Photos of the Creation Museum in Kentucky
Rather than using science, the Creation Museum employs emotional messages to push its own scientific propaganda.
During a recent cross country trip, we stopped by the new Creation Museum in Kentucky. We wanted to see this with our own eyes. We took a few photos while we were there.
Sara in front of the Creation Museum, Kentucky
Ted in front of the Creation Museum, Kentucky
7 C’s in God’s Eternal Plan
My reaction to these 7 C’s
Humans and dinosaurs, living together. Photo taken in the lobby of the museum.
Of course!
Human reason and God’s word aren’t compatible?
I guess they aren’t.
It’s interesting that one has to have a ’starting point’ at all. Why start with an assumption or bias at all?
Sara in front of the creation timeline.
Anyone else have a problem with the last bullet?
Evil wears many faces
Sara standing inside of Noah’s ark.
To read this one, click on the enlarged version of this photo in Flickr.
Sara and I. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this one, but the dinosaurs are just out of the shot.
Rain? Geysers? The earth’s surface changed? Nice try. We previously gave this explanation more attention.
Why and how did the continents move so rapidly?
Apparently evolution (sorry, micro-evolution) happens unnaturally fast as well. Convenient.
The Bible explains dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs were named on false scientific beliefs? This museum is bold!
I thought Archaeopteryx looked more like this? But the Creation Museum suggests that most evolutionists consider Archaeopteryx to be a true bird, huh? I think the folks at Talk Origins might have something to say about that!
Naturally.
How long did Noah have to define the word kind?
Of course! Just take the babies.
And the flood killed the rest.
That’s a stretch, don’t you think? The Bible doesn’t sound too sure of itself.
Nice use of the word probably.
Who comes up with these explanations?
These guys?
Wow - I’m impressed that your brains didn’t turn to mush in that place! Thanks for braving the danger and sharing your adventure with the rest of us.
How many times did you and Sara burst out in gales of laughter and draw angry stares from the Christians all around you?
Written by the chaplain on June 11th, 2008Chap, we knew it would be bad but we really did want to experience it firsthand. I cannot stress enough that this museum was not science. It was more like being at church with more decoration. Pure human emotion instead of actual scientific accuracy.
We weren’t sure just how much other people in the museum believed in the stuff. Sara and I definitely tried to keep our opinions to ourselves.
Written by Ted Goas on June 11th, 2008Pretty funny stuff, Ted.
It’s unbelievable to me that people, in today’s day and age, with the general knowledge we have, would fall for that nonsense.
However, sadly, it seems there are many. Certainly enough to support and pay for a Museum like this one.
Thanks for sharing that.
–Trance, AvC
Written by Trance Gemini on June 12th, 2008wow.
Seriously?
I laugh at how easily they manipulate the evidence that goes against young Earth creation. They might as well call this the “Poe’s Law Museum.” Thanks for the pics otherwise I would have never understood how crazy they are! They generally hide the completely extreme stuff.
Written by DB on June 12th, 2008Good pictures. I have been to the ICR museum in San Diego and it is just as mind numbing although not as elaborate.
Written by James on June 13th, 2008I had to comment again just to say how funny this museum is. I can’t stop laughing two days later. I will one day make the Skeptical Monkey pilgrimage to this place and make a mockery of it as well.
Written by DB on June 14th, 2008James, wow and ICR museum, I’m intrigued to know more. Is is much different than the Creation Museum? Off to do some Internet research!
DB, I’d recommend to any skeptic to make the pilgrimage if it makes sense. We were driving across the northern US, so it made sense for us to swing by. While there, we were nice and didn’t open up our mouths in contention. Would you interested to see how other skeptics react.
Written by Ted Goas on June 14th, 2008I had to see it to believe it. Amazing! I love these pictures. They show how scary this situation really is.
Written by Bacchus on June 14th, 2008It’s strange - I think if it were a museum about say Egyptian or Norse gods and goddesses, it would be fascinating, maybe even beautiful. So many cultures throughout time have had detailed and interesting stories about how life came to be. I’ve been trying (and failing) to put my finger on why this then is so disturbing - perhaps it’s simply the presentation, as if it were purely logical to accept things as presented here. I suspect there’s more to it than that, though.
Written by fluorophore on June 15th, 2008fluorophore, it would be a different experience to go to an Egyptian mythology museum. But their explanations would probably be worded more like “At the time, it was commonly believed…”
At the Creation Museum, it was more like “This is what is says in the Bible, so everything else is wrong.” I try to be reserved when it comes to viewpoints that conflict with my own. But this museum is truly a crime against intelligence.
Written by Ted Goas on June 15th, 2008Whoever was that jerk who said more pics of Sara, less Ted, should be shot!
What? Oh, I-I gotta go.
Written by trog69 on June 16th, 2008Fascinating pictures.
The word “museum” is being used oddly. You’d any expect a self-styled “museum” to have at least something that wasn’t just a mock up. Although I can see their problem.
I
Written by heather on June 16th, 2008You have seen the truth and rejected it. God have mercy on you at Judgement day. Go ahead and laugh at me. I am the voice of truth.
Written by billy smith on June 16th, 2008We’re not going to laugh at you, Mr. Smith–we try very hard not to do that here–but I would like to know how you are so sure you’ve got “truth.” In Skeptical Monkey’s view, one needs evidence to prove truth. The Creation Museum has no evidence, only emotional appeals. As you can see from the above pictures, the musuem freely admits that the “human reason” view is totally different from the “god’s word” view. This has always puzzled me–if there is a god, why GIVE US human reason, and expect us to ignore it completely?
Sara
Written by Sara on June 16th, 2008What is disturbing about your pictorial presentation of the museum is the cheap shots and rather immature and silly comments you make about what you saw. You may not agree with what is being presented but what is presented is certainly not as silly as the thought that men evolved from lower forms of life over periods of millions of years. It is truly laughable that “some” (and, I grant you, probably “most”) scientists today actually are so arrogant that they actually think they know what went on “millions” of years ago. What ever position one may hold about the origins of life on this planet, it takes “faith” to believe it. You may scoff at the message put forth by those who established this museum but for those of us who are seriously seeking the truth about these things, it is refreshing to have the opportunity to consider alternatives to the “non-scientific” science of evolution. You do realize that you cannot apply true science to the “theory” of evolution because it is impossible to observe. There is no real evidence to prove it and therefore evolution is not scientific but rather, philosophical.
As far as the premise being put forth by the museum concerning the preference of God’s Word above human reasoning - the idea there is not that human reasoning is to be totally abandoned but rather to recognize that human reasoning is flawed and corrupted and subject to great amounts of error and bad judgment. The Word of God, we believe, is not.
Good, intelligent people are trying, by the grace of God, to find answers to life’s dilemmas because people around the world are suffering from the consequences of godlessness. It does little good for you to belittle them.
It is very easy to criticize - why not use your time to do something constructive.
Ross
Written by Ross on June 19th, 2008Ross, thanks for the comment. It’s always good to get other points of view on this site rather than just a chorus of like-minded people singing the same tune.
I agree that many of my comments are cheap shots. I wish you would have looked around our site a bit more before leaving your comment though. We are always reserved when it comes to making fun of things like religion or claiming that we have the definitive answer to a tough question. This was one of the only (if not THE only) article we’ve written that is this blatantly insulting.
As the author and photographer of the article, I stand by its tone. Please let me explain by reacting to a few of your comments above.
It’s interesting how you can speak on behalf of so many scientists. If I had to GUESS, I’d say that scientists readily admit they don’t know what happened millions of years ago for sure. Who does know? Christian fundamentalists claim they’ve got it right and everyone else (both religious and ‘godless’) has it wrong. Also, scientists don’t start with an existing conclusion that they attempt to prove.
