Martin Redfern: For some a battle between science and religion is being fought for the soul of America. The Creationists argue God created the world in six days and want their beliefs given equal status to evolutionary science. Petersburg, Kentucky, is in the middle of North America. It is supposedly within a day's drive of two-thirds of the US population. For the rest, it is just 10 minutes from Cincinnati International Airport. That is why it was picked as the site for a new museum, due to open in a couple of months. We enter the landscaped grounds through gates flanked by wrought iron stegosaurs. The lobby is modelled on a cliff in the Grand Canyon. But this is no ordinary museum of science and geology. It is the dream of Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry that promotes the idea that the Biblical book of Genesis should be taken literally in describing the creation of the world, life and humans as carried out by God over a six-day period a few thousand years ago. We get as far as the museum bookshop - already well-stocked with creationist titles - but no further. Officials tell us that state regulations forbid it. It is still under construction and closed to visitors.

View: Full Article | Source: BBC News

Ugh... I'd take him... well I wouldn't take him seriously even if he had a degree in bio-sciences because of his "The bible is fact filled fun and science is the devils" attitude he seemingly has. This museum is just trying to anger and mock scientifical theories that have more status, evidence and fair investigations than the bible ever had - apart from the only "evidence" The bible.

But still, it's their right and anyone that visits. Let's hope they don't get too stupid afterwards.

Some people have more money than sense ... The bloke is a complete idiot..

i live in cincinnati and i think im going to go.. not because i believe but i just want to see how they could make a museum out of genesis... dont think ill take the kids to this one.

I believe this is called dogmatism... trying to force your beliefs onto other people as if they were fact.


The bottom line is, they cannot provide any proof to support the argument that god created the earth in 6 days, 5000 years ago or whatever it is... and therefore, it cannot be allowed to become an acceptable theory by scientific standards. If it does, then it will be a MOCKERY of science.

DNA is the scientific evidence of the Creator. Its complexity and order proves it was designed by a Supreme Architect!

that proves nothing sorry bud... just because something is complex dosent mean it has to be created...

heh i wonder if there will be people riding on dinos lol

Considering humans suffer from fallen arches, back-aches, vision problems, mental illness, jaw too small for wisdom teeth, and a narrow birth canal (to name a few), not to mention organs that have no apparent function such as the appendix and possibly the tonsils, I would have to argue the architect needs to look over the blueprints one more time. That, and the whole question pertaining to nipples on males (which are useless) when the purpose of them is to feed newborns by females, who were created after males. Shouldn't nipples be absent on males if this is the case? Unless females were created first, but again that would go against what the Bible says. Not everything one reads should be taken as the absolute truth...just look at The Onion or Weekly World News.

I am familiar with Ken Ham and his work, as well as some of the others involved in his work. I think that if you were to argue point by point with him, you'd probably lose on every point. He's extremely intelligent, quick, and the evolutionist arguments are a little too weak for any other outcome. Don't mock what you don't know.

As for the others who simply call names or scorn what they don't believe, do you consider yourself high-minded or base? How should a true scientist respond to someone who questions their 'Theory' with science? Probably not with mockery and name-calling...

I'd encourage you to actually try and learn something.

As for evolution, the weakest point in my opinion is the belief that a mutation of existing DNA can actually add to the DNA strand... this belief defies all observation unless we work from prior assumption that it 'had' to occur. And those prior assumptions require the throwing out of the entire scientific method of merely observing and reporting on what is observed... remember the definition of science... speculation simply isn't in there.

JS

I probably would lose point by point. That's because I do not know the fundamentals of evolution, I understand the basic principle. Evolutionary scientists points are hardly weak, they understand what they have learnt so far through through study of fossils, darwinian theory (natural selection) of life on earth in the present, how bacteria functions in almost any envirnment and how it adapts to that.
You neither have to encourage me or tell me to "try and learn something" as I do everyday, I think you should take your own advice in the mean time
If you understood that mutations happen in the DNA of an individual then it's obvious that the DNA either has a damaged, absent or added DNA stand. Many DNA mutations are hazardess and lead to mental or physical disabilities, however it has been noted and observed that it can also be beneficial to a species - think finches.

an intelligant, quick witted man does not mean he speaks the truth. It just implies that he's smart and quick witted, nothing more nothing less, however his statement of wanting creationism to be an accepted scientifical theory is utterly preposterous. Seeing as the only "evidence" he has is the bible, fraud incan stones. Heck, the bible uses mythology from almost everywhere, seeing as the Torah also uses (and mocks - think devil) other religious mythology. Scientific theory of imaginary friends? no thanks.

