our lifetimes, it is very easy to overlook the fact that most of the renowned scientists throughout history believed the truth of Genesis. It was their desire to learn more about the created order that inspired much of their work. Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Faraday, Boyle, Morse, and many others all were believers in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I’d prefer their company to Darwin or Dawkins any day.

    Now for your specific points, all of them have been dealt with in the scientific writings from the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, Answers in Genesis, and many others. In fact you could seriously benefit from reading even the layman’s explanations available in the series of books called “Answers” by Ken Ham. “Answers”, Books One, Two and Three are currently available and deal with many of the topics you addressed and much more.

    I’ll go ahead and tackle them in a simple manner. As for the origin of the flood water, the Bible speaks of the expanse of water that was over the whole earth and how God separated the expanse into one over the earth and one on the earth. The upper one was in the atmosphere, the lower one became the oceans. One of the more prominent theories is that the early earth had no rain, but rather a dense atmosphere that would have made the air very humid and the greenery very lush. There is much support for this concept. Another is that there were possibly rings of water or ice around the earth similar to those of Saturn that were allowed to melt. The Bible talks of the rain beginning to fall and it fell for 40 days ad 40 nights. At the same time, it talks about the opening of the “fountains of the deep”. This is believed to be huge underground sources of water under the oceans that were released with tremendous underwater volcanic activity. This would account for many of the geological formations we see as well. There is evidence to suggest that the highest points on the earth were also much lower on the pre-flood earth. It wouldn’t take near as much water to flow over large expanses as water spreads quickly over relatively flat surfaces. The volcanic activity and earthquakes would have contributed to uplift as the sea floor plates shifted and released their water stores. No doubt much of it went back into the ocean floor craters when the flood was over as well. The post flood world would have had higher land formations with more variability than the pre flood era. These fundamental changes in the earth’s atmosphere and geology also lead to very good theories concerning the major ice age and the separation of the continents. But that is another topic.

    Now since there had not been rain prior to the flood, that is why the rainbow that Genesis mentions as God’s promised symbol that he would never again destroy the earth by flood again is significant. They would not have seen a rainbow in the sky prior to that. Now the Bible not only clearly states that the flood was worldwide, it gives the actual depth under which the highest mountains were submerged. But again those mountains were not near as high as they are now or as high as they were after the flood. It is a fact that oceanic fossils have been found on nearly all of the highest mountains in the world. Evolutionary scientists still can’t account for that. The heavy volcanic activity could easily have contributed to earthquakes and significant uplift. This is just the basics of the explanations that I can remember off the top of my head since its been awhile since I studied this specific topic. The point is, there are very plausible theories developed to account for your concerns.

    Then you’ve got the issue of obtaining the animals. Even evolutionary scientists support the idea of a sort of “Pangaea” or single land mass concept. So getting that precious kangaroo onto the ark wouldn’t be that difficult. But even so, the Bible says that the animals to Noah as God commanded (Genesis 7:8-9). Noah didn’t have to go search for them. Then once they got off the ark, again, with one land mass, and a very different climate than that of today those kangaroos could have easily propagated and migrated to Australia and other places. Perhaps once the land mass split, the only place they ended up surviving was in Australia, but died out in other places as the conditions changed. Again, there are plausible explanations.

    As for the dinosaurs, I already addressed that one. Perhaps the T-Rex wasn’t one of the dinosaurs brought on the ark, but went extinct with the flood. Yet representatives of the dinosaur “kind” would have been on the ark and carried with them the genetic material for a variety of dinosaurs, even if not all of them. However, some rather large dinosaurs must have been here as there are ancient drawings of men fighting, riding, and interacting with large reptile animals on every continent in caves, on rocks, and recorded in songs and poems. Way too coincidental. These guys couldn’t just call each other to coordinate their stories back then. Again, that just scratches the surface.

    And as for the concept of the genetic code for all the diversity we see around us today, it all was present on the ark. There were only 8 people on the ark. All of the diversity of humans came from those few people. As has been suggested by the recent human genome studies, all humans are related and the differences in skin color and hair type, etc. that we see on the surface and seem so different, actually account for a miniscule percentage of the entire human genetic code. Creationists say we are all one race, the human race. This bears out in the human genome project. It is Darwin’s theories that lead to the modern day racism. In fact the original full title to his historic work, is “On the Origin of the Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”. It is historical fact that the founding promoters of abortion, eugenics, and Nazi experimentation were huge followers of Darwin and justified much of their work by citing his theories that the strong are to naturally dominate and exterminate the weak. Their writings are full of criticisms of “Christian charity” which would only serve to “weaken” civilization by prolonging the lives of the “lesser” people and allowing them to propagate. It is also fact that nearly all of the charitable organizations and institutions of higher learning, orphanages, hospitals, etc. were originally founded by Christians who believed that all human life is important. There of course have been many times in history where people claiming to be Christians have also caused many problems, but by and large, true Christians are the ones fixing the ills of society rather than creating them.

    So when you look to the concept of the genetic code of all the animals of today coming over on the ark, it is very plausible. There were no new creations since then. For example, when cats came over there would have been a representative selection of the different types of cats, but all of the rest of the variety of cats we see today would have come from the genetic information from those types of cats. After the first two of any particular pair bred and many more generations of cats were born and spread out into a variety of places, the genetic code would have begun to be isolated into different pockets. Then, depending on the environment, certain cats with differing features would have survived better than others in certain areas. That is where the concept of limited natural selection, or micro evolution, applies. So lions would have been lions, but the variety of lions would have all come from one pair. Or take birds for example, there would have been a pair of woodpeckers on board from which all the future breeds of woodpeckers would have derived. But there would have also been doves, ravens, chickens, and finches, etc. But while those finches in different areas may end up looking different from each other on different continents, or a population of finches on a given island may change their beak size or shape from large to small to large again over a period of a few generations depending on the climate changes and food availability, they are still finches, and never wood peckers. Elephants are easy. There are pretty much only two types these days. They all most likely came from one pair on the ark. The concept of the genetic code and variation within a species is so complex that it could never have just happened by random chance no matter how much time occurred, yet it is beautifully simple to understand. It is no different than to say that since both my husband and I have blue eyes, which is a recessive trait, all of our children will have blue eyes. The brown eye gene has become extinct in our family. It would take one of my children marrying a brown-eyed person to reintroduce that code to the gene pool of my grandchildren. Their eyes would never be fluorescent orange, for example. That just was not an original option in the code, nor could it just happen. Granted, that is a simple example, but it makes the point.

    You are right in saying that there hasn’t been much change in animals and plants over the past few thousand years. Unfortunately, that fact helps the creationist, young earth side. There were plenty of animals preserved on the ark to account for the diversity we see. In fact, many of the previously considered “extinct” animals have been found in recent times, and in essentially the same condition of their ancient ancestors. The coelacanth fish is one example they now call a living fossil because they thought it had gone extinct. However, these fish have been found in the Indian Ocean in virtually the same form as their fossilized predecessors. There are a number of such examples.

    This leads us back to the Creation Museum. In an effort to make the point that the ark could have held all the necessary animals to account for the genetic gene pool and the diversity of animals we see today, the folks at Answers in Genesis who made the Creation Museum are in the process of beginning to create a new feature park, also in Kentucky, of a life size ark built to Biblical scale. They will have replicas of the animals and plausible configurations of how they were arranged on the ark. It is slated to be open to the public in 2014, I believe.

    Ultimately, God has revealed himself through creation “for since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and his divine nature have been clearly seen being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:20.

