Creation Museum - Video

[supercorgi]

Okay, question 2, I did a search on here for any forums where you may have already discussed this, and why creationalists claim that carbon dating has been debunked. I don't want to get into the debate again, but I can't track down their key points. Well, real key points, and not a crocoduck arguement ("the world is 6,000 years old so carbon dating must be wrong!").

Well as to the creationists crazy claims, you can check the www.answersingenesis.org website where they lay all this stuff out. Here's the link to their claim about carbon dating: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

 

[TheGline]

Is there any serious talk about creating some kind of systematic response to any of their claims? I don't know that it would mean half the people who go through that museum would take it seriously, but at least we (I'm using the editorial "we") wouldn't let something like this simply stand.

 

[Orangutan]

Interesting mindset from the woman at the end:

"I was raised believing this is true, So evolution to me is ridiculous"

 

[joobz]

Is there any serious talk about creating some kind of systematic response to any of their claims? I don't know that it would mean half the people who go through that museum would take it seriously, but at least we (I'm using the editorial "we") wouldn't let something like this simply stand.

Such arguments exist. Go to talkorigins.com
I personally think the whole thing is a nonstarter for two simple reasons: false dichatomy and non-scientific nature of the argument.

1.) creationists believe that to disprove evolution proves creationism. There are multiple religious theories as to the origin of the world. Why is the bible story any more likely? This is inherently illogical and would equal an end game for any rational person.

2.) ID (whether it is creationism or any other) is not testable. Therefore it is simply not science.

 

[Wowbagger]

What concerns me most is that they are not even willing to "play fair". They are probably not even going to give the Theory of Evolution an accurate representation, whenever they attempt to discuss what it is.

I'm willing to bet there will be "crockoducks"* in there.

(*Kirk Cameron's photoshopped saltation, that he tried to pass off as a "transitional fossil".)

 

[Baron Samedi]

Well as to the creationists crazy claims, you can check the www.answersingenesis.org website where they lay all this stuff out. Here's the link to their claim about carbon dating: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

found this link
http://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/
gives a decent summation into how it works. The problem is that when people refer to carbon dating of the world, they are really talking about several radiodecay measurement methods, each of which have pluses and minuses (as most analytical techniques).

However, if you are completely aware of your sample and what the catches are, it is a highly reliable source of information. It's the fact that scientists admit the limitations of their techniques that makes creationists think "A-ha, then it's wrong."

Awesome! Thank you kindly for this. It's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. (Albeit I did catch two or three "crocoducks" in there.) I'll check the remaining links at the bottom of the ITODT webpage.

 

[c4ts]

I think it goes back to the ancient Christian tradition of employing science and philosophy in the service of what Christians want to be true, rather than for genuine understanding.

 

[Solus]

This sums up my response.

 

[darnell11]

I wonder if the museum has a display that shows us how humans protected themselves from the dinosaurs? It would be interesting to see how they explain how people lived, what sort of homes they had, and how they kept themselves from being preyed upon by very large, not to mention fast, MEAT eating dinos. Or even from smaller, fast, meat eating dinos, who may have been pests, stealing food and babies and such.

Also, I wonder if the museum explains exactly how the dinos were managed on the ark. Not just how they kept them from killing everything on board, and how they delt with the large piles of dung and such, but how did they feed them all? That must have been one hell of an ark to hold two or eight (whatever it was) of every species, plus dinos, and also enough plants and fruits and meat for them all. And it must have smelled pretty bad inside!

Another thing, someone, please explain to creationists what carbon dating is. It is not that hard to figure out what carbon dating actually is and what it actually is used to date and what it is not used to date.

 

[darnell11]

Interesting mindset from the woman at the end:

"I was raised believing this is true, So evolution to me is ridiculous"

Ummm...nice logic there, lady.

Yeah, that statement pretty much explains why the museum was created in the first place, because of that sort of thinking. Shameful, it is.

 

[ChristineR]

I wonder if the museum has a display that shows us how humans protected themselves from the dinosaurs? It would be interesting to see how they explain how people lived, what sort of homes they had, and how they kept themselves from being preyed upon by very large, not to mention fast, MEAT eating dinos. Or even from smaller, fast, meat eating dinos, who may have been pests, stealing food and babies and such.

Also, I wonder if the museum explains exactly how the dinos were managed on the ark. Not just how they kept them from killing everything on board, and how they delt with the large piles of dung and such, but how did they feed them all? That must have been one hell of an ark to hold two or eight (whatever it was) of every species, plus dinos, and also enough plants and fruits and meat for them all. And it must have smelled pretty bad inside!

Another thing, someone, please explain to creationists what carbon dating is. It is not that hard to figure out what carbon dating actually is and what it actually is used to date and what it is not used to date.

Creationists disagree on these points, but the people who own this museum claim that all dinos were vegetarians before the flood, and that they were hunted to extinction shortly thereafter.

The ark did not hold all those animals but rather only two of each "kind." It's not clear what a kind is--it seems to be just enough species variation to make everything fit on the arc. Like a genus. Sort of. After the flood the two survivors bred rapidly and underwent super-rapid evolution (yes evolution) to turn two dogs into all those jackals, wolves, foxes, coyotes, and dingos.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Creationists disagree on these points, but the people who own this museum claim that all dinos were vegetarians before the flood, and that they were hunted to extinction shortly thereafter.