So the process of data collecting and carbon dating mean nothing? It’s better than guessing (or sorry, philosophy), which is what we’ve got with the Bible. While far from perfect, science uses observable information around us to draw its conclusions. Well, I guess God could have created everything in six days, some 10,000 years ago and then just placed misleading evidence for us to find. Tangible, observable evidence leads us to believe in a 4 billion year old planet with evolving organisms.
Also, micro-evolution is observable. Try breeding pigeons. Or heck, dogs! Of course, evolution can be guided by the invisible hand of God, sure. I can’t disprove that.
Yes, there are many intelligent people trying to find answers. Some are Christians, some are godless, and some subscribe to religious beliefs that conflict with Christianity. I am not belittling all religious people, or even all Christians. In all honesty I don’t know many people who share my opinion on religion, most are theists in some capacity. I urge people, both religious and non-religious, to try finding answers. Despite being in the Holy Bible, Creation is not an answer.
We tried to do something constructive when we visited the Creation Museum. I went into it thinking that it would not be so bad and gave it the ol’ college try. The museum itself was very nicely designed, very modern, and the content was very clear.
However, the information in the museum is based upon a combination of science taken out of context and Christian ideology created by people who already have their minds made up. The Creation Museum is not like (gasp) science museums where the facts are simply presented to guests and that’s it.
The Creation Museum is very bold in its claims, so I don’t feel bad about being bold in my response. This museum deserves a much worse review.
Despite the fact you might be furious at my right now, I hope I didn’t not insult you too much. I have no gripes with many Christians (heck, I WAS one until recently). But I urge you to respect the though that not everyone agrees with your God, don’t think God’s word is sacred, and that the Bible is inerrant.
Rather than an attachment to beliefs and an ‘us against the world’ attitude, I urge you to have more religious tolerance and to do some research before coming over into the realm of science.
Written by Ted Goas on June 19th, 2008Ted,
1. Who said carbon dating is correct?
2. You said “Tangible, observable evidence leads us to believe in a 4 billion year old planet with evolving organisms.” Nobody was around 4 billion years ago, so how was this observed? Other than micro-evolution within a species can you tell me about these “evolving organisms” you cite?
3. Creationist DO believe in micro-evolutuion within a species.
4. You said “Scientists don’t start with an existing conclusion that they attempt to prove.” This is not always true, scientists are prone to lie, defraud and exaggerate just like everyone else. Why would you assume otherwise?
You yourself likely lied when you said “We tried to do something constructive when we visited the Creation Museum.” You went there to make a mockery of the museuem… and you did.
5. Where are the 4 billion years of skeletons? Where is a skeleton of an evolving, transitory species?
6. You said:
“However, the information in the museum is based upon a combination of science taken out of context and Christian ideology created by people who already have their minds made up.”
Could you tell me which secular museum presents opposing views to the public? Are you saying that the secular museums haven’t already made up their minds? Are you saying that they are not presenting “secular ideology”?
7. You said:
“The Creation Museum is not like (gasp) science museums where the facts are simply presented to guests and that’s it.”
Perhaps you meant to use the word “theories” instead of “facts” since you yourself said… “If I had to GUESS, I’d say that scientists readily admit they don’t know what happened millions of years ago for sure. Who does know?” Not knowing for sure would make it a theory and not a fact.
8. You said…
“The Creation Museum is very bold in its claims, so I don’t feel bad about being bold in my response.”
This museum IS, after all, a Creation Museum who’s audience is largely Christian so it is certainly allowed to be “very bold in its claims”. Are you suggesting that a Creation Museum should water down its views to more align itself with your atheist views? Why would they do that?
9. You said:
“I have no gripes with many Christians (heck, I WAS one until recently). But I urge you to respect the thought that not everyone agrees with your God, don’t think God’s word is sacred, and that the Bible is inerrant.”
Again, why would a Creation Museum have to “respect” your atheist views? How do you thinkk that your views or concerns have any place in that museum.
10. You also state that you were a Christian. Well, perhaps you paid lip service to Christianity but that doesn’t make one a Christian. Although I cannot say definitively, wether you were or were not a Christian… I can tell you that the Holy Spirit doesn’t make mistakes. Either you will return to being a Christian… and if not, then you were likely never one.
Written by David on June 19th, 2008David, some replies to your comments:
1. Who said carbon dating is correct?
I just asked a question. We can see how carbon dating works, though I didn’t claim I know it to be 100% accurate. Do you have alternative?
2. You said “Tangible, observable evidence leads us to believe in a 4 billion year old planet with evolving organisms.” Nobody was around 4 billion years ago, so how was this observed? Other than micro-evolution within a species can you tell me about these “evolving organisms” you cite?
I know that no one was around 4 billion years ago. Please re-read my comment, I explained my stance on this. There are fossils, dated rock samples, ice cores, nature patterns and more natural evidence that all support the idea macro-evolution. These have all been peer reviewed and approved by the science community. The Creation Museum tried supplying science to validate its claims and didn’t fair as well.
3. Creationist DO believe in micro-evolutuion within a species.
Ok. Sorry.
4. You said “Scientists don’t start with an existing conclusion that they attempt to prove.” This is not always true, scientists are prone to lie, defraud and exaggerate just like everyone else. Why would you assume otherwise?
You yourself likely lied when you said “We tried to do something constructive when we visited the Creation Museum.” You went there to make a mockery of the museuem… and you did.
The scientists I know and ones I see on TV lead me to believe that a major principle of the scientific process is to go in with no bias. If there is a bias or an expected result, the scientist tries to disprove it. You have a different opinion; where did it come from?
And we did go into the museum with an open mind. You probably won’t believe me, but we really did. I’d advise you as well to take a look around and see what else we’ve written on this site. We try not to poke fun at religion and be insulting. Admittedly, our article above is a bad reflection of our tolerance. I’ve given you a bad first impression, something I cannot take back. I am sorry for this.
5. Where are the 4 billion years of skeletons? Where is a skeleton of an evolving, transitory species?
Wait, is this the Kirk Cameron / Ray Comfort argument? There are a bunch of transitional fossils, you should look into it. In fact, two transitional fossil sets were found just this year alone. I hope you don’t need to see a crock-o-duck to believe evolution.
6. You said:
“However, the information in the museum is based upon a combination of science taken out of context and Christian ideology created by people who already have their minds made up.”
Could you tell me which secular museum presents opposing views to the public? Are you saying that the secular museums haven’t already made up their minds? Are you saying that they are not presenting “secular ideology”?
I’ve recently been to the Museum of Natural History, Phoenix Science Museum, San Diego Zoo and Phoenix Zoo (if you count zoos). These places present the information that can be observed using the five senses. When science discovers it’s wrong about something, they admit their mistake and update their exhibits. Additionally, they come back to existing conclusions to re-analyze and make sure the information presented is still accurate. The re-defining of the ex-planet Pluto is a fairly well known example of this. Does Christianity do any of this? Should we expect the Creation Museum to do any of this? Science explores and updates itself, Christianity already knows everything.
7. You said:
“The Creation Museum is not like (gasp) science museums where the facts are simply presented to guests and that’s it.”
Perhaps you meant to use the word “theories” instead of “facts” since you yourself said… “If I had to GUESS, I’d say that scientists readily admit they don’t know what happened millions of years ago for sure. Who does know?” Not knowing for sure would make it a theory and not a fact.
Ok, let’s call it a theory and science doesn’t know for sure. Christianity knows what happened? Christians have some higher wisdom and just know? Greeks ‘just knew’ that Poseidon controlled the sea, now considered untrue. What makes Christianity so special? Christianity and Creation are theories under your definition as well.
8. You said…
“The Creation Museum is very bold in its claims, so I don’t feel bad about being bold in my response.”
This museum IS, after all, a Creation Museum who’s audience is largely Christian so it is certainly allowed to be “very bold in its claims”. Are you suggesting that a Creation Museum should water down its views to more align itself with your atheist views? Why would they do that?
I really hope you don’t mean that. Especially if one of Christianity’s ultimate goals is to convert the world. So it’s OK to be sensationalist if the visitors already agree with you? Surround yourself with like-minded thinkers?