    “The fool says in his heart ‘there is no God'” Psalm 14:1a

    “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge…” Proverbs 1:7a

    As you said, I too could go on and on and on and perhaps never convince you and bore anyone with a real Biblical and scientific background, but I pray that you would at least consider that creationists aren’t brainless and their scientific research isn’t just a bunch of wishful thinking. It does a disservice to scientific inquiry to silence one side of a debate. Ultimately the truth wins out, no matter who is doing the silencing. A misinterpretation of the Bible led some church leaders to believe that the earth was the center of the universe and condemn those that believed the sun was the center of our solar system. But ultimately it was a Christian scientist, Kepler, that prevailed and proved the heliocentric theory and the laws of planetary motion. Or Pasteur whose germ theory of disease prevailed against the prominent theory of the time which was based in evolutionary thought, that of spontaneous generation. Science cannot be done by consensus. The evidence will eventually win out, even if it is only touted by a persecuted few. Yet no side need fear or marginalize the other to silence them if both are seeking the truth. Creationists have presented many very plausible solutions out there that carefully fit the evidence around us and that have history and the Biblical account from THE first scientist who created it all explaining enough of it to help us come to reasonable conclusions, but not so much as to remove the basic element of faith. After all, if he explained it all to us, our finite brains would explode.

    I’d love to debate you further, but I do have other responsibilities to tend to. Just please know there are answers out there, for all such questions, and with a little research, anyone who truly wants to know rather than just conveniently write creationists off, can find the answers. The scary part that most evolutionists don’t want to admit, perhaps even to themselves, is that the root of their aversion to really seeking the truth is the question of what will they do with it when they come face to face with the fact that there is a creator God out there. Most don’t want to face that fact because it would beg the question of what does that God expect from me. Thus the New Testament reveals how much God cannot tolerate sin and yet loves people enough to have provided a way to reconcile humankind to himself. Beyond understanding the details of creationist theory, I would hope that anyone reading this would want to know this God that is responsible for this creation and would be inspired to read the Bible to learn more.

    • I can’t imagine you being an actual science teacher. Please, tell us where you earned your credentials. I think they might be ashamed of you.

    • Science Teacher Mom,

      Since when did internet access become available at Central State Hospital?

    • HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, Christ, that’s funny. Thank you Science Teacher Mom…

    • Maybe volume and not substance wins a discussion. If so, Science Teacher Mom wins hands down.

      BTW, where in a science book is the definition of “kind”? Is that a species or class or what?

      • So, what is a species anyway? And who decides that? I think its disgusting how you guys didn’t rebut a single things she wrote, but resorted to short insults. I think what she wrote was lucid and well thought out. Thank God you guys are the minority on this planet. I’d hate to live in such a close minded world where ridicule and insults are the norm.

    • “that is responsible for this creation and would be inspired to read the Bible to learn more”

      Which Bible? Which translation? In which language? Does God speak English? Did the English language exist when Noah built the Ark? Who translated your Bible? How do you know they did it right? Can you prove that the translation is accurate? What scientific proof do you have for that?

      Did Jesus speak English? If he didn’t, what language did he communicate in? Can you read/speak that same language? As a scientist, I’m sure you have deeply researched these questions…

  9. I am an indian and i am very sirprised to know through these blogs and other such forums, that there exists so much debate about the validity of evolution in USA. This country has the highest science and research standards and still some people live in denial and darkness. Makes me sad for the kids though.

    • As a US citizen, I can only agree with you, much to my displeasure. The US has a growing “intellectual underclass” that decries scientific study while reaping it’s rewards in the most base ways: microwaved Hot Pockets, satellite television, flat screen tv’s, etc.

      There *are* Christians that are not dedicated to ignorance, nor a literal interpretation of the bible. I’ve found they aren’t all intellectual troglodytes. But I think they tend to steer clear of such ridiculous and embarrassing conversations.

    • sandeep,

      The only reason the US is tops in science and research is because we import the majority of our talent – including many people from India.

      In the lab I work in there is about a 50/50 ratio of American born scientists and foreigners. Many other labs don’t have a single American, but I don’t know of any that are comprised of 100% American talent.

  10. I am very, very glad to live in a country where home schooling is prohibited and any kid is required to visit a school with authorized and educated teachers.

    Is it really so difficult to see the beauty of life and existence if there is no god around?

    • I’m very glad you live there too, however feel free to visit our country where people have rights including the right not to be dictated to by the gov’t on how to raise their children. Home schooled children consistently out perform public schooled children, all surveys agree. The obsessive hatred of home schooling by secular humanist, teacher unions and extreme liberals is based on their non-belief in God and their belief in socialist economic ideology which has nothing to do with the quality of the education of the home schooled.
      I personally do not believe in a 6000 year old earth or six 24 hours creation days either. I believe “creationist” are incorrect in their interpretation of the book of Genesis. However i do believe in creation and a creator God and do not believe in evolution. It would take to long to explain why and I won’t bore you with it because you have already made up your mind.
      The issue of God or no God has no bearing on the efficacy of home education. It seems only to bother non Bible believers because it disagrees with their atheist beliefs………..

      • Atheists start to disagree when observed and extremely vetted theories are being struck down and wholeheartedly denied because a fictional book which isn’t based on any sort of modern scientific method trumps what we as a species have observed and discovered in the past two hundred years.

        • You missed the point. It does’nt matter whether people believe in God or not. Home schooling texts are the same as used by public schools and the tests required are designed to reflect general science views. The reasons for home schooling vary but often have to do with the negative environment which includes violence, hostility toward religious and traditional values the socialist/secular humanist attitudes pervasive amongst the teaching staffs and the general inefficiency of the schools to provide a decent education. Not all home schoolers believe in God and subscribe to other reasons for home schooling. The fear of people like you and most that oppose home schooling is based on the fear that it could affect tax money for public schools and that people might have the audacity to tell their children that there is a God who created all things. Home schooling places more young people in higher education and good jobs upon graduation and that is why more and more people are opting for home schooling. It is likely at this point that most home schoolers are Bible believers because of the anti God atmosphere at public schools but that will not necessarily remain the case in the future as more and more everyday parents recognize the value of home schooling……………

          • …because everyone in America can afford to stay home all day with their children and teach them. Nobody has jobs or anything. Good job for taking the elitist high road, though.

          • Home schooling texts are not the same. They can be, but by and large they are not.

            By the way, you expose your bias (and potentially your deception) with your mentions of secular humanism, liberalism, socialist economic ideology, etc. You obviously fear those concepts, most likely because you cannot deal with them rationally.

            Even your attempts to claim home schooling isn’t largely about religion rely on it being about religion.

            Please, please, please, take a logic and critical thinking course. It will help you find your way out of the trap of irrational belief systems.

      • If you don’t believe in evolution, that’s like saying you don’t believe in fact. Why not?

        • Steve…

          Could you quote the text proving evolution is a fact? If I recall, it’s the theory of evolution. Enlighten me oh great master…

          • Angela. I’m sure you have had these discussions before and have had this point made to you clearly before, but I will do it plain and simple for you so that if you claim otherwise in the future you will, deep in your heart, know yourself to be lying.

            Evolution is a fact. It happens. Fossils show species that no longer exist, more primitive forms, going back for vast amounts of time. This is conclusive proof that evolution occurs. The theory is evolution is an explanation of HOW that change occurs.

            You have been enlightened. Please show some intellectual honesty and admit that you understand that clear point and you will not lie about it in the future.

          • Sorry JTK…the theory of Evolution is NOT a fact.

            Evolution in itself is a fact. Evolution means change or growth. Change in the gene pool of a population by mutation and natural selection…yes, those things happen. But to say the Theory of Evolution is fact…is not factual.

