Creation Museum Sparks Evolution Debate

RedNova ^ | 22 May 2005 | Staff

[Non-Sequitur]

"And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you, they shall be male and female" Genesis 6:19

Seems to me that would include T-Rex, Brontosaurus, every other dinosaur.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"The bottom line is, he is anti-gay, and he uses that card all the time."

Not exactly a firm argument in favor of the philosophy of evolution.

[Drammach]

Apparently, Mr. Ham makes his money from speaking engagements, books, videos, and radio..

You can read about him here

[Doctor Stochastic]

And I'll sit and wonder where that $25 million came from. Anyone know?

Link the First

Link the Second

Link the Third

Link the Fourth

[TXnMA]

Terminally dumbed down and proud of it.

Thank you!

Perfect description of the 11th-century mindset of those who insist on clinging to the "seven rotations of this insignificant ball of mud -- 6000 years" misinterpretation of Genesis I.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...they shall be male and female...

A single earthworm is male and female, but she wouldn't suffice, of course.

[Stultis]

"See, their eyes would be yellow because of all the beta carotene these obvious vegetarians were getting from the carrots they ate!"

[DannyTN]

The evolutionist case for evolution of Ham Sandwiches

• Ham Sandwiches exist today so they must have evolved.
• Intelligent Design of ham sandwiches is supernatural and not science.
• A clear tree showing the evolution of Ham Sandwiches can be presented proving evolution
  • Ham broth,
  • ham cube,
  • ham slice,
  • open face sandwiches
  • hors d'oeuvre ,
  • finger sandwich,
  • ham sandwich,
  • hoagie,
  • super hoagie,
  • BBQ sandwich.
• One person advocating intelligent design of ham sandwiches was proven wrong on another issue. Therefore all advocates of intelligent design of ham sandwiches are liars.
• No articles advocating intelligent design of ham sandwiches has been published in journals controlled by people who believe in the evolution of ham sandwiches.
• The national association of people who believe in the evolution of ham sandwiches has published a statement stating that intelligent design of ham sandwiches is not science.
• Ham Pizza and Ham Sandwiches both evolved from an (unknown) common ancestor.
• Chicken sandwiches represent convergent evolution.
• If criticisms of evolution of ham sandwiches are allowed, it will throw dietary habits back to the stone age, destroy technology, bring in the Taliban, result in dark ages which is what advocates of intelligent design of ham sandwiches want.
• Intelligent Design of ham sandwiches is a cancer on the meat eating party.
• Ham Sandwiches in school cafeterias taste 1,000,000 years old, proving that Ham Sandwiches have been around longer than 6000 years.
• Botulism found in some old ham sandwiches prove that ham sandwiches weren't intelligently designed. Why would a designer put botulism in a ham sandwich?
• An infinite number of monkeys in a kitchen given an infinite amount of sliced ham, bread, lettuce, sliced tomato, and mayonaise would eventually make a ham sandwich. (Nevermind that the monkey has some intelligence, or that the kitchen, bread, sliced products and mayonaise all require design themselves)

[DannyTN]

"And I'll sit and wonder where that $25 million came from. Anyone know?"

I bet it wasn't taxpayer funded government grants like the evolutionists get.

[TXnMA]

Please describe how your "six 'yom' -- 6000 years ago" viewpoint explains this:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020901.html

Obviously, you can't-- you insist on using the wrong interpretation of 'yom'...

[DannyTN]

"What's in a persons heart comes out through their behavior so the person is condemned. You can't separate the person from their behavior "

Yes and No. It's true that a person's behavior is reflective of what's in their heart and their behavior condemns them.

However, the Christian is always mindful, that God created us all, God loves us all despite our behavior, and we have the potential to become what God intended for us. All of us have been condemned by our behavior in some way or another.

But it is not for us, to look and say that a person who exhibits bad behavior is not worthy of God's mercy should they repent. It is for us to see every individual as God sees them and with the potential that God sees them with.

That's why Ken Ham separates the behavior from the person.

[Sybeck1]

Why do some people take it so personal if others feel different than they do about what happened before recorded time?

[Atheist_Canadian_Conservative]

Dirt --> Man

Man's Rib --> Woman

Gee, that's MUCH better. I thought having a spacer between us and dirt would be an upgrade.

[RadioAstronomer]

I thought this was a joke article from the onion.

Unfortunately it's not. :-(

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Just mythoughts]

"They'll spend $25 million dollars on this "museum" and then turn around and bitch that they can't get grant money to do their "research.""

"GRANT" money does seem to be what allllll the FEAR is about with the EVO's. Tooooooo sad that this guy is spending alllll this loot on 'his' perception of what is WRITTEN.

Sadly nowhere does the literal WORD claim this earth is merely 6,000 years old. As it is WRITTEN "there is nothing new under the sun"!

[RadioAstronomer]

Why do some people take it so personal if others feel different than they do about what happened before recorded time?

Because they are trying to “sneak” their religion into the public schools by masquerading it as science.

[DannyTN]

"Why do some people take it so personal if others feel different than they do about what happened before recorded time?"

I can't speak for evolutionists, I can only speak for the creationist side.

First, the stakes are extremely high. Emotion that you sense, may reflect the stakes rather than "taking it personally".

• The stakes are the reliability of the scripture.
• If people doubt the reliability of the scripture, they may reject God's plan of salvation with eternal consequences for them. Therefore it is important to refute erroneous claims and interpretations of data that conflict with scripture.

But Creationists may take it personally because they feel people are calling God a liar and they love God. It's not unlike saying something bad about your momma.

Evolutionists probably take it personally, because their decision to reject God and live the way they want to hangs in the balance.

Both sides may have invested time and effort into their sides cause and don't want to see that their efforts were in vain.

[DannyTN]

"Because they are trying to “sneak” their religion into the public schools by masquerading it as science."

Exactly right. There is no reason to be teaching the religion of evolution to kindergardeners. But they have snuck it in there, despite the prohibition on religious instruction in public schools.

[AntiGuv]

Oh wait! What was I thinking?! Our amphibious Egyptians were inundated beneath about 29,050 feet of water.