9. You said:
“I have no gripes with many Christians (heck, I WAS one until recently). But I urge you to respect the thought that not everyone agrees with your God, don’t think God’s word is sacred, and that the Bible is inerrant.”
Again, why would a Creation Museum have to “respect” your atheist views? How do you thinkk that your views or concerns have any place in that museum.
Christianity doesn’t have to respect anyone that disagree with them? “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”?
10. You also state that you were a Christian. Well, perhaps you paid lip service to Christianity but that doesn’t make one a Christian. Although I cannot say definitively, wether you were or were not a Christian… I can tell you that the Holy Spirit doesn’t make mistakes. Either you will return to being a Christian… and if not, then you were likely never one.
Well, thank you for defining my religious upbringing for me.
Sarcasm aside, I may return to being religious, but probably not a Christian. I’ve encountered too many Christians that are convinced Christianity is the only true religion and it’s their job to tell the world. That’s a big turn-off to someone sitting on the outside of Christianity. You might consider that in any future discussion. You attitude gives more tolerant Christians a bad name.
By the way, I’m not an atheist.
Written by Ted Goas on June 19th, 2008> “You said “Tangible, observable evidence leads us to believe in a 4 billion year old planet with evolving organisms.” Nobody was around 4 billion years ago, so how was this observed? Other than micro-evolution within a species can you tell me about these “evolving organisms” you cite?”
Were you there four thousand years ago to witness the creation by the god described in the bible or maybe to read/hear the legends that would be compiled into the bible. No one witnessed god creation as well remember that. but people have found early versions of similar stories made before 4 thousand years ago.
> Again, why would a Creation Museum have to “respect” your atheist views?
that’s right you are not forced to laugh if you don’t find it funny. If you like James Bond you could like Austin Powers, or not. please ted don’t criticize the art work.
> You went there to make a mockery of the museum… and you did.
personally I would have cried in front of that amount of pile of …. . That shows how backwards some part of the united states are, and how the backward people are trying to impose their views. Anyway as a European I would go there for the pissing laugh. that is SCARY that people could believe in this hence for me the comical trait of it.
Written by loic lacomme on June 20th, 2008Ted,
Just a few more comments about what you wrote in response to my “post.”
I said, “It is truly laughable that “some” (and, I grant you, probably “most”) scientists today actually are so arrogant that they actually think they know what went on “millions” of years ago.”
You said, “It’s interesting how you can speak on behalf of so many scientists. If I had to GUESS, I’d say that scientists readily admit they don’t know what happened millions of years ago for sure. Who does know? Christian fundamentalists claim they’ve got it right and everyone else (both religious and ‘godless’) has it wrong. Also, scientists don’t start with an existing conclusion that they attempt to prove.”
I reply, “I am not speaking “on behalf of” anyone. Simply, in my experience, modern scientist do speak with certainty about evolution and teach it as ‘fact” in schools and colleges all over the world. You can’t go to any national park, zoo, nature reserve, etc without being propagandized by evolutionists proclaiming this unsubstantiated theory as fact. I visited the Grand Canyon (one of the most awesome sights in God’s Creation) and read a “matter of fact” statement on a placard inside an observation room that the Grand Canyon was carved out over a period of millions of years by the Colorado River. Ted, that is not true! It is presented as truth and children visiting the Canyon read that and are not discerning enough to question it.
I said, “You do realize that you cannot apply true science to the “theory” of evolution because it is impossible to observe. There is no real evidence to prove it and therefore evolution is not scientific but rather, philosophical.”
You said, “So the process of data collecting and carbon dating mean nothing? It’s better than guessing (or sorry, philosophy), which is what we’ve got with the Bible. While far from perfect, science uses observable information around us to draw its conclusions. Well, I guess God could have created everything in six days, some 10,000 years ago and then just placed misleading evidence for us to find. Tangible, observable evidence leads us to believe in a 4 billion year old planet with evolving organisms.”
I reply, “Data collecting and Carbon dating, I believe, is interpreted with preconceptions. Everyone operates on the basis of a paradigm. Carbon dating is not a good example of good science. It is “assumed” that carbon is depleted from matter at a uniform and measurable rate but that cannot be proven. It is taking place to slowly. Carbon depletion along with Evolution are unobservable. But, aside from that, God created the universe with the “appearance of age ” and, as a result, scientists attempts to date things from the distant past are irrelevant (to me). If you say that there is no observable evidence of Creation or a Creator, I just don’t understand what you are looking at. Psalm 19:1 - “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament (universe outside of earth’s atmosphere) showeth his handywork.” Romans 1:20 - “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Ted, I see evidence of Creation in everything - from the tiniest microscopic particles to the expanse of the magnificent universe and everything in between - the glorious Creator God spoke and it was there, Ted. Embrace it. It’s beyond awesome.
God gave us plenty of evidence so that He declares that, “the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” - Psalm 14:1; 53:1
And modern scientists honestly believe that they can date things in “billions” (that’s with a “B”) of years. It takes more “faith” to believe that than what I believe.
And speaking of faith, that is what God requires of us and nothing else. God has given us plenty of evidence, none of it misleading. Modern “science” draws wrong conclusions from the evidence because their interpretations are tainted by their preconceptions. To say that they do not have preconceptions is simply not being honest about basic human nature. We all approach these things with preconceptions.
In the final analysis, however, God has not made an attempt to prove Himself to us. We are compelled to “trust” - to “believe” - to accept by faith that God cannot lie - He has absolutely no reason to. We are expected not to be “skeptics” when it comes to Him although I am right with you when it comes to being “skeptical” about all the other things you mention in your list at the bottom of this page.
You said, “Also, micro-evolution is observable. Try breeding pigeons. Or heck, dogs! Of course, evolution can be guided by the invisible hand of God, sure. I can’t disprove that.”
I reply: “The term “Micro-evolution” is a deception because it is not really “evolution.” You know that. It is not the same thing - that doesn’t even need an explanation.”
You said, “Despite the fact you might be furious at me right now, I hope I didn’t not insult you too much. I have no gripes with many Christians (heck, I WAS one until recently). But I urge you to respect the thought that not everyone agrees with your God, don’t think God’s word is sacred, and that the Bible is inerrant.”
I’m not furious nor was I was I a couple of days ago when I first saw your website. I’ve been around a long time and have dealt with unbelievers a whole lot tougher than you. Although I rarely debate these issues and I will tell you why in a moment. You say you were a Christian until recently. I have to agree with the other guy - I am “skeptical” about that. The reason I say that can be illustrated like this. You might say that you used to be a mechanic but if I would hear you talking about cars and not know a fuel pump from a alternator I would conclude that you were not really a mechanic.
You say you were once a Christian but when I read what you say, it is clear that you don’t really know much about it. A true believer is one who has the divine life of the Creator indwelling his own human spirit so that there is genuine spiritual fellowship with God inside that cannot be put in some kind of doubt by the comments of ignorant “skeptics.” I use the word ‘”ignorant” not to demean you but simply as a statement of fact. You don’t know what I know, or better said, you don’t know “Who” I know.
And speaking of the word “know” - It appears that you take offense to the fact that Christians believe they know things and speak and live on that basis. When people are relying upon their own intellects alone for interpreting the information they receive, it stand to reason that they would, if honest, admit that they cannot be certain about much of anything. God has not left us with only our intellects to interpret information. The explanation of all of that is obviously too detailed to deal with here but, Ted, you can never make accurate judgments about the world around you apart from an understanding of how God intends for us to know truth.