            Quote me the paper, the scientific data that represents factually, the original creator-whether that be man, beast or molecule that set the world…as we know it in motion. The data that supports who/what created species and plants. I have no problem with the evolution of species. I, for one, am constantly evolving…and natural selection definitely occurs. Who/what set the big bang into motion?

          • Angela, you are obviously trying hard to misinterpret my words. They are quite clear. Your behavior indicates that you have to lie aobut these things to preserve your cherished anti-science belief system. I did not say the theory of evolution was a fact, I said evolution was a fact and you admitted it. Now just what are you arguing about? You admitted I was right but want to also claim I was wrong on the same thing?

            Please get an education. Your ignorance is shameful.

            PS. Abiogenesis is not the same as evolutoin. If you have a few moments please look that up. It is established fact.

  11. A famous scientist (the name escapes me) was once asked what the study of Natural History tells him about God. His response was “he had an inordinate fondness for beetles”. Enough said.

  12. Reading these kinds of exchanges always frustrate me. They illustrate the difficulty of trying to debate complex scientific issues in the public sphere. Let’s face it the vast majority of us aren’t going to spend the time to track down and analyze the “research” and even if we did, absent several years of study and training in the appropriate fields, we wouldn’t have the knowledge and understanding needed to make an educated judgment. Instead, we will default to the side of the debate to which we are already aligned trusting that “our” scientists or “our” theologians did the appropriate legwork for us. So in these debates it’s usually just a bunch of people talking past each other with very little likelihood that anyone’s mind will be changed. So I won’t bother with a point by point refutation of anything, but I will make a couple of observations: 1) the case for evolution, at it’s very heart, is based on observation, and then scientific study, whereas the case for creationism, at it’s heart, is based on faith. Having a desired outcome at the core of any scientific study can be corrupting and fundamentally taints the results. Of course the counter argument is that once evolution has been established as an element of “faith”, any additional study is also similarly corrupted. Again, it get’s down to who do you trust. I trust in the scientists who are no longer trying to prove the basic theory of evolution but who have moved on to study more relevant things in biology and medicine and whose results nevertheless support that the foundational beliefs of evolution are sound. I trust these scientists over those whose purpose it is to prove the basis of creationism, who, again, are starting with an outcome and THEN trying to use science to support it. 2) I tend to discount anyone that will bring their children into such an argument. I think that saying that ‘an 8th grade child can understand the evidence so why can’t you’ is a fairly insulting and rather unconvincing argument. I believe that science is complex and that MOST 8th graders who can make arguments on one side or another would be doing so based on indoctrination and not through independent judgment. On that point, I’ll cry “foul”.

  13. As long as people like Pretending To Be A Science Teacher Mom trot out stale old lies unchallenged the foolish and ignorant will be deceived by them. Challenging their lies and fallacies publicly and often may not change their minds but it does a world of good to those who haven’t been fully indoctrinated. Creationist fools cannot withstand the free exchange of ideas that the internet brings.

  14. The time is ripe to dump making literal interpretations of religious books. Look where some interpretations of Koran have brought the world to. Take the only useful message from religion which is of peace, brotherhood, societal values, humanity etc and move on. Holding onto beliefs instilled since childhood is a survival mechanism. Letting it go is really a difficult process pyshologically, which is why people write books for people who need “ANSWERS” !
    I understand why people would come online and spread what they believe, wanting their world-view to be confirmed by others is a comfort which they seek here. I just wish there was a way, we could save the next generations from such home school pseudo-scientific indoctrinations.

  15. Creation vs. Evolution will continue to be debated in forums until the sun burns out/rapture. This is what the internet was invented for.

      • The Bible never said the earth was flat, scientist and other “wise men” of the time did. Science simply corrected itself then just as it will do in the future as it continues to find it’s cherished beliefs wrong as they have throughout history. It’s good that they correct themselves but maybe it would be better not to be so dogmatic in the first place ….

        • Actually, the Bible discusses the flat earth many times. A few spots that spring to mind: Isaiah 11:12, Genesis 11:1-9, Revelation 7:1, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19, Daniel 4:11, Matthew 4:8, etc.

          Many parts of the Bible state that the Earth is flat, has Edges, has Four Corners, has Pillars, and has Foundations.

        • Wow. The sheer disregard for the facts in your words is humorous, in a shocking and disgusting way.

          You say its good to correct themselves but maybe better to not be dogmatic in the first place… what? By being willing and EAGER to correct themselves they show that they are not trapped by dogma. Your words contradict themselves in a single sentence.

          If your beliefs are true you will never need to lie to defend them. You behave like someone who either doesn’t understand his own thoughts or needs to misrepresent them.

          You should (and probably will) be ashamed of yourself. Your accusations so far tend to be either false, misinformed, or hypocritical. Please get an education.

  16. Everyone that doesn’t believe in evolution needs to wake up and smell the rest of the world. The Caothlic Church even accepts evolution as a theory as long as it doesn’t account for our souls. The Church argues God gives living things souls.

    Here is a quote from Pope John Paul II:

    “In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…. Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

  17. @Science teacher mom
    The problem with creation science is that they have an outcome they want and make up the facts to prove it is true. For instance you say “Even evolutionary scientists support the idea of a sort of “Pangaea” or single land mass concept.”, I agree continental drift is measurable and continental velocities are easily available. Here’s the catch though. Africa is moving away from South America the rates are measurable and even with the maximum and minimum possible calculations they could not have been a single continent earlier then 14 million years ago, a more accepted time would be 200 million years, NOT 6000 years.

    So for the earth to have a single landmass lets check the distance between the tip of Brazil and Camaroon Africa about 3172miles divide that by 6000years and we have 0.53miles a year. So for creationists to use this bit of science continents must drift half a mile a year.(they don’t by the way they also weren’t going faster then slowed down or teleported)

    Face it though sooner or later you will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bible is wrong sometimes though I’m sure many clever reasons why it wasn’t wrong at all will be made up. I’m not saying god isn’t real I’m just saying the sooner you stop taking fiction as reality the better off we all will be and that goes double for scientologists.

    • “face it though sooner or later you will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is wrong” begins your last paragraph. “creationist” say the earth is 6000 years old. You disagree JJ and so do I. However I believe in God, creation and do not believe in evolution. Show me from the Bible, not “creationist” thought, but from the Bible where it says the earth is 6000 years old. You won’t be able to because the Bible does’nt say how old the earth is in any scripture. “creationist” have misinterpreted the Genesis account of creation including the so called 24 hour creative time periods(think: in my grandfathers “day”,did he live just 24 hours??). The universe is probably 13 or so billion years old and the earth about 4 billion. We don’t know for sure and the reason is because science has not reached the point where they know everything there is to know. To say so would be folly and arrogance. Scientist are very good at observing things, but like “creationist”, evolutionary advocates can also be misinterpreting the evidence they observe.

      • Obviously the ‘text books’ that Science Teacher Mom uses are VERY different from public schools.

        She is using the Bible and works by Ken Ham to teach her son about scientific theory. These books offer circular thinking and reinform her own Confirmation Bias. Unfortunatley, when home schooled kids are taught by their parents their world view WILL be skewed by the beliefs of their parent/teacher.

        When exposed to different world views in a class room of diverse students and a curriculum set forth by a school board, a student has the ablitiy to grow beyond a SINGLE world view.

        Economics and taxes have NOTHING to do with my opinion of home schooling. It is my fear of all those poor kids that are being force-fed a single ‘dogma.’ As is with public schooling, religion has NO place in the science class room. If you want to have a theology discussion have it in a theology class, not the science lab.

