Hey! Did you ever want to go to the Creationist Museum but couldnt find the time?
 

Well now you can.

IU Atheist Make Online Stir with Creation Science Museum Video

This is from an email.

I'd rather see raptors and Wooly Mammoths! Grrrrr. ;)

Um, no thanks.

They could have been a lot more disrespectful, kudos to them.

Can I just say, in the UK, far more people would be going there just for laughs than to be educated annd uplifted. And we have a State religion.

RK highlighted this place before departing. It scared me then and it scares me now. Trying not to step on anyone's relegious toes here but... a God that demands such twisted logic.. or a God that dictates what pants you wear.. or facial hair.. or makes you wear something on your forehead.. or not eat meat on a special day.. or kill an animal in a certain way.. Crikey me. How did that pedant ever manage to create a world in 6 days? Surely he would still have been quibbling about whether a zebra is black with white stripes or white with black on day 10,067!

[stomp. stomp. stomp]

:lol:

The head of which is a nutter.

Of course. It is a religion.

Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

The latest stegosaurus -- seems his tail spikes actually stick out port and starboard, and he has little osteoderms mailing his entire throat.

Mammoths? They got mammoths/pachyderms. Columbian Mammoth skull and a complete skeleton of an oddball elephantine critter with short tusks and a long jaw. Hyaenodons and Miocene pigs (giant warthogs, sort of) and a very large carnivorous pig I'd hunt with an elephant gun, a pro hunter backing me up -- and antidiarrheal medication! The gun's for him, the meds for me. He's got teeth big enough to carve quite large chessmen from.

One each mammoth tooth the size and shape of a meatloaf and a mastodon tooth, every bit as big, with its row of eight cusps, telling us the two ate very differently.

And that Prehistoric Journey exhibit isn't just the dinos, but the entire bio-/geological history of the planet. See! Ediacaran seascapes! See! Ordovician nautiloids! See! Potassium-40/Argon-40-bearing gneissy rock 1.2 billion years old, and pass the business end of a Geiger counter over it -- it's 50 counts over background, and was hotter back in the day! See! Giant Carboniferous dragonflies and funny-looking plants! Thrill to the Dimetrodon! See! Cute primates that look like lemurs! Admire the smilodontia of the Smilodon down in the lobby, and check out the newly discovered creodont Malfelis badwaterensis! Looks like a stretched lion with a long nose. Yes, the name really does mean "bad kitty from Badwater."

The place used to be called the Denver Museum of Natural History. They've expanded some from those days.

Please don't think all creationists believe that God created everything in six sequential literal 24 hour days.
Personally I don't, and there are scientists who are creationists that also believe that the evidence indicates creation occurred over a long period of time.
Dr. Hugh Ross and his group are one example.

I fact checked and found Hugh Ross along with the mention that he accepts 'dual revelation'.

I will will withhold any references to 'doublethink' and simply say that IMO it appears that dual revelation is a method by which one reconciles the difference between evolution and a literal interpretation of the bible by saying that both are correct but that we imperfect humans are reading the bible wrong.

From Inherit the Wind (but you won't find it in the quotes section)

Dual Revelation is explained here.

Interesting find richlevy.

Let me add some more information for you.

Progressive creationism does not contradict a literal understanding of the Bible. Heres why:
In Genesis 1 we read that God created everything in this physical universe. It further breaks down into six time periods the creative acts of God.
Translated into the English language as "day" in these verses is the Hebrew word- "yom".
Yom has a few definitions and many uses and applications, not just one.

It can mean the daylight hrs of a "day", a 24 hr. day/night period, its used in terms like Day of Something, or a time of something, or in the broadest reference- a period of time- various lengths in different uses.

So how well does a Creator creating new aspects of creation in six periods of time(referenced by modern man possibly as supereons, eons, eras, epochs) over the first billions of years of the universe's existence compare with the Genesis account?
Perfectly until you try to dogmatically claim that [yom] can only mean a 24 hr. time period, which has unfortunately become the prevailing interpretation. *(one of the reasons for my signature below) :o

How well does progressive creationism fit with scientific evidence? As a model it fits perfectly from the Big Bang onward.