Man was created to be Body, Soul (mind, will, emotions, heart, conscience, etc.) and Spirit. And since God is a Spirit, the spirit is really important. But, because in “fallen” man, the spirit is dead, man has become only body and soul and is therefore, incomplete. He is cut off from spirituality and must rely upon his body and soul independent of God. Remember that the Bible says that Adam ate of the fruit of the “tree of the ‘knowledge’ of good and evil,” and in so doing he no longer knew God. He became afraid of God, he became self conscious, he tried to hide from God, and showed his dissatisfaction in trying to provide a covering for himself and so on. The best thing he had left was his own intellect to decide for himself what he was going to do, believe, and trust (or not). The body operates on the basis of instinct, the soul operates on the basis of intellect, and the spirit is to operate on the basis of intuition, discernment, and spiritual illumination. Things that lost men no longer possess. Jesus Christ came to make it possible for what we lost to be restored. And Ted, when a person accepts Christ’s offer by faith, his human spirit is “quickened” (Ephesians 2:1), indwelt by the Holy Spirit, he is literally “born again” and we are given truth directly from the Source and that truth will always be consistent with what He has said in His Word (that B-I-B-L-E) that you like to criticise. The truth that God gives is objective, absolute, and can be known. The soul “thinks”; the spirit “knows.” Do we have all of the answers - NO - we are all works in progress . . .
. . . but, Ted and Sara and Loic, et. al - the folks at the Creation Museum may not have it all right but they are are a lot closer than you “think.”
Rather than an attachment to beliefs and an ‘us against the world’ attitude, I urge you to have more religious tolerance and to do some research before coming over into the realm of science.
Written by Ross on June 21st, 2008That last little statement on the end of my response was a “leftover” from yours. (sorry)
Written by Ross on June 21st, 2008As a whole, science museums report what they know by observation. . The Creation Museum’s slogan is “Prepare to Believe.” It already has an agenda and conclusion it’s looking to fulfill and they use the museum to do just that. And you accused other museums of propaganda???
Well, first I’d ask you to prove it. What measurable or observable evidence do you have? I wasn’t around to see glaciers carve out the grand canyon, but I also didn’t see a supernatural being make the Grand Canyon either. But you seem sure that glaciers didn’t cause the grand canyon. Why? Because it fits into the story told in the Christian Bible?
I hope you’re joking. What you believe is 100% faith. We can see how carbon dating works. It’s not a philosophy or believe system like Christianity. You may not be able to see 100% of carbon dating, but it doesn’t take a leap of faith to believe.
That’s one thing we can both agree on.
But then you said that the earth was created with the appearance of age?
Right, by the church. But as you noted above, God has never come out and done that.
So you’re not expected to question Christianity? At all???? Ever????
I don’t take offense to someone who claims “just to know”. I do take offense to someone, who hasn’t taken the time to think critically and explore the topic beyond their existing beliefs, tells me I’m wrong beyond all doubt. Or worse yet, presents their ideas in school as fact.
Perhaps your lowest point was right here. I tried not be be confrontational in my replies. I tried not to speak about things I don’t understand. You’ve done neither while showing a great degree of intolerance towards any non-fundamental Christian who doesn’t share your belief system.
You also called me ignorant. You refer to a true believer is someone who believes in God and divinity. So I have to believe this not to be ignorant, according to you? Seems like a leap of faith to me. I’m not shutting out the world around me (such as carbon dating, the idea that glaciers could have carved out the Grand Canyon) as you seem to have.
You then go into a background of how the Christian faith is set up with God, the spirit, Adam and Eve. As a former Christian, I am familiar with this. But I’ve also asked myself “What if this isn’t true?” This is one approach that is unprovable. Ideas like the Big Bang Theory are equally unprovable. I understand why people are inclined to believe one approach over another, but how can one claim one as an absolute certainty? I certainly cannot because I don’t know (human reasoning). Perhaps it’s a more humble approach, something you seem to be unfamiliar with.
Elsewhere in your comment you claimed that I was never a ‘real’ Christian, a bold conclusion you’ve deducted from this single web page. I guess you have no idea how insulting that is. Again, you’ve displayed a great deal of philosophical intolerance so far.
You don’t have to believe me when I say that I went go to the Creation Museum to get the other side of the story, another perspective. But that is the truth. I wanted to learn more about a side of Christianity I was never familiar with. I WAS a Christian, but never a Creationist. By your definition, does that mean I was never a Christian?
You close your comment by suggesting that the Creationist Museum might not have it right. Does that mean you think the Bible doesn’t have it right? Or the museum doesn’t have the Bible right?
Written by Ted Goas on June 22nd, 2008I know Ted has already crafted a response to your last comment, Ross–but I felt the need to put my own two cents in as well. Here goes:
You said: “Simply, in my experience, modern scientist do speak with certainty about evolution and teach it as ‘fact” in schools and colleges all over the world. You can’t go to any national park, zoo, nature reserve, etc without being propagandized by evolutionists proclaiming this unsubstantiated theory as fact.” If you believe scientific theories are unsubstantiated, you are quite simply wrong about that. You said you have spoken to other unbelievers, so surely someone has already told you that in science, there are hypotheses, theories, and laws. Theories are closer to laws than to hypotheses; a theory can only become a theory after it has been verified multiple times by a detached group of observers. No one scientist can create a theory on his own. Once something becomes a theory, it is generally accepted as true by the scientific community as a whole. So of course, in places like national parks, zoos, and museums where science is to be presented, accepted scientific theories will be taught. Why wouldn’t they be? The nice thing about these places, in my opinion, is that they don’t go on to make a moral judgment on their visitors. The Creation Museum was clear that the teaching of evolution, and the secularization of society, would lead to death and destruction. If a person truly believes that, than they really aren’t focused on science anymore, are they? How can they be trusted to fairly present scientific facts? If, on the other hand, you check the Natural History Museum in Manhatten, you will see no emotional statements made on the evils of not accepting evolutionary theory. You will only see exhibits presenting the latest scientific theories and natural facts. Many creationists seem to believe that all people operate on presuppositions, and this is why creationists and scientists disagree. Of course, I agree that all people have certain biases, but it’s the creationists that fully embrace those biases (they believe their eternal soul depends on it), while the scientists have the scientific method, which is meant to eliminate those biases as much as possible.
You said: “I visited the Grand Canyon (one of the most awesome sights in God’s Creation) and read a “matter of fact” statement on a placard inside an observation room that the Grand Canyon was carved out over a period of millions of years by the Colorado River. Ted, that is not true!” Please tell me, what do you believe happened instead? What secular evidence do you have to support your claim? And if your evidence is not secular (i.e. the flood is written about in the bible, and we have to have faith in that) please explain to me why your particular religious beliefs should be advertised at
a neutral place like the Grand Canyon.
You said: It is “assumed” that carbon is depleted from matter at a uniform and measurable rate but that cannot be proven. ” I’m confused as to why you think that. Here is a very clear account of how carbon dating works: http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm Sure, the article admits that it might be harder to use various radioistopes to date samples from living things that died after the 1940’s, but that shouldn’t effect the study of fossils from years ago. So what have you read that suggests that carbon dating is faulty? Can you tell me of a secular scientist who believes that the earth is really only 6000 years old?
You said: “And modern scientists honestly believe that they can date things in “billions” (that’s with a “B”) of years. It takes more “faith” to believe that than what I believe.”Are you kidding me? It takes more faith to accept a naturalistic explanation which must be verified through a scientific method, and less to believe that an all-powerful supernatural being simply spoke the universe into existence? If that’s what you think, then we are so far apart on this issue, there’s really no point in discussing it (although I suppose that’s usually the case when theists and skeptics get together.)
You said: “God has given us plenty of evidence, none of it misleading.” But…didn’t you also say, in the same message, “aside from that, God created the universe with the ‘appearance of age’.” I took that statement to mean that god created the universe to look older than it really is. Am I misinterpreting that? And if I understand it correctly, wouldn’t it be misleading for god to design the universe to look old, even though it’s not?
You said, “I’m not furious nor was I was I a couple of days ago when I first saw your website. I’ve been around a long time and have dealt with unbelievers a whole lot tougher than you.” Hmmmm…that just seems like kind of a rude thing to say, which seemed inappropriate given that it was in response to a fairly harmless comment from Ted. Not arguing here; it just irked me.