The ark did not hold all those animals but rather only two of each "kind." It's not clear what a kind is--it seems to be just enough species variation to make everything fit on the arc. Like a genus. Sort of. After the flood the two survivors bred rapidly and underwent super-rapid evolution (yes evolution) to turn two dogs into all those jackals, wolves, foxes, coyotes, and dingos.

Those bigass super pointy teeth were for plants and berries?!

Am I the only one on crack here? Oh, wait, I get it. Dinosaurs fed on coconuts. I understand now.

 

[joobz]

Creationists disagree on these points, but the people who own this museum claim that all dinos were vegetarians before the flood, and that they were hunted to extinction shortly thereafter.

The ark did not hold all those animals but rather only two of each "kind." It's not clear what a kind is--it seems to be just enough species variation to make everything fit on the arc. Like a genus. Sort of. After the flood the two survivors bred rapidly and underwent super-rapid evolution (yes evolution) to turn two dogs into all those jackals, wolves, foxes, coyotes, and dingos.

Well there's that theory and the possibility that after the arc, god said, "um forget it" and reset the world but never told anyone. So all evidence of the flood was gone and the dinosaurs were only here. Then he realized he forgot people, and put them back on the earth. After they were all killed by the dinosaurs. god got mad and killed the Dinosaurs and buried them. But he realized that the world now was baren. So he destroyed the universe and created a new one. After this universe, he made earth and just had the ark crash into a mountain. That mountain exploded and scattered all life arround the planet. The dinosaurs being a bit lesser, didn't survive this scattering. All other species landed and evolved in super extra secret methods that made them populate each area with untold number of organisms. Some even decided to break down and become bacteria and viruses while others decided it'd be nicer to be plants.

God was really confused by all of this goings on and destroyed the universe again and just recreated everything back to the way it is today, end of story.
But he never told us of this, because we wouldn't understand.

 

[ChristineR]

You see, I am just giving you Ken Hamm's teaching on the whole thing. Ken doesn't hedge on the implausibility part. He just assumes the Bible is true and finds the best way to fit the facts to what he's already decided. Other creationists have vastly different ideas, which might just tell you something....

 

[darnell11]

Creationists disagree on these points, but the people who own this museum claim that all dinos were vegetarians before the flood, and that they were hunted to extinction shortly thereafter.

The ark did not hold all those animals but rather only two of each "kind." It's not clear what a kind is--it seems to be just enough species variation to make everything fit on the arc. Like a genus. Sort of. After the flood the two survivors bred rapidly and underwent super-rapid evolution (yes evolution) to turn two dogs into all those jackals, wolves, foxes, coyotes, and dingos.

Right...so why would a creator give vegetarians teeth and claws much more suited for tearing meat? Their logic is insane. Thanks for filling me in, though.

 

[joobz]

You see, I am just giving you Ken Hamm's teaching on the whole thing. Ken doesn't hedge on the implausibility part. He just assumes the Bible is true and finds the best way to fit the facts to what he's already decided. Other creationists have vastly different ideas, which might just tell you something....

Oh, I know. I was just having fun taking the logic to it's extreme.

 

[ChristineR]

I'm not sure about Ken's position on the sharp teeth, but one possible explanation is that God knew some dinosaurs would become carnivorous someday and so provided them sharp teeth. So that they would someday figure it out and become carnivorous, I guess.

Remember, complex features can't evolve, so God has to think ahead!

 

[Jon.]

Creationists disagree on these points, but the people who own this museum claim that all dinos were vegetarians before the flood, and that they were hunted to extinction shortly thereafter.

The ark did not hold all those animals but rather only two of each "kind." It's not clear what a kind is--it seems to be just enough species variation to make everything fit on the arc. Like a genus. Sort of. After the flood the two survivors bred rapidly and underwent super-rapid evolution (yes evolution) to turn two dogs into all those jackals, wolves, foxes, coyotes, and dingos.

This raises some very interesting (and possibly unanswerable) questions.

• Was there one dinosaur "kind" or several? How many?
• How rapidly did the dinosaur "kind(s)" have to evolve to give the hundreds of species now known to have existed?
• Why would God have caused/allowed this to happen?
• Why is there no record in the Bible of the sudden extinction of all the dinosaurs at some unnamed time after the flood? Surely this would have been memorable and worth recording?

Just a few more questions Ken Ham will never be able to answer, I guess.

 

[Zep]

And how did the slow-moving arborial koalas who feed only on gum-leaves travel all the way 20,000kms to Australia from Mt Ararat (in Turkey??), across huge mountain ranges and thousands of kilometres of open ocean, without leaving any trace whatsoever of ancestors or fossils or anything on the way? Ditto wombats. And kangaroos.

The excuses from creationists for this have to be read to be believed. They demonstrate just how crackpot these people really are.

Except for Ken Ham. He knows this is all bunkum, but he plays along for the fame and money. So he's in the same league as Sylvia Browne.

 

[Cuddles]

Those bigass super pointy teeth were for plants and berries?!

You want to watch out for those berries. Take your arm off if you're not careful. Of course, most of the really bad ones were eaten into extinction by the dinosaurs. Who then died out because without vicious man-eating berries to hunt they got bored and just sort of wandered off.