        Obviously, you have a skewed view of the public school system that is populated ‘only by secular humanists.’ This is far from the truth.

        Once again, your view of the world is that public schools are the domain of the godless and if you send your kids they will be persecuted for sharing your beliefs in a deity.

        I’m sorry that you feel this way. However, if you’d like to keep your kids’ heads bury in the sand. And keep teaching them ‘facts’ based on a book written by bronze age men who stle most of their stories from Babylonian and Sumerian mythology…by all means, go ahead.

        And to Science Teacher Mom. Either you are the greatest comment troll ever…or you should be locked up for child abuse. Beacause tainting a young mind with the garbage that you have is tantamount to a lifetime of daily beatings.

        • As i said before in previous comments, i do not believe in “creationism”. I do believe in creation and feel that the conclusions of evolutionary scientist ,who often disagree amongst themselves to what the evidence indicates, is wrong. If they can’t agree with each other who should i agree with ?? Neither I or the Bible disagree with proven science. The age of the earth and the universe are not mentioned in the Bible for instance. The Genesis acct says God created all life, science suggests otherwise. But they both agree with the order of which living things were introduced to the earth. Science has been telling us the order of life’s appearance on the earth for the last century and a half. The Bible says the same thing and has been doing so for 35 centuries !! I have deep respect for science and recognize and laud it’s contribution to mankind. I disagree with their unproven belief in evolution. Babylonian and Sumerian mythology are just confused rehashes of the accurate accts penned in the Bible. If i write an inaccurate acct of a car accident in 2005 and you write an accurate acct in 2007 does that make your acct borrowed just because you wrote it down 2 years after my inaccurate acct ?? No it does’nt !! The same applies to the Babylonian and Sumerian texts. Reread your own comment and then the comments of others in this blog with their contempt , ridicule and insults and then tell me children that are exposed to the same at school should not have an alternative education environment such as home schooling provides. Your fear of “force fed dogma” as a reason to oppose home schooling proves my point that your objection is based on many home schooling parents belief in God as somehow negative whereas the non-belief in God fostered in public schools is somehow not a form of force fed dogma. What are you afraid of if people believe in God ?? I don’t care whether you do or don’t believe in God and respect your right not to. Respect my right TO believe in God. I’m not trying to shut down public schools, don’t try to shut down home schooling………..

          • You made my point for me.

            Your home school history classes were VERY inaccurate.

            Sorry, but I will not cow-tow to the notion that all religious beliefs should be respected ‘just because’ its politically correct.

            For over a thousand years, people of science, athiests and NON-Christian beliefs were persecuted, mutilated, burned at the stake and imprisoned for NOT believing the bullshit accounts of a few bronze aged control freaks.

            If you can’t take a few jabs at the inaccuracy of your statements and your beliefs…I say MAN THE HELL UP!

            At least you aren’t being tied to stake and set fire to for your dogma.

            Science looks at all the books and knowledge to make sense of the universe. All Sides of the story. As soon as it stops, it becomes as religion.

            Religion looks to one. Written BY man…to control men.

            So, a poorly home schooled child with ONE side of an argument enters the world with inferior knowledge.

            In your case, poorly home schooled in history, archaelogy and even religious studies.

            Go do some more study and come back when you can have an argument that doesn’t end with…’oh, you’re being mean.’

            I NEVER said I wanted to shut down home schooling. Just BAD home schooling.

            Home schooling is fine…if the parent is QUALIFIED to teach multiple subjects with FACT.

            Clearly, you were in the remedial class.

      • ‘Show me from the Bible, not “creationist” thought, but from the Bible where it says the earth is 6000 years old.’

        You really do need to brush up on reading that book you so love.

        Biblical scholars agree that by tracing Adam and Eve’s lineage from Genesis to Jesus you get a figure of approximately 4,000 years is reached. Add to that the 2,000 years since his ‘death’ and you get their agreed upon 6,000 year old earth.

        This not any kind of misinterpretation of a 24 hour day either. Which, in itself, is laughable. You want to take this book seriously, but anytime it doesn’t jive with your world-view…it is considered ‘misinterpreted.’

        The reason for Biblical ‘apologists’ is simple. The Bible makes NO SENSE when confronted with modern facts and our understanding of the history of the writings contained within it and the data that even Jewish archaelogists agree refute a majority of what is said to have happened in the bible.

        • Which gives us only the creation date for Adam (4026 bce). Genesis 1:1 says “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”………where does that or any other scripture say when “in the beginning was” ?? Gen 1:1 is a stand alone statement which does not have any connection to the scriptures that discuss the creative days (time periods,however long they were). Many Biblical scholars do not agree that the earth is only 6000 years old and accept as i do that the universe is many billions of years old and the earth is probably 4 billion years old. I find it truly odd that you ridicule people for believing in a literal translation of the Bible because the Bible “makes no sense” and then turn around and get irritated with me for pointing out the very fallacies in interpretation that you so decry, and then insist that i should accept their and your misinterpretation so you can ridicule me too. What’s worse, an incorrect interpretation of Genesis or a correct interpretation of Genesis which might prove the Bible accurate ?? Clearly you prefer an incorrect interpretation so you can continue to ridicule the Bible , belief in God and those that believe in God. It makes your argument simpler to maintain……..

          • Regardless of how you interpret the bible, you CANNOT have a god creating light ‘3 days’ before he creates the Sun and the Stars (they are the source of all LIGHT in the universe.)

          • One thing that’s always bothered me: if, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, how can we reconcile a 13 billion year old universe with a 4 billion year old earth? 4 billion years ago is not “in the beginning” given a 13+ billion year old universe. That’s always made Genesis 1:1 feel off to me.

          • The ease with which your nonsensical version of science and history can be destroyed by random people on the internet ought to be a sign.

            In the future, please try to inform yourself of the basics of evolution before you discuss it. You have obviously been lied to on a great many matters and by repeating those lies you do yourself no credit. Educate yourself and be honest with yourself about the flaws in your belief system.

  18. Dear Science Teacher Mom,
    You are right, science certainly does not have all the answers. The origin of life is still mostly a mystery. We are making progress, but are far from figuring it all out. The Dawkins comment that it might have started on another planet is a reasonable notion, although it just pushes the problem back to how it started there. But we are learning that there are huge numbers of earth like planets out there, and once life forms on just one of them it can travel via microorganisms riding on photon driven dust throughout the universe.

    The God theory proposes there is a supernatural being that created it all. So, what created God? Like the other planet notion, it just pushes the problem back a step. Of course you were taught that God was just always there, but that is not a very satisfying solution for a questioning mind.

    But we aren’t really discussing God. Many intelligent people have decided to believe in God, and I’m quite fine with that. We are discussing a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    You pointed out that scientists agree that there was once a single continent. But, as another writer pointed out, the timing just does not work for you. We can measure the rates of movements of continents, and they move way too slowly to create what we see on the planet today from a single continent a few thousand years ago.

    In your comments you talk a lot about DNA. I am a molecular geneticist, trained as an undergraduate at UCLA, receiving a PhD from the University of North Carolina, and postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School. I’ve been working with DNA on a daily basis for the past 40 years. In fact, if you really look closely at DNA it quite clearly proves evolution, and disproves creationism. I’ll expand on this in an upcoming blog. Look for it.

    You point out, correctly, that there is evidence for a genetic bottleneck in relatively recent history for the human population. But this is not true for all species, as would be required if the ark story were correct.

    You say it never rained before the flood. That seems pretty far fetched to me. It looks to be a desperate attempt to explain the biblical statement that there were no rainbows before the flood. In fact everything about creationism seems a somewhat absurd effort to reconcile the bible and reason. It is amazing to me how elaborate and detailed the rationales are.