You go on to talk about “faith” in great length, and here, you confirm my suspicions that this conversation isn’t about science. You say “we are expected not to be ’skeptics’ when it come to Him…” So really, you will believe whatever the bible says, and throw out any science that contradicts that? In that case, it really doesn’t matter what that scientific evidence is, does it? If the bible told us that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant, wouldn’t you be on here arguing that the theory of relativity is only a theory, and shouldn’t be taken as fact? Call me narrow-minded, biased, whatever you like, but I have a real problem with that kind of blind certainty. An ancient Chinese creation story suggests that the first living thing, P’an Ku, ” hatched out of a giant egg that contained all elements of the universe. In some parts of Southern China, the cult of P’an Ku still exists. Please explain to me (without using faith, if possible) why the six-day creation story is more believable than the P’an Ku story. And if all you have is faith, aren’t you really just taking a wild guess? Is it really fair to force your wild guesses on children in science class?
You said, “It appears that you take offense to the fact that Christians believe they know things and speak and live on that basis.” No, I don’t have a problem with that. But as I already mentioned, I have a real problem with people who believe that the thing they think the know, but can’t prove, should be treated as a science. You also said, “When people are relying upon their own intellects alone for interpreting the information they receive, it stand to reason that they would, if honest, admit that they cannot be certain about much of anything…you can never make accurate judgments about the world around you apart from an understanding of how God intends for us to know truth.” I don’t disagree with that until you start talking about god–I would argue that we are all victims of human reasoning that can be faulty, and because of that, we can’t even be sure of what some of us think we know about god. You think you know what god wants from you, but how can you know that for sure? Aren’t you only human, after all? How can you be sure you’re even interpreting the bible correctly? Or that god wrote the bible? Even if god exists and is perfect, that doesn’t mean that we would instantly know what he wants, or which holy book to follow.
Something tells me we are not going to come to an agreement on this any time soon…
Written by Sara on June 23rd, 2008Wait a second Ross… if “the spirit knows”, then how can we NOT have all the answers? How can we be “works in progress” if “the spirit knows”? Wouldn’t we all KNOW everything then, if we just listened to our spirit?
I’m not going to try to convince you of my way of thinking… I know it’s completely pointless. I would just appreciate it if you would stop contradicting yourself when speaking the “truth”. Please learn to use your brain to mouth (or in this case, keyboard) filter.
Written by Andrew Smith on June 23rd, 2008Ted,
I certainly appreciate your professional response to my letter and others. Many people do not maintain professionalism, nor even common courtesy when discussing issues such as these.
The only issue I have time to respond to at this time relates to Christianity.
You said to me:
“Sarcasm aside, I may return to being religious, but probably not a Christian. I’ve encountered too many Christians that are convinced Christianity is the only true religion and it’s their job to tell the world. That’s a big turn-off to someone sitting on the outside of Christianity. You might consider that in any future discussion. You attitude gives more tolerant Christians a bad name.”
My response:
“Christians” who believe that there are other paths to salvation are not Christians by definition. And in actuality, the only reason Christians are on earth is to tell others about Jesus Christ. We are servants of our Heavenly Father and his son, and it is our job to tell others about Jesus Christ.
As a Christian it is not my job to turn you on to Christ, my job is to present the truth to you and to be loving to you. God chooses us, and not the other way around and you can rest assured that God doesn’t make mistakes. If you were saved and thereby a Christian, you will return to Christianity because God chases after his own, like a shepherd does his sheep. If you are a Christian, albeit one in doubt, this should comfort you.
Regarding “more tolerant Christians”… Since anyone can call themselves “Christian”, I assume you mean people who water down Biblical truth or allow you to believe there are other paths to salvation beyond Jesus Christ. If telling the truth makes them look bad, then so be it.
You said to another writer:
“Perhaps your lowest point was right here. I tried not be be confrontational in my replies. I tried not to speak about things I don’t understand. You’ve done neither while showing a great degree of intolerance towards any non-fundamental Christian who doesn’t share your belief system.”
My response:
What is a “non-fundamental Christian”? Sounds like you are describing an unbeliever to me but I await your response.
You said to another writer:
“You also called me ignorant. You refer to a true believer (as) someone who believes in God and divinity. So I have to believe this not to be ignorant, according to you? Seems like a leap of faith to me.”
My response:
Yes, you do have to believe in God and his son, Jesus Christ, and you have to believe that they are the only way to salvation… otherwise you are not a Christian. Thinking this is not true is “ignorant” of Biblical teaching. As a Christian, I wouldn’t call a person who disbelieved ignorant… I’d call them lost.
You said to another writer:
“I’m not shutting out the world around me (such as carbon dating, the idea that glaciers could have carved out the Grand Canyon) as you seem to have.”
My response:
It’s fine to consider other views and to ponder how things came to be. However, your abandonment of Christianity in order to believe in theories of man, indicates to me that you probably were not a Christian. Time will tell.
You said to another writer:
“You then go into a background of how the Christian faith is set up with God, the spirit, Adam and Eve. As a former Christian, I am familiar with this. But I’ve also asked myself “What if this isn’t true?” This is one approach that is unprovable. Ideas like the Big Bang Theory are equally unprovable. I understand why people are inclined to believe one approach over another, but how can one claim one (has) an absolute certainty?”
My response:
If you believe in the Big Bang Theory and Jesus Christ was the answer… you lost everything. If you believe in Jesus Christ and the Big Bang Theory was the answer, you have lost nothing.
You said to another writer:
“Elsewhere in your comment you claimed that I was never a ‘real’ Christian, a bold conclusion you’ve deducted from this single web page. I guess you have no idea how insulting that is. Again, you’ve displayed a great deal of philosophical intolerance so far.”
My response:
Time will tell wether you were a “real” Christian or not. Both I and the other writer certainly hope that you were. However, I am also doubting that you were a real Christian. You say you are insulted by this, but why? Clearly you think a belief in God (and thereby assumedly also Christ) is ignorant, so why would you care what an ignorant Christian thinks of you? Philosophical tolerance? Could you describe for me what behaviors a Christian must show to be considered to be philosophically tolerant by your definition?
However, perhaps feeling “insulted” will drive you to clarify your personal beliefs once and for all. You believe you were a Christian, two believers are doubting such– I am glad that is giving you pause and I pray that the Holy Spirit will work on your heart.
You said to another writer:
“You don’t have to believe me when I say that I went go to the Creation Museum to get the other side of the story, another perspective. But that is the truth. I wanted to learn more about a side of Christianity I was never familiar with. I WAS a Christian, but never a Creationist. By your definition, does that mean I was never a Christian?”
My response:
Anybody can go to church, know all about the Bible and God and call themselves a Christian, but that does not make you a Christian. A true Christian is a person that has been “born again” and “saved” by a belief in, and forgiving of your sins by, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. By saying you were never a “creationist” do you mean that you discounted the Biblical account of creation? Historically, there were Christians who knew nothing more of creationism other than God created the heavens and the earth, and everything on it, it just 6 days. The thief on the cross likely knew even less. You don’t need to know all the minutia of how that creation took place in order to be a Christian… however if you outright reject the Biblical account (regardless of the mechanics of such) you are probably either a very young believer or a non-believer. A belief in God is not an intellectual belief… there is no way for me to intellectually convince you by mere argument to accept the faith. The ability to believe and accept come from the Holy Spirit prompting your heart and mind, if the Holy Spirit is not there, you will not be saved. Only God can definitively say wether you are saved, but my gut feeling is that you likely were not.
By the way, Ken Hamm is an excellant speaker and I encourage you to attend one of his seminars. Beyond that, if you were open to it, I think Mr. Hamm or other knowledgeable Christians associated with the Creation Museum would have a one-on-one discussion with you in regards to this article and any questions you might have if they believed you would treat them fairly (which I believe you would). Something to consider. You have my email address if you are interested in this.