I usually go to museums to learn something.

It just might be a little boring.

I don't reject the idea outright; but I do take exception to the word "evidence" being attched to the idea.

The laws of physics unfolding into the universe as we know it, described as an act of creation by a deity, is more a matter of semantics. If you define the deity to mean the sum total of the universe, and the laws of the universe simply an expression of said deity, then you have metaphorically reconciled science and crationism...but in a way that is not subject to be verified by evidence, nor would it be appropriate to attempt to do so.

I have not been educated within any religious framework, so I'm hoping someone can clarify what the work "holiness" means, at least within this context.

My God is a Celestial Mechanic.

And if you're eternal, having literally all the time there is, there's not a lot of reason not to take your time, and dare I say, do it right. Thirteen billion Earthly years is a mighty span of time. A lot can happen. A Creation that goes of itself, from the Big Bang onwards, seems to me to have a lot of divine wisdom to it. Saves a lot of labor on the part of the Almighty, for one thing -- no call to bust a separate miracle for each species -- and a whole lot of those, 99% of which that ever lived are presently extinct, and to what end if any? -- nor to determine the relative proportions of the elements of the periodic table and their properties.

Young-Earthing it, and Creationism, strike me as attempts to nail the Eternal into a crate built to human specifications. That very well-loved Bible counsels against this very thing -- and there are a good many believers wise enough to keep this in mind.

I'm a believer -- for I have no idea why the Big Bang banged. I could say "God did it," and speak no worse nonsense than anyone else.

Hmm. Tough. That you have to ask may mean you'd never know.

But.

There is that which is godly, and there is that which is not. At the least. That's the simplest. Falsehood, well, that is not godly. Godhead may of itself make falsehood impossible. Though there is empirical evidence all around that truth is not necessarily obvious, nor laid bare. The ontological universe in which we live remains subtle, whether we like it or not. We who ruminate upon matters philosophic should take a lesson in that.

Another lesson may be drawn: if Godhead makes falsity impossible, it's an illustration of just how far from Godhead we mortals really are. Definitely deflates the ol' hubris.

Other than the timeframe, Genesis has the order wrong. Stars predate Earth, let alone grass and fruit.

I'm a belliever wow.

I f*&k up every post somehow
believer

HLJ, God's personal character that is defined as His holiness is virtually impossible for humans with limited speech to fully describe. I'll make a separate thread for it as soon as I can.
Meantime, holiness refers at once to His perfect, pure sinlessness.
God is incapable of sin; its impossible for Him to think, let alone do anything wrong, anything period.
Perfect love, selfless in nature, desiring only what is the absolute best for all others with no selfish restrictions or motives, just pure love.
Love, pure love beyond our human capabilities to understand because we aren't able to totally extract our selfish nature's from our loving.
And like UG said, falsehood cannot exist within God.
In the ways that we are tempted... God is not. Nor can He actually be tempted to do any wrong.
God's holiness also incorporates His other personality and character traits. Its an awesome study to do.
An excellent start would be reading A.W. Tozer's small book on the Holiness of God.

As you can see in the above, I define God as a specific being with a personality and character.

UG- I had explained to me by a college professor a fascinating definition of eternity in which all of time since its creation at the big bang exists separately from eternity. Sweet stuff.

Check this out:

http://www.passionup.com/fun/fun4528...mp=1&confirm=1

Best part is...name of the page is PassionUp, and its about touching babies...

If it's beyond our human capabilities to understand, don't you think you're being presumptuous, assigning these definitions? Why do you think you have the right to do this? Because some guys wrote somewhere that it's okay?

bluecuracao, you misread my post. I apologize for not being more clear.

I didn't say ; rather I said that its ... the key word in that sentence is fully. There is a world of difference in meaning.
My stated meaning provides for a fantastic opportunity to discover and experience God, to discover personally more about Him than we can adequately describe to someone else in our limited ability with words.
That isn't to say that we can't describe a great deal of what we know with language, just pointing out its limitations when trying to describe the eternal, limitlessness of God, and in this case His Holiness.