    For example, the belief in microevolution, with one species able to give rise to others that are closely related, is absolutely required, because clearly all of the millions of species currently on the planet could not have fit on the ark. Microevolution doesn’t really solve this problem, however, because as I pointed out in a previous comment, a few thousand years does not provide enough time. But I do find it quite encouraging that you accept natural selection, the absolute foundation of evolution. Creationists seem to be edging in the right direction.

    But, of course, you can’t believe in macroevolution, or big changes, because even though it is built on the same principles as microevolution, it doesn’t agree with the bible.

    And your answer to where all of that water came from? You say maybe it came squirting out of the ground. But didn’t the bible say it rained? Or, you say maybe it came from space. But then where did it go? The biblical account is a perfect description of a local flood. It rains and rains, causing a flood that to the local residents seems to go forever, and then it stops raining, the water drains, and the flood is over. Sometimes when a story is told over and over, from generation to generation, it is exaggerated. Indeed, sometimes when I tell a story from year to year it gets exaggerated. Talk to any fisherman. So, in time, the local flood became global. Don’t take it so seriously. It is a great story. Enjoy it.

    And, by the way, I appreciate your extensive comments. you’ve definitely made this blog more lively.

    Best,

    Eveloce

    • You asked in your 2nd to last para. “but did’nt the Bible say it rained”?? well yes it did but i thought the Bible text might be interesting so: Genesis 7:11… “in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened”.
      So here the Bible speaks of two different sources (1) the springs of the vast watery deep and (2) the floodgates of the heavens……we generally think of springs as underground repositories of water. “Vast” as the Bible says suggests huge deposits. None of this proves the Noachian Flood but my inclusion was to show that not on just this subject but far too often in both the pro and con Bible discussions people do not quote or know what the Bible really says. This is what often leads to the kind of skewered beliefs in or lack of belief in God, creation and other religious subjects. Simply knowing what the Bible says would at least equip us to intelligently argue beliefs. Far to often(creationist and others) are as guilty as the non believing public……

      • “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life.”

        Was there some different measure of years back then, or are we supposed to believe that Noah was over 600 years old? That passage really doesn’t help the argument of the Bible’s literal truth.

        • The book of Genesis was written by Moses approx 1485 bce give or take. The measure of a year by the Israelite people was based on a 30 day lunar month, so likely if as the Bible claims that it was written by the 40 or so writers under God’s inspiration then it is highly unlikely He would keep switching time frames………..

          • Moses did not write the book of Genesis. While I know you are horribly misinformed on these things, I hope you at least google that point. It has a great deal of online discussion that will trouble you with the truth.

      • No matter what the bible says it does not match observable fact. The belief in a global flood is patently ridiculous. Geometry alone should be enoug to prove it to you, assuming you can determine the volume of a sphere of the height of the highest mountain and get an estimate of the absolutely incredible amount of water required.

        I am truly sorry, but you are so flat out wrong on basic fact that you should be ashamed of yourself and those who taught you should be ashamed of themselves. Your attempts to defend home schooling have exposed you are poorly schooled.

        Also, you have been schooled.

  19. I remember The Schick Sunn Classic “In Search of Noah’s Ark” as a kid, and it showed that many (limit as n –> All) cultures have a flood myth (for lack of better term).

    I reasoned that this meant that the only way they could have saved all the animals from all the various places in the world is there were a FLEET of arks, launched and landed in various places, possibly multiple ones from any single continent if need be. Noah is the only one that got any press, as he was from the area in which the Bible was written.

    It answered the nagging questions of how all the various animals (not to mention various nationalities and ethnic demographics) could have been saved on one boat. It made sense to me, but I could never get any of my teachers to address it.

  20. I like the way creationists can debunk something as supported as evolution because of the absence of the slightest of confirming evidence, but are more than willing to fill in the blanks by completely, out of thin air, without even any biblical support, with their own made up inventions. “Rafting” theory…and what evidence lead you to that theory, oh that’s right, nothing. Nothing but your own imagination. And about this whole “God” thing. What evidence supports its/his/whatever’s existence? Oh, that’s right, nothing, because it doesn’t exist…Harry Potter is realer. Admittedly, I’m not a scientist, just a guy, but to be a part of this conversation clearly, CLEARLY, a background in science is not neccessary.

  21. First, thanks to eveloce for the fun post. Second, I didn’t read ALL the comments but the ones I did get through were quite “entertaining.”

    I’m a history student, and the same problems occur in my discipline. For a large group of people in this country, academics are about message, not discovery. They don’t understand that by discarding a rigorous process, they can’t increase knowledge. Or maybe they do understand and just want to feel comfortable with their dogma. Either way, the idea of collect evidence and subjecting it to peer-reviewed methods is anathema to this conservative movement. There is pretty much no hope of reaching them.

  22. I would have liked this post to have covered some of the more blatantly strange arguments made at the museum, such as:
    1. At the very beginning, we see two “scientists” at an archeological dig. We’re told that one archeologist interprets his findings as being the remains of animals from millions of years ago. But the second, who knows that the stories told in the Bible are literal truth, knows that the fossils much be must younger. So right away he’s violated the whole concept of science, which is that there can be no preconceived notions of reality, only testable hypotheses.
    2. Does anyone else think it’s funny that Noah and his sons speak with an eastern European Yiddish accent?
    3. You left out the whole explanation of Cain’s wife, which is… amazing.
    The museum displays are exceptionally well done, and unfortunately the state of science education in this country is so poor that few visitors can see the fallacies of the scientific-sounding explanations.

  23. What I find unfortunate is this either or perspective. Jesus said

    52 “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.” Luke 11:52

    Jesus lived at a time when the Talmud was gaining momentum, a time when Jewish theology was becoming, and still is, highly legalistic. Jesus was strongly opposed to this type of literal, legalistic interpretation of the Bible — the very type of interpretation that fundamentalists espouse.

    Jesus himself preferred to speak in parables — metaphors.

    If the creation story is interpreted metaphorically, which is, I believe how it was intended to be interpreted, it is not at all inconsistent with evolution. For instance, what was a day before light and dark existed, or before the earth existed? What is a day for God? Are days for God all the same length or are they possible affected by relativistic considerations?

    Why are not all good Christians up in arms over fundamentalism as heresy?

  24. ‘There isn’t enough space or time to explain them all.’

    This is either profound or ironic, depending upon whether you consider the content or the length of the post in which it was contained.

    I’m sorry, but creation ‘scientists’ are just a group of people who can’t accept that men are related to apes even though they fling more [poo] than any chimp.

    They take advantage of any gap in knowledge to foster a hypothesis driven not only by faith, but by this fear of association with other animals. Their god can bend space and time, make water appear from nothing, move continents, what have you. I am consistently amazed that this same omnipotent and omniscient being could not have conceived of and executed the planned nascence of our evolutionary ancestors and their progressive evolution into human beings and the other flora and fauna in our habitat.

    But this is where I get in over my head: I can’t imagine why their god demands that they believe all this other nonsense, yet reject centuries of empirical data? How is it a test of faith to ignore the very information that has been provided, presumably by god or gods?

    So, I certainly can’t claim to understand everything about evolution; because I have no explanation for a bunch of monkeys who grew up to believe they are being taunted by the heavens.

  25. “But whatever your religious view, please, oh please, one thing that we can all be sure of, you should not take everything in the bible for literal truth.”