Written by David on June 24th, 2008Thanks for the kind and professional response. Without diving into the details, a few things have become a bit more clear after reading your comments along with Ross’s.
Traditionally I’ve believed in several ‘levels’ of Christianity. More moderate Christians (or non-fundamental Christians) might go to church, believe in God/ Jesus/heaven/hell, etc. Maybe they believe in specific things like creation and the rapture, maybe they don’t. But all stories carry a moral that helps people live better lives as Christians. On the other end of the spectrum there are fundamentalist Christians. These people are biblical literalists and are certain that 100% of the Bible’s contents are accurate. You and Ross appear to fall into this camp.
Is this accurate? DO you really believe that moderate Christians are not true Christians? Are Christians who ‘water down’ Biblical teachings ignorant or lost? Will they go to hell if they don’t change their ways? If my description is somewhat accurate, then perhaps you’re right: I was never a ‘true Christian’. My definition of a Christian is not as strict as yours.
When I read the bible as a Christian, I believed in a 4 billion year old planet and that all animals evolved from lower life forms. So I believed the Genesis story, just not the creation of life part. Everything else in the Bible I took at face value. But again, this is watered down and even selective beliefs. Along with many others in my church, I threw out a few things from the Bible that I didn’t personally agree with. Despite considering myself a Christian, I never considered myself a fundamentalist.
I’d like to ask you an honest question: If there’s only one true way to being a real Christian, why do you think there so many kinds of Christianity? Do you think all of these other denominations are lost?
One thing I would like to quote is this:
To a non-Christian, I this sounds REALLY weird. There’s no possible way you can know the truth. If you wanted to present me with your belief system and reasons for joining, that’s another thing all together. But truth? You can’t use that word in this case, nor can an atheist.
Ken Hamm was speaking at the museum the day we were there. We wanted to buy tickets to his presentation, but it was sold out.
Written by Ted Goas on June 25th, 2008David… your last post brought a few things to mind here, and maybe I can answer a few of the questions you have posed.
Your statement: “As a Christian it is not my job to turn you on to Christ, my job is to present the truth to you and to be loving to you. God chooses us, and not the other way around and you can rest assured that God doesn’t make mistakes. If you were saved and thereby a Christian, you will return to Christianity because God chases after his own, like a shepherd does his sheep. If you are a Christian, albeit one in doubt, this should comfort you.”
This statement, while to you is informational about your role as a christian, is incredibly arrogant. Quite frankly, I thought one of the tenets of christianity is to be humble. This statement is far from humble. You are saying, without minced words, that if you do not believe and do what I say, then you are wrong. And, you also say, that it is your job to educate me. Again, very very arrogant. This is something that is a huge turnoff to someone on the outside of your religion.
Your statement: “Regarding “more tolerant Christians”… Since anyone can call themselves “Christian”, I assume you mean people who water down Biblical truth or allow you to believe there are other paths to salvation beyond Jesus Christ. If telling the truth makes them look bad, then so be it.”
There are two main problems with this statement. First, again, it’s very arrogant. You are again acting as if you know, without any doubts, not only what truth is, but what others should deem to be truth. How incredibly arrogant of you. Second, there is a difference between “tolerance” and “interpretation of the bible”, that you seem to have misunderstood. Tolerance refers to an understanding that people have different beliefs and respecting that. More tolerant christians do not act arrogant, they do not tell people they are wrong, and they do not care at all what others believe. They thought process is, “You believe what you believe, I’ll believe what I believe. Your beliefs do not affect me.”
Your statement: “If you believe in the Big Bang Theory and Jesus Christ was the answer… you lost everything. If you believe in Jesus Christ and the Big Bang Theory was the answer, you have lost nothing.”
This statement is used alot when touting religion as a “why not?” type of argument. However, I believe it to be the other way (again I use believe, and am not telling you that your beliefs are wrong, see the difference?). If you believe in jesus christ and the big bang was the answer, you have lost. You have lost a lifetime devoting your life and your every being to something that did not exist and was not true. You spent your life giving time and energy to a cause that lied to you. And, in the process, you missed out on living LIFE to it’s fullest, instead of living life preparing for the afterlife.
My belief, again just my belief, is that there is no god. However, I do believe in living a good life and a moral life. I treat people with respect and do good for others. I think that if by chance I’m wrong… because I don’t have all the answers… if I’m wrong, I’ve still used my life in a productive manner, and used my FREE WILL (commonly touted as god’s greatest gift to man) to explore and search for answers. Sure, I might have been wrong, but hey, we are human after all, right?
Finally… I conclude with this little tidbit. The entire tone of your last post takes on a very condescending tone. Many times you describe the meaning of truth, true belief and true christianity. Be careful when doing that, as your own bible cautions of this. In your own bible, only god can place final judgment… therefore it is not for you to decide the meaning of truth, true belief and true christianity. Tolerant christians live this…
Written by Andrew Smith on June 25th, 2008Ted,
I wrote a rather lengthy reply a couple of nights ago and it disappeared in cyber space. “ I hate that when that happens.” I am going to write this version as a Word document then save, copy, and paste. It is amazing when one considers all of the millions upon millions of e-mails, television pictures, radio signals, telephonic communications, etc. that are “out there.” They are invisible but you “know” they are there and if you have the right receiver, you can see or hear them clearly. (Sorry if that sounds arrogant.) Lord willing, this message will find its way to the right people and they will pause for just a moment, and thank God for making it possible. (I know that I am starting with sarcasm but, I read that post by Andrew to David and it put me in that kind of mood. I wanted to get that out of my system before I tried to apply some intelligence to my replies to Ted and Sara.
“You can’t go to any national park, zoo, nature reserve, etc without being propagandized by evolutionists proclaiming this unsubstantiated theory as fact.”
As a whole, science museums report what they know by observation. . The Creation Museum’s slogan is “Prepare to Believe.” It already has an agenda and conclusion it’s looking to fulfill and they use the museum to do just that. And you accused other museums of propaganda???
REPLY: Science museums and national parks are reporting what they believe to be true, based upon the interpretations of their observations. Their interpretations are the product of their beliefs. The fact is that they really have made no observations of the things they say took place. Evolution, the billions of years it took to develop, the effects of glaciers, and c-14 or radio carbon dating that is used to validate it are nothing more than widely held assumptions that fit the “model” and therefore are treated as fact by the modern scientific community.
“I visited the Grand Canyon (one of the most awesome sights in God’s Creation) and read a “matter of fact” statement on a placard inside an observation room that the Grand Canyon was carved out over a period of millions of years by the Colorado River. Ted, that is not true!”
Well, first I’d ask you to prove it. What measurable or observable evidence do you have? I wasn’t around to see glaciers carve out the grand canyon, but I also didn’t see a supernatural being make the Grand Canyon either. But you seem sure that glaciers didn’t cause the grand canyon. Why? Because it fits into the story told in the Christian Bible?
REPLY: How would a melting glacier carve out a hole in the ground (and that is one massive hole) through solid rock while melting glaciers in the Midwest, where the ground is soft, leave the ground flat and suitable for farming. But, the sign I referred to did not say that melting glaciers carved out the Grand Canyon. It said that the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon. I’m sorry Ted, but in my 53 years of observing, I can tell you, with a great degree of certainty, that this is a ridiculous interpretation of whatever it is that they are observing. You can look all over the world and find rivers flowing with far greater force through terrain that is much softer than the terrain in the American Southwest and they do not carve out canyons.
It is interesting that just this month there was an earthquake in China and a massive lake was created in just a few minutes (that’s minutes). Modern scientists, examining that location without knowing of the earthquake would no doubt assume that it took millions of years for that lake to develop.
For a scientist to make a statement like I read on that plaque as a matter of fact is not the truth. It would only be true if the statement read something to this effect, “Based upon the interpretations of our observations, we believe that the Grand Canyon was created by the flow of the Colorado River.” (Or something to that effect.)