Really? He's so intelligent that he thinks the Flintstones is like an educational film based on fact?

Evolution has actual evidence to support it's theory... Both living and non-living. Creation has zero. Creation cannot even be tested nor can the claims of such delusions be even seen.

I can easily say I worship and believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves!) and use all the same arguements that guy is using. He won't be more right then I am because he simply can't disprove the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Same goes for argueing with a mentally disturbed person on the existance of their own delusions.



Creation isn't science though. Science welcomes people to disprove all areas of knowledge for a better understanding of the world around us. Made up delusions don't hold much water in the bowl.



Yet, there there limitations on theories while still being science. Science has mountains of evidence...Everything from millions of fossils to every day dogs that are bred for a purpose.

To ah.. explain a few..

Tonsils are needed, they are a lymph gland. They basicaly are one of the many we have that helps filter the lymph that flows through our body.

Apendexis aid with digestion, but not so much as it does with other animals.

As for the nipples on men... when we start out in the womb, we're all female. It just takes the genetic make up a bit of time to actually form the males. And, top that off with, men can lactate. Given the right herbs, the right stimulations, you guys can produce milk! X)

i think babie can lactate when their stil newborn i believe... and yeah its nuts how we are all women in womb the package looks a lil strange hahaha

This is a religion, it is not science. A story in a book does not challenge evolution, sorry creationist museum.

id go visit it if someone paid the airfare, busfare, entrance...other than that i think its a complete waste of money...
might be good for a laugh tho.
this guy is obviously as mad as a bag of badgers.
does it even qualify as a museum rather than an exhibit?
no doubt he'll make loads of cash from folk who would otherwise be throwing it at televangelists...

If I debated with Ken Ham in public, I would probably lose - but not because of my arguments. Evolution doesn't lend itself to simplistic one-liner talking points like Creationism, and guys like Ham frequently 'stack the deck' of an audience in their favor.



True scientists have responded to creationist claims - with science. It's their creationist opponents who, in a rather not-so-surprising reversal of the 'turning the other cheek', calling them 'godless atheists' and accuse their theory of being responsible for 'moral decline' in society (witness Tom Delay claiming that the teaching of evolution helped lead to the Columbine shootings.)



The same to you - and I'll provide a link. Go to Talk Origins, actually do some serious reading there, then come back. I did it for the Answers in Genesis website, which was thoroughly enlightening with regards to the nonsense being spoken by the creationist movement.



It's also completely wrong, since we've seen this happen in nature, and have a mechanism. Witness flavobacterium k172. Try again.

creationists = an example of man moving backwards.

why is the question. Usually out of fear of modern society man tends to retreat to backwards thinking. burning of books is another example. Truth tends to be the first to go.

He isn't forcing nobody, that's evolution

Ok, it's extremely clear you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't seen his material and you haven't considered his arguments. It is foolish to argue against something you've never heard or understood...

Yes, you can worship a pink unicorn. No, you cannot use the same arguments that Ken Ham uses (I don't think you'll find support for the worship of a pink unicorn in the fossil record, yes, Ken does use the fossil record correctly).

Creation is not science. Science is observation. None of what Ken Ham believes in any way contradicts what is observed through science. Your sticking to this issue simply shows your ignorance about his arguments. Yes, science has mountains of evidence... but even the evolutionist scientists constantly have to re-interpret the evidence, which means that they know their first interpretation was false. Are you saying that you're confident that whatever interpretation they're currently on (as if they all agree) is the correct one?

Simply... laughable.

JS

Oh, Creation isn't science in the way that evolution isn't science. They are theories. One who cannot handle challenges must have a serious insecurity issue...

Nice try on your part...

Problem is, frame-shift mutations Do Not create new information, they rearrange existing information into a new form. You have the exact same amount of information (same number of letters). No information was added. The page you reference is a good explanation of frame-shift mutations, but the conclusion of information added to the DNA is patently false. Mutation requires something to exist to mutate.