    If the Musuem Creation Science’s interpretation of what the Bible describes as literal truth, IS actually what the Bible claimed was literal truth, then you would be right. Since that is not the best interpretation, isn’t the orthodox Christian interpretation, is not a reasonable interpretation, then the obvious conflicts between THAT interpretation of the Bible and observable reality have no relevance to whether one should believe the Bible contains precise literal truth, at least where it actually is making claims to literal truth (in some places it is meant to be read allegorically).

  26. Genesis 7:4 (King James Version) — For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth …

    New International Version (©1984) — Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth …

    New Living Translation (©2007) — Seven days from now I will make the rains pour down on the earth.

    Douay-Rheims Bible — For yet a while, and after seven days, I will rain upon the earth …

    And … who is to say that this has been translated from the initial written language to maintain the original meaning. It is my understanding that many Christian faiths believe that the Bible was written by God. But, even so, it must have been translated and printed, and read, and interpreted … by ever fallible “man”.

    • All four of the translations cited say that God is going to begin flooding the earth in 7 days, so where is the problem ?? If the Bible was written by God (writers inspired by God) He would certainly see to it’s accurate translation no matter how many years went by from the initial texts. Evidence from sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that to be the case. Which always takes us back to belief in or lack of belief in God. I believe and accept that God would want to and indeed did insure his msg to man has come down to us accurately. How some people understand that msg is their business. I believe “creationist” have misunderstood the Genesis acct. If a person does’nt believe in God then the Bible becomes meaningless to them as historic or moral text and everything becomes silly, mythological and worst of all, unscientific. Belief in the Bible goes beyond “proven” science just as belief in evolution goes beyond “proven” science. Both require a certain amount of faith in the message giver and an accurate understanding of the evidence given. Your choice. I ridicule no one for choosing science as their final say in these matters and would hope those that disagree with my choice would do so without the insult and ridicule that so often accompanies the comments of those that don’t believe in God. Mutual respect makes for a better conversation……..

      • Your misrepresentations of fact and poor understanding of science are exposed again.

        Do not appeal to mutual respect. You have no respect for the truth and your claims about evolution and science in general are absolutely disrespectful. That is just an attempt to stifly free conversation on your part.

        Once again, belief in evolution does not go beyond proven science. You are wrong on the facts. The very claim is astonishing, it implies that the basis of modern medicine with countless testable applications is wrong because your bronze age book wants it to be.

        That is not a defensible claim. If it was, science would be convinced by it. Anyone who could prove evolution was wrong, or even significantly undermine its value, would win the Nobel in medicine. Anyone who could prove such a thing would be known worldwide as the person who destroyed evolution. If someone has proven what you believe then where are they? Where is the public acclaim?

        Obviously they do not exist and such a proof does not exist. I challenge you to be honest, at least with yourself. When you make such a claim in the future you should be asking why all those who claim evolution has been disproven haven’t been awarded something for it. What about the Templeton prize? What about a photograph standing next to the Pope? The lack of such things ought to be a HUGE clue, even for someone as disconnected from reality as you are.

    • Remember: God works in mysterious ways. Sometimes he mistranslates his own Holy Book just to keep Believers on their toes. You have to read between the lines know what God actually meant.

  27. Hi everyone, sorry to jump in late. But I thought everyone would like a few bible verses here, I’d like to see some responses to these.

    Genesis 6:1-4 (New International Version)

    ” When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” 4″ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

    20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

    fun fact: Just one elephant weights around 7,700 pounds and eats between 300 and 600 pounds of food per day and drinks around 50 gallons of water or about 400 pounds of H2O. Some quick math, in forty days 2 elephants would need atleast 24,000lbs of food and around 40,000lbs of water to survive and be healthy.

    Enjoy

      • Genetic variation is required or birth defects would decimate every species.

        Not to mention the still required tonnes of food. And the fresh water fish tanks.

        And to repopulate the world would take a SECOND round of incest. Adam/Eve/Cain being the first ‘taboo’ family.

  28. Here’s a question for Brainwashing My Child MomScience Teacher Mom. Can you think of any scenario where a piece of evidence would cause you to change your mind about the bible being true? Is there ANYTHING that you would consider proof that evolution didn’t occur? I’m pretty sure the answer is ‘no’ – you’re convinced the bible is 100% literal and accurate and infallible and that any new evidence would need to be explained away so that it fit with your worldview.

    A true scientist/rationalist, on the other hand, will be happy to admit that there are plenty of things that could show up to invalidate their theories. Now, granted, there are so many existing pieces of evidence, from geological to genetic, that all independently confirm the theory of evolution that it would have to be some seriously amazing evidence to prove otherwise but yes, it’s at least conceivable. Maybe an alien race used nanomachines to put together the planet from scratch and ‘built in’ all the geological history while they were at it. Or maybe some other sort of supreme being did that, and just wants us to THINK that evolution exists because they’ve decided it would be a funny joke. These theories are unlikely, but I’d be willing to consider them if some overwhelming evidence came along.

    What piece of evidence could convince you that the bible is wrong? Nothing, I’m sure. And so you really can’t claim to have a scientific approach to any of this now can you?

  29. Ahhh, but which version of the Bible are you referring to? It is quite difficult to simply know what the Bible says when there are several different versions of the Bible. And as we all know the Bible we know today has been severely edited over the centuries so no one can actually know what was even written in the first place.

  30. I think both sides – both the author and the museum – have this wrong. The Bible predates science.

    The museum, as science, is useless. (Though it isn’t bad for ‘teaching’ purposes). There are so many backtracks (nut eating T-Rexes, really?) that it’s a scientific farce. But the allegory of Creation is much more important than the science. Even as a non-religious man, the idea of we’re something special and we should treat life preciously and work to better each other and all of creations creatures isn’t all that bad. Us agnostics should know Buckminster Fuller and his obligation to the Universe (capitals – his).

    And the author has the wrong idea when he comes there to critique the ‘science’. Applying scientific principles to it is as useless as complaining about physics issues in Roadrunner cartoons. It’s really not the point.

  31. The attacks are way out of line. Yes this is frustrating, but it makes whomever resorts to them look like a clueless zealot that I don’t want representing my side.

  32. I’ll let “science teacher mom” give her own answers to your question ,although considering the way you addressed her it’s highly unlikely she will. But i would suggest that if you want to have a conversation with someone it is probably best not to start by insulting them Ron…………………

  33. I really don’t understand the whole Christian Science movement. Why not just take the route my mother did and say that the dinosaur skeletons were obviously placed there by The Devil to confuse and mislead us? 😛

    • Vesey…

      I totally agree. Almost everything I’ve read is full of hate and venom. It’s amazing to me that most all on this forum thinks anyone who believes in a spiritual realm is a lunatic. Have you ever read any of Einstein’s work?

      Just today I watched the final episode of Oprah. No, I’m not a housewife…and I rarely have the opportunity to take in her show…but today, since this was IT I tuned in. She has been named one of the most powerful people in the world as well as one of the wealthiest, has built schools and libraries, taught tolerance and love and she said today she owed it all to her staff and Jesus. The Alpha and the Omega. Wow…I guess she’s just another lunatic…what a loser.

      • Appeal to fame as proof of religious belief? Please. You should be ashamed of yourself, as I mentioned earlier.

        Welcome to the real world. When you set foot on the battlefield of ideas and find that your ideas get horribly beaten, you should get a clue.

        If you believe you can prove your god exists then you will be a published (and widely read) author within a matter of months. If others have claimed to you to have such a proof, why aren’t they out on the cover of People?

        The answer is obvious. You have been lied to, indoctrinate into a false belief system. Your inability to defend it rationally is the sign you need. Don’t ignore it.