“And modern scientists honestly believe that they can date things in “billions” (that’s with a “B”) of years. It takes more “faith” to believe that than what I believe.”
I hope you’re joking. What you believe is 100% faith. We can see how carbon dating works. It’s not a philosophy or believe system like Christianity.
REPLY: No, I’m not joking. Did it seem like I was joking? For scientists to say that they can date things in the “billions” of years – that is the joke. You know as well as I do, if your honest, that, in order to have any chance for advancement, monetary grants, university appointments, teaching positions, etc. In the scientific world, they have to toe the line when it comes to the evolution agenda. Since evolution is the commonly accepted standard, they have no reason “rock the boat” and every reason to go along. Evolution has more holes than Swiss cheese at shotgun fight but you ignore all of that because if you provide information that puts evolution into question then you are all going to look like a bunch of fools. So you just keep telling that lie, and keep telling it, and get more people to tell it and you tell a lie often enough and long enough, you can anybody to believe it. (You know, like man-made global warming – that is rich). But, when I say “you”, I don’t mean “you” – I use the word editorially because I don’t believe that you are responsible for the perpetuation of that lie. I just believe that you are one of the many poor souls who had the misfortune to be indoctrinated in the American system of “higher” education.
You may not be able to see 100% of carbon dating, but it doesn’t take a leap of faith to believe.
REPLY: I take note of the fact that people who do not regard “faith” as a viable means dealing with life’s questions and difficulties want to attach words like “blind” and “leap of” to it. You do so to make “faith” sound ridiculous. But the concept “faith” is based upon trust and evidence. For example, I sat down in this chair I am sitting in because I have faith that it will uphold the weight of my body. I believe that because, even though I have not studies that much physics, I understand the laws of physics, through my own common sense, enough to know that the construction of the chair is such that it will hold my weight. I also trust the chair because I have been seated in this chair many times previously. It has never failed me. Therefore, I have every reason to believe that it will continue to function as it should. In fact, I know it will. Therefore I have “faith” in it. And that is the kind of faith I have in God. The kind of faith an evolutionist uses is the “blind, leapin’ kind.
“God has given us plenty of evidence, none of it misleading.”
But then you said that the earth was created with the appearance of age?
REPLY: God is not seeking to mislead by the fact that He created things with the “appearance of age.” He is not trying to mislead anyone – whatever someone finds when they are digging around in the dirt is what it is. If you interpret what you find as evidence that God does not exist – that is your problem.
“We are compelled to “trust” - to “believe” - to accept by faith that God cannot lie”
Right, by the church. But as you noted above, God has never come out and done that.
“We are expected not to be “skeptics” when it comes to Him although I am right with you when it comes to being “skeptical” about all the other things you mention in your list at the bottom of this page.”
So you’re not expected to question Christianity? At all???? Ever????
REPLY: You can question anything you want to question – I question God about why things are the way they are. In fact, in my fellowship with Him, I have many questions. My most often asked question is, “Why I am not a better person than I am?” But, questioning God is a lot different that denying Him. You can question Christianity – of course. I question that all the time too – because I want to get it right.
“And speaking of the word “know” - It appears that you take offense to the fact that Christians believe they know things and speak and live on that basis.”
I don’t take offense to someone who claims “just to know”. I do take offense to someone, who hasn’t taken the time to think critically and explore the topic beyond their existing beliefs, tells me I’m wrong beyond all doubt. Or worse yet, presents their ideas in school as fact.
REPLY: Are you insinuating that because I don’t agree with you that I am not thinking critically? And, as far as exploring the topic, I certainly am not going to explore the topic looking for evidence to disprove the Bible because I might as well search for a dry spot in the bottom of the ocean. I am in my office right now and surrounded by books, a few of them are written on the topic about which we are discussing. I have read through large portions of these books. But, I am reminded of the illustration of how bank tellers are taught to identify counterfeit money. They don’t handle counterfeit money – they handle real money day after day until their fingers become so used to how it feels that they can spot a fake immediately. I spend most of the time I have to read, studying God’s Word. It has served me well and given great amounts of discernment. I hear enough about evolution and its claims on television enough to know that it’s bogus.
“I’m not furious nor was I was I a couple of days ago when I first saw your website. I’ve been around a long time and have dealt with unbelievers a whole lot tougher than you.”
Perhaps your lowest point was right here. I tried not be be confrontational in my replies. I tried not to speak about things I don’t understand. You’ve done neither while showing a great degree of intolerance towards any non-fundamental Christian who doesn’t share your belief system.
REPLY: Perhaps I should not have used the word “tougher” even though I simply meant that you are not so contentious as some are on this subject – in fact some of the other contributors to this discussion are downright vitriolic, especially the Europeans (but what can you expect.)
You are confrontational, just not contentious. I, on the other hand, can be contentious. If that is offensive, and I know it can be, I regret that. I don’t regret being contentious, I just regret being offensive. I am compelled to “earnestly contend for the faith.” (Jude 1:3) There are two things in this particular situation that are worth fighting for: 1) The veracity of the Word of God and 2) Your eternal future – and I do care deeply about both.
You said that you didn’t speak of things you don’t understand. I infer from that you were implying that I shouldn’t speak about evolution because I don’t understand it. Ted, I have heard and read about evolution all of my life (and that is a pretty long time.) But, I don’t have to examine the contents of an outhouse to know that it full of crap. I do not know the scientific nomenclature of the subject very well because I don’t feel I need to in my line of work. Perhaps I should – pardon my ignorance.
But, Ted, you spoke disparagingly of Fundamental Christianity and I observe that what you know about Fundamental Christianity along with a dollar can get you a cup of Jack Squat down at your local Starbucks. If a person is not to speak of things of which they do not understand – well, . . . . you know . . . uh , I was going to make a snide comment about your “pie hole” but I won’t.
The “intolerance” thing? That’s weak! Why are Christians the only ones that have to be “tolerant?” I am one of the more tolerant people you will ever meet – but I’ll step up to the plate for the Lord and for the good people at the Creation Museum. I know some of them.
You also called me ignorant. You refer to a true believer is someone who believes in God and divinity. So I have to believe this not to be ignorant, according to you? Seems like a leap of faith to me. I’m not shutting out the world around me (such as carbon dating, the idea that glaciers could have carved out the Grand Canyon) as you seem to have.
REPLY: No, you’ve got that wrong. You have to believe a whole lot more than that. And actually, you implied your own ignorance by referring to yourself as a skeptic and I just agreed with you. And, yes, you are ignorant when it comes to things related to the Scripture although you may be very informed in lots of other subjects. I am ignorant of a lot of things myself. I claimed that I “know” things but I don’t know everything. God hasn’t revealed everything to me. But, what He has revealed through the Spirit and through the Word I “know” to be true.
And, as far as your implication that I am shutting myself out from the world – What’s up with that? I’ve been around the world, Ted, and live in South Africa right now – I spend my life going into the slums, townships, and projects of the city where my lovely wife and I live, seeking to better the lives of poor people by showing them the love of Christ. We are seeing many victories. Let me tell you something – that is living!!!!! When it comes to what I give my attention to in this world, it is not old, dead bones – it is living, breathing human being. Thank you, Lord, for the privilege!!!!
You then go into a background of how the Christian faith is set up with God, the spirit, Adam and Eve. As a former Christian, I am familiar with this. But I’ve also asked myself “What if this isn’t true?” This is one approach that is unprovable. Ideas like the Big Bang Theory are equally unprovable. I understand why people are inclined to believe one approach over another, but how can one claim one as an absolute certainty? I certainly cannot because I don’t know (human reasoning). Perhaps it’s a more humble approach, something you seem to be unfamiliar with.
REPLY: “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding, in all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths.” - Proverbs 3:5, 6
As far as accusing me of not being humble – that’s a battle but, I can tell you that confidence and certainty are not antithetical to humility. Jesus Christ was all of that, as was Paul. As a preacher of the Gospel, it is quite apparent that I would get few people to listen to me if I said I didn’t know anything.