Now, that said, there are examples of information added... some creatures are born X X X or X X Y... bingo! information added... just not to the DNA

JS

Yes, they do- and you would have recognized that had you actually, seriously, read the page rather than taking off as soon as you saw 'frame-shift mutation.' The Nylon-eating bug was included specifically because it was an example of a nucleotide being added to the genome of the organism, adding information.

We'll take his simplified example....

Notice, you have the same number of characters at the end as at the beginning. When a frame-shift mutation occurs, some information is lost (literally shifted out). No information is merely 'added'. Yes, you can get a new result, but it's the same amount of information. The way he words it is deceptive... but even he admits the reality if you read it thoroughly.

JS

I believe that if you look at the status of DNA in general, you'll actually see a collective degradation over time. This would be consistent with what we know of the law of Entropy. While the law of Entropy is in reality also merely a theory, I think it's relevance as far as the whole evolution/intelligent design argument is important. You must choose one or the other, for both can't be true without an outside inputting order.

JS

Edit: oh... and the ease with which certain bacterium can adapt suggests something other than evolution anyway.... take a look at http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf. You'll see that within 9 days at 30 degrees celsius they were able to mimic this 'mutation'. I would posit (as does AIG, that the bacteria are equipped to make this adaptation anyway. That said, the frame-shift mutations still do exist, this bacteria just may be a valid example.

There is far more evidence for Evolution than there will ever be for creation. Creation evidence is Genesis 2 and a few 'gaps' which haven't been explained by science yet.

And even if there is evidence for creation, who says it's the christian version of creation? What if there was evidence for the Australian Aborigine's version of creation or the countless other creation myths which no one believes in these days?

Aren't females the defualt gender and that is the whole reason men still have nipples? Or was science completely wrong on that one

Hmm...I can smell the bull#### from here.

First, I am not religious. So, so I do not know about so-called Creationism. But, if they want to pursue paleontological research, what has the Bible got to do with it? If they discuss the merits of a topic, and conduct research, what has religion got to do with that?

Anyway, I was wondering how and when the basis of the Bible went from oral tradition to written tradition. Apparently, it began when the Romans outlawed Jewish religious discussions, so a Jewish scribe (not too many of them, at that point) began to write down their beliefs, instead.

Point I am getting at is, even if oral tradition was accurate, this article states that laws would be passed by rival groups, that changed teachings. And, thus, the process of ultimate reliability becomes suspect. This unreliability might be part of the system, for a long time- even into the late Roman era, for all I know.

So, it might be best to leave religion out of science, and just discuss research.

Here is a quote that seems to make sense. Beyond that, the webpage also mentions how argumentative the Jews were about relgion, going so far as to enact laws to change previous beliefs.

Quote-

"We can find many, many levels of meaning even according to our limited intellect; the more we delve, the more we stand stilled and awestruck by the wondrous wisdom of the word of God. And even though we know that we shall never reveal the true nature of this matter, we are still commanded to explore and investigate. As many of our greatest thinkers and sages have stated, "the highest level of knowledge is to know that we know nothing at all."

Source-

http://www.templeinstitute.org/red_heifer/oral_tradition.htm

Gene duplication, retrotransposons?

They should also make "creationist" museums for other religions, not only christianity. bah..

A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y!

Let's give equal time to all creation myths. "Teach the controversy" about which of the many creation myths we're supposed to support.

There are lots of myths of humans crawling out of a hole in the earth:
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/miranda.htm#AUS
http://www.lapahie.com/Creation.cfm

And other myths:
http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/babylon.htm

Here's a fun one:
http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religio...eation_myth.htm

Here's a great one! A flood kills everybody but a brother and sister. Sister doesn't want to have sex with brother but brother manages to trick her and has sex with her. Brother murders the misshapen monster that issues from her loins and cuts it to pieces. The many pieces of his murdered child become men and women and populate the earth. Wow!
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/chinaflood.html

Here are lots and lots of creation myths:
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

If we give equal time to each creation myth, as is only fair if we start teaching even one of them as if it was somehow science, there won't be enough time in a school career to even list all of them!

Well, I suppose for this guys sake, he had better pray alot that his museum isn't a total failure.