        • JTK…

          Shame and guilt doesn’t work with me. What is up with you being the “shame on you guy?”

          No…it is you that needs to be welcomed to the real world. I doubt if you could actually hold a conversation in the “real world”. You are bitter and argumentative and the narrowest person I believe I’ve ever spoken (I use that term liberally) with. You gang up on anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe and you throw out insults like they are baseballs. Oh…you’ve probably never thrown a baseball…(yes, and I know that was hypocritical of me-insulting you-but you’re a bully.)

          I haven’t been indoctrinated into anything. I read all text-science, religion and philosophy. I don’t read the Bible literally…and I doubt if I will ever visit the creationism museum. I agree, a lot of what’s going on there is ridiculous, but you too need to be open to the world around you-the energy it omits and the people who actually put things into motion.

          • Don’t imagine for a moment that I didn’t notice that you completely avoid the points I raised and changed the subject instead. Honest people do not need to do that. People who can defend their opinions don’t need to change the subject.

            Your words make no sense. How can one person gang up on anyone? That is completely nonsensical. You are so incapable of defending your opinions with rational thought that you feel outnumbered by one person? Give me a break. How dare you complain about insults? You are a total hypocrite.

            You are horribly ill informed and untrained in critical thinking. There are easy ways to fix those things but first you must admit that you are wrong. You can’t learn something new if you don’t admit that you don’t know it already. You have been lied to about history, you have been indoctrinated, pretending otherwise is not convincing. The falsehoods you spout are a clear sign of indoctrination into an irrational belief system.

            If you can’t deal with the issues I raise, go to a library or google those issues and learn about them. Ignorance is shameful, like it or not. That is why you get angry when I point out your ignorance, because you feel that shame burn you and want to lash out.

            It won’t work. Get an education before you discuss weighty subjects on the internet.

  34. Urgent to Steve Potter: ‘Solar’ is capitalized, just as ‘Norwegian’ is, and ‘Solar system’ only refers to the stellar system maintained by Sol.

    A much, much more prominent question about the flood is how any terrestrial plants survived. Or, probably, aquatic ones as well (pressure).

  35. Grand Canyon created in a few thousand years by floods, huh? Actually that’s not unreasonable. The sedimentary rocks forming its sides, whose layers are so spectacularly exposed by the canyon itself, are quite soft compared to the metamorphic rocks at its base.

    But, uh, how long did it take to lay down those layers of sedimentary rocks, some of which come from upstream sediments, and some of which come from ocean sand, the two types intermingling to make the different colors of the walls.

    And the Grand Canyon is a good 300 miles and from the nearest ocean. Just how many times did the oceans rise up to cover the land, anyway?

    And what of the limestone layers, made of massive accumulations of calcium carbonates from coral growths and plankton skeletons? How do you lay down 500 feet of that in a few thousand years, then flood it over with enough water to leave behind 75 feet of river sand without just washing the carbonate layer away, if floods are enough to cut the canyon through it?

    I’m not sure these biblican scholars got it right. They clearly need to do more research.

  36. Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein.

    Although I may not agree with everything Science teacher mom believes…she raises valid points and should not be attacked on a public forum.

    I am a Christian and I believe a little of both when it comes to creation…and I think my friend Albert would agree.

    • People shouldn’t be disagreed with in public? Are you nuts? Aren’t you disagreeing with us?

      Her points are invalid and that has been shown. This is not the first time and place in the world where these ideas have been discussed. If her points were at all valid it would be widely acknowledged within the realms of philosophy and religious studies. She is flat out wrong and provably so. False claims should and will be called out in any forum, public or private. Asking to be free from criticism in such a manner shows that you know your beliefs are horrible flawed. Nobody who saw their beliefs as immune to criticism would ever complain about being criticized.

      Do not appeal to Albert Einstein either. He was not a creationist. He did not believe in any god the likes of which you would recognize.

      Once again you are wrong on the facts. Please use google, or even wikipedia. Your errors could be corrected with a few moments of reading. Your behavior indicates that you have to decieve to defend your belief system. It just shouldn’t be that way, perhaps you aren’t even aware of it when you use those fallacies and false claims.

      In the future, you will be. Provided you are honest with yourself, at least.

      • JTK…

        How could you possibly know what I believe? What kind of God do you think I believe in?

        Einstein believed in a God that set things into motion….rather than a puppeteer. He doesn’t control your actions or feelings…and that’s your free will.

        Have you ever read Einstein’s writings on God?

        • I do not claim to know what your beliefs are, other than that they are obviously not based on reason. Again you chose to evase and try to change the subject when challenged on obvious faults.

          Your unwillingness to engage the points I make is a clear indication that you know you are unable to. Somewhere in your head, a light may be flashing.

          If you respond again, do it honestly and openly. No games, no fallacies, no attempts to change the subject. Either respond to the points or you are indicating to anyone reading these comments that you are unable to answer honestly.

          All of your evasions and misrepresentations of fact will be called out. Please educate yourself rather than face the embarassment.

  37. @Science Teacher Mom: ‘…most of the renowned scientists throughout history believed the truth of Genesis. It was their desire to learn more about the created order that inspired much of their work. Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Faraday, Boyle, Morse, and many others all were believers in the literal interpretation of Genesis.’

    Yes, it was their desire to learn MORE that inspired much of their work. That is, belief in the Bible for THEM was insufficient to slake their thirst for knowledge. These renowned scientists turned to the methods of science in order to BETTER explain the Universe; they did NOT satisfy themselves with bizarre reinterpretations of Genesis. […unlike at least one of the commenters here.]

    I will go further and say that while these scientists were pursuing their science, they were NOT using their faith OR their belief in the literal truth in Genesis. When they were off work, they might have satisfied themselves with an explanation that came from scripture, but the moment they stepped foot into their laboratories, they dropped all that. How do I know this? Because science only allows evidence (or at least reasoned hypothesis) in its explanations. Faith, either with or without reference to a holy book, cannot state its tenets in a falsifiable manner–at least, it never has in the past.

    Despite the best efforts of quacks pushing ID ‘science’, one cannot simultaneously hold a faith-based as well as an evidence-based view of any phenomenon in nature. And science adopts an evidence-based view as its most-precious methodology, thus squeezing out all the space in which a faith-based ‘methodology’ might operate. No scientific paper in a reputable publication has ever referred to a Biblical or faith-based explanation for any phenomenon in nature. This is not prejudice on the part of editors, it is the method of science.

  38. there are only three possible outcomes to Creation ‘science’

    A> there is no god and you go on looking like idiots forever trying to find and describe It
    B> there is a god that defies description and you go on looking like idiots forever trying to describe It
    C>there is a god that can be described and you describe It, thenceforth It is amongst the realm of observable phenomena, no longer supernatural, and the source of another infinity worth of unanswered questions

    I’m no bible scholar but isn’t that tantamount to blasphemy?

    at any rate, I stick to my earlier point: it seems as though your God went to an awful lot of trouble to avoid making us out of monkeys when they seem like a perfectly acceptable ingredient to me.

  39. Wow, Sparky you are too full of hate to carry on a conversation with. I hope some day you can learn toleration and humility, they would both do you wonders. I made the mistake of thinking this science blog would be different but there is something ingrained in the science worship crowd that makes so many of you hostile , intolerant and supremely bigoted. Reread your post folks, you should be ashamed but i doubt you will be. At this point i don’t care if your offended or not…you need to be told the truth about yourselves. Out of here……………………

    • Seeya.

      ‘Reread your post folks, you should be ashamed but i doubt you will be.’

      Really?!?!

      Make sure you take your god-complex with you.

      P.S. It’s not science worship, its called critical thinking.