Elsewhere in your comment you claimed that I was never a ‘real’ Christian, a bold conclusion you’ve deducted from this single web page. I guess you have no idea how insulting that is. Again, you’ve displayed a great deal of philosophical intolerance so far.
Written by Ross on June 26th, 2008REPLY: Ted, I have been in the ministry for 33 years. I deal with people on a daily basis about their souls and I am very discerning about these things. This discernment is one of the things the Holy Spirit gives to equip us for ministering to people about these issues. But, let me ask you a question : What, in your life, would have identified you as a Christian during that time that you thought you were one?
You don’t have to believe me when I say that I went go to the Creation Museum to get the other side of the story, another perspective. But that is the truth. I wanted to learn more about a side of Christianity I was never familiar with. I WAS a Christian, but never a Creationist. By your definition, does that mean I was never a Christian?
REPLY: You may have gone to the Creation Museum on the side of objectivity but, based upon the fact that you have drunk so deeply at the Cool Aid dispenser of evolution I doubt that it took much to push your “bias” buttons.
Ted, I am not wholly certain that a person must believe in six day creation to be a born again but that is not the reason I would question whether you were formerly a Christian. In reality, you cannot be “formerly” a Christian. There is no such “animal.” I know you or Andrew or somebody will play the “intolerant” or “arrogant” card on this statement but the truth is, that most people who think that they are “Christian” aren’t. The term is used far to broadly and, in fact, is not really the best term to use when referring to true believers for that reason. The term “Christian” is only used twice in the Bible (the KJV anyway). The identifying mark of a true “child of God” was the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit – and once He comes in, He ‘s not leaving.
You close your comment by suggesting that the Creationist Museum might not have it right. Does that mean you think the Bible doesn’t have it right? Or the museum doesn’t have the Bible right?
REPLY: No one can claim to know all of the particulars. I have not been to the Creation Museum but I know some of the people who work there and have talked to many who have been there and I have checked out their website - I think they handle the issue pretty well in my view although men like Ken Ham, who have dedicated their lives more than most to this one issue can become pretty dogmatic - but I understand why. They are a part of a scientific community that is absolutely dead set against them and they are warriors, fighting the good fight in my view. They have far more courage than I have and I admire them. Are they dead right in everything – No, because the Bible doesn’t tell us all that much about the incidentals. The average believer is not called to mess around with that. There are too many people in this world who need help. The one thing we know is that we are on the right path. Our ladder is leaning on the right wall. We’re barking up the right tree. And, as the blind man said to the Pharisees - One thing I “know” - once I was blind but now I can see.” That, we know!!!
Sara – I don’t have time to answer your post – I bet your glad about that.
Alright Ross… once again, you have showcased an incredible amount of arrogance.
You are correct that confidence and certainty are not antithetical to humility. However, that is only when dealing with something that cannot be questioned. I once had an argument with a person about a pretty simple scientific fact… in which he had no clue what he was talking about. In that argument, I was very confident, very certain, and downright arrogant. Why? Because, I knew that I knew the correct answer and that his answer was absolutely incorrect. The answer that I knew, was actually proven to be correct in science. It’s actually a fact that you and I would agree upon the answer, it is scientifically proven to that degree.
In this argument, I had all the reason in the world to be confident, certain, and arrogant. However, in the discussion that we are having on this board, there is no evidence, outside of the bible, to prove your side. That’s it, one book, written by men (I’m sure you’re aware of the history related to how the stories were chosen). Now, you may believe that the stories in that book are true… but it is impossible to know for certain, because there is no evidence. Nobody knows for 100% certainty… not you, not David, not Ted, not I. I’m sorry to break it to you. Claiming that you know with 100% certainty is, quite frankly, flat… out… arrogant.
Here’s another point that I’d like to make. Your argument, and the argument of many Creationists is pretty simple. You argue that, evolution is false, therefore biblical creation is true. Your entire argument is to poke as many holes in evolution as possible. However, other than quoting the bible, you never provide any physical evidence to support creationism. None. Not one shred. So… the question I pose to you is this… is it really either evolution or biblical creation? There are no other options?
I’ll play ball… what if evolution isn’t the correct answer? Well… that doesn’t mean that biblical creation is true. It means that we now have to accept and test all possibilities. That means biblical creation, hindu creation, judaism creation, egyptian creation, norse creation and all other possibilities. There are people out there that believe that an advanced civilization from another planet in the universe moved here to avoid a disaster on their planet and continue the existence of their species. There are people out there that believe that an advanced civilization from another planet in the universe created life on earth (potentially humans as we are now) as some kind of science experiment. All of these possibilities then (again, playing ball and assuming that evolution is false) are just as plausible as your, and therefore must be considered and tested. It is very arrogant again, to dismiss all other possibilities other than the one that you subscribe to. Unless you have personally investigated each, in an unbiased state of mind, using the scientific method, you can’t discount any of these that I have mentioned.
Finally… you ask a question which I really shouldn’t even dignify with a response, but as is my nature, I will, “Why are Christians the only ones that have to be ‘tolerant?’” EVERYONE should be tolerant. Nobody is persecuting christians. There are more christians on this planet than any other religion. Nobody is persecuting you, so give it up. We are simply asking that you keep your beliefs in your church, where they belong, just as we ask everyone else to do. If a hindu, or buddhist, or druid was on here touting their beliefs as arrogantly as you and David have, my message to them would be the exact same. No different. Leave it in the church. And, I’ll tell you what… if I want to know more, I’ll either pick up a bible (they’re readily available) or I’ll take a stroll into your church. Don’t accost me on the sidewalk, in the mall, in the parking lot or anywhere else for that matter. If I want more info, I’ll make that effort thank you very much.
Written by Andrew Smith on June 26th, 2008Andrew,
No time to deal with this now but . . . you’re building straw men and then knocking them down. Several things you claimed I said, I didn’t say.
As far as keeping my beliefs “in the church” - I am commanded to “go into all the world and preach the gospel” - I’ll obey that rather than you and since America and the internet remain free - I have the right to do so. Thank you very much. If you put a sign on your forehead identifying who you are, I will certainly leave you alone.
God bless,
Written by Ross on June 27th, 2008Ross
Hi Ross, I’ve stopped addressing everything in the comments, as they’ve become quite long. Andy can be trying but he’s a good guy. Admittedly he and I choose our words differently. Please don’t write him off; he has some great ideas if you can get past his tone.
Ahh, now to us. I think it’s fairly obvious by our discussion thread that we have two very different approaches to, well, life. You like yours, I like mine. Let’s leave it at that, mmm K?
As per your comments, your first paragraph started out, umm, well you got better after the first one. I could reply to each of your ideas, but no longer see the point. I still feel that you haven’t addressed some of our points, as I’m sure you feel the same way about some of ours. Overall I enjoyed reading most of your input.
But towards the end of your comments you seemed to lose your cool. You tell me to shut my pie hole, insult my intelligence of Christianity, dodged the intolerance issue again, called evolution by childish names, insulted Europe, insulted the American education system, and attempted to fall back on your many years of life on this planet. Again.
What am I supposed to say to that?
It appears we’re both fairly well educated, but I don’t appreciate being talked down to. I don’t really care how old you are, either. Our arguments are accomplishing nothing at this point. I understand this can be an emotional subject, but I’d appreciate it if you used your discretion when clicking the ’submit’ button on our site. Maybe write out your comment and sleep on it next time, k?
I’m truly sorry to hear that you have such an “us against the world” attitude, even towards people who deem themselves to be Christian (even if you don’t).
At this time I think I should close this comment thread. If you would like to continue this conversation further, please refer to our contact form. Thanks for the feedback thus far. I hope our disagreements don’t prevent us from discussing other topics in the future.
Written by Ted Goas on June 27th, 2008