    • Abandoning a discussion when you are losing it is a classic creationist tactic. They fear admitting that anything has been proven to them.

      I dare you to come back, Vesey. Honest people have nothing to fear from open discussion. Do not appeal to toleration when you are completely intolerant of proven facts. You are intolerant of logic and reason. Do not ask others to be humble just because they have shamed you with their honest approach to the facts.

      You are obviously afraid of these discussions. Time to outgrow that fear and open yourself to those facts you struggle so hard to deny.

  40. The only thing science doesn’t describe very well is the big bang. That, to me, is an abracadabra moment… very much like creationism. The floods, the dinosaurs and such were again magical moments where God created it and then removed it. If light takes 3 million years to travel from Andromeda galaxy to Earth, it doesn’t matter, God had it already in place 6000 years ago without light having to travel all that distance. If the kangaroo was meant to be in Australia, God mysteriously and magically placed them there after the flood. Remember the big bang, where did that come from?

    • In a lot of ways this sort of explanation is the only one that really makes sense from a scientific point of view – there’s no evidence FOR it really, but there’s also no evidence AGAINST it. If God created everything in-place – including fossils and geological evidence… created everything already pre-aged if you will, then at least it’s all consistent.

      But at that point, why don’t you just come to the conclusion that God did this because he intended us to believe that there was a billions-year history of the universe and you might as well go with that.

      Other corollary to this is wondering WHEN God created this pre-aged universe. Did he pop it into existence 6000 years ago? Or maybe he popped it into existence last night, and went ahead and pre-populated our memories of the past as well. Maybe this whole webpage/discussion was written by God too. Except for this last entry I just completed…

  41. The big bang actually has more proof then the idea that god created everything. We can observe the expansion of the universe and determine that it is expanding from a point. Then determine that at one time everything that is moving away from that point must have originated there and been flung away from that point by some explosive force. Now what evidence is there that god created the universe? Well the universe exists and the bible said god made the universe. So on one hand we have observable evidence and on the other a book of questionable historical value. If this were a courtroom one of these things would be inadmissible as hearsay.

  42. @vesey: first of all, elephants take years to grow to maturity before being able to reproduce, and baby elephants wouldn’t stand a chance as they spend many years being taught and taken care of by their family unit learning to survive.
    second a fairly decent number of the “ark animals” would be carnivorous? safe assumption, so once they get off the boat what are they eating?
    and third, are we really still debating the merits of noahs ark as a reality? sad
    btw everyone. Joe Rogan does a great bit on the subject, you tube it.

  43. Arguing with creationists and believers is fun, but it’s pointless. The very premise of religion is unfounded belief. The basic premise of science is ignorance-driven discovery of fact. So, believers can explain away anything by simply saying it is so. Scientists must search for answers and prove them.

    Science is imperfect. Models and theories are perfected and often supplanted. This is frequently used as a point of attack by believers who tell us that science is wrong since it changes while religion is right since it is immutable.

    Again, I enjoy baiting these psychotics as much as anyone, but what’s the point? I suggest instead that we give people a choice. If they want to believe in religion and have it taught to their children, they can do so, but they must renounce all scientific inventions, creations, and advancements achieved over the past two thousand years. Not a frickin’ aspirin or frozen t.v. dinner until they admit god does not exist and dinosaurs roamed the earth hundreds of millions of years ago.

  44. There was plenty of room on the Ark for all Earth’s creatures. Noah had small boxes, binoculars and his trusty pair of tweezers.
    Holding the small box in one hand he could look through the wrong end of the binoculars, pick up the animals with the tweezers and place them all into the box.
    Simple.

    150+ comments and no mention of the word “flagellum”?
    /sigh

  45. It’s important to try to understand why people believe in creationism. It’s because they are afraid – of the dark, of damnation, of the “other;” and hopeful that their faith will save them. You will never convince them that they are wrong when their peace-of-mind depends on their believing they are right.

  46. Being a biblical creationist isn’t just bad science, it’s REALLY bad biblical study. The problem with Science Mom and her ilk isn’t just that they don’t take the time to study science, they also don’t take the time to learn Hebrew (or Greek) and actually understand its use and history. There is so much nuance, puns, allegory, etc that if you base your world view off of the english reading (and add in fundamentalist ideology) you flat out don’t know the very bible that you say you follow. The truth (or fact) is while these creationist types say they are bible believing they are not. What they believe in is fundamentalist theology that is only vaguely based upon the bible.

    If you’re supposed to take the bible literally, please tell me where in the bible it says so? No, the literal interpretation is based on your theology, NOT the actual bible itself.

    These people believe in neither the Bible or science, nor do they have any faith to speak of, other than maybe what mommy or daddy believed. If they actually had faith they would challenge their assumptions and build their beliefs on the rock, not the shifting sands of such a limited understanding of scripture combined with voodoo theology. The problem is they don’t have the faith to learn the original languages, learn the Bible, learn to use the brains that God gave them and because of this they won’t challenge their assumptions. They know full well that if they did so the house of cards that they call their belief system would come crumbling down and without a strong mind and a strong faith built through the exercising of each they would have nothing to replace that house of cards with.

  47. Bottom line is that you evolutionists have no complaint. If there is no God there is no moral code and thus there is no wrong or right. We can go out and commit murder, rape or child abuse with impunity if your belief system is true so what are you complaining about? The only reason there is a moral code amongst any of us is that the God we are ultimately accountable to after death put it in us. If we all end up as dirt we can do what we want and the evolutionist can not, if they are being truly honest with themselves, claim to care. The very fact that they resist creationist teaching and preaching shows they are threatened by the ultimate moral code they claim does not exist.

    THOU DOST PROTEST TOO MUCH PRINCESS!

    • Wow! Can someone actually believe this? In countries without a state religion are rates of violent crime that much higher? Does earthly punishment (ending up in the slammer for the rest of your days) not have more influence than the stories about one god (amongst many) offering some kind of punishment? And what does this have to do with the fact that species evolve and that the dynamic appears to be natural selection.

  48. All of this arguing about evolution misses the point that this museum is getting $25 from each visitor, far more than any museum I’ve visited, for exhibits which cost very little to create.

    Talk about fleecing the flock.

    • If religious organizations have spent millenia fooling people, $25 seems par for the course, and a minor soaking in comparison.

  49. You’d all be surprised to know the # of creationists that teach science in school classrooms across the country. In fact, they are even found in certain public university science departments where they are not hunted by those intent on excluding them.

  50. i only have one thing to say to this mom………

    behold …and TREMBLE !!! BEHOLD his noodley goodness !! embrace the one true god!!

    http://www.venganza.org/

    RAMEN!!!

    seriously though……….WTF? hopefully the kids will have enough brain matter to question their own mother.

    p.s. how many people have been killed in the name of “God” ??

    i believe george said it best

  51. goo goo ga ga ga ………
    proverbs 14:33 Wisdom rests in the heart of him who has understanding, But what is in the heart of fools is made known.
    prov 14:6 A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.
    Ecc 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

  52. I’m not certain the place you are getting your information, but good topic. I needs to spend a while finding out more or figuring out more. Thank you for excellent information I used to be searching for this info for my mission.

  53. It’s going to be ending of mine day, except before end I am reading this enormous paragraph to increase my knowledge.

  54. Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you really understand what you’re speaking about! Bookmarked. Please additionally seek advice from my web site =). We can have a link trade contract among us

  55. I blog often and I truly thank you for your information.

    Your article has truly peaked my interest. I am going to bookmark
    your blog and keep checking for new information about
    once per week. I opted in for your RSS feed as well.

Comments are closed.