Paul Blizzard endorses the Creation Museum- do you?

by moshe 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  funkyderek

  This laughable travesty of a museum teaches that the entire universe came into existence some five thousand years after the invention of agriculture. It teaches that the world was entirely covered with water during the height of the Sumerian and Egyptian civilisations and that dinosaurs may have roamed the earth in the time of Alexander the Great. It is a heinous example of the sort of benighted idiocy that infests the United States. It represents the glorification of ignorance and superstition masquerading as knowledge.

  So no, I don't endorse it. Go to a real museum instead and learn about the incredible wonders of a universe far larger, older and more awe-inspiring than anything imagined by Bronze Age nomads or spread by the intellectually stunted mystics of the American Bible Belt.
• 

  Mary

  So Funkyderek.....I take it you've already booked your tickets for a trip to the museum eh?
• 

  AK - Jeff

  I would like to see it before passing judgment on it one way or the other.... but then I am not a top intellectual like some who feel compelled to condemn it.

  I believe in Creation - but have never felt the desire to attack without mercy those who visit the various Natural History Museums that stand in dispute of my opinions. In fact I visit them often myself, and have never felt a rabid desire to lash out at the evolutionists in attendence there.

  Jeff
• 

  mavie

  AK - Jeff,
  
  This museum upsets me in one big way. The fact that a person who believes the Earth was created after the invention of beer probably also believes that an imaginary god in the sky has the right to dictate every facet of their life. This includes:
  
  1.) Who our friends are
  2.) How we treat those friends
  3.) Who we elect as President of the USA
  4.) Who we feel it's ok to blow up and go to war with
  5.) How we treat the Earth today (if it's going to be a paradise, why bother protecting it now?)
  6.) Where my tax dollars go
  
  More?
  
  btw, I'm talking about extrinsic religiosity.
• 

  funkyderek

  AK - Jeff:

  I believe in Creation - but have never felt the desire to attack without mercy those who visit the various Natural History Museums that stand in dispute of my opinions. In fact I visit them often myself, and have never felt a rabid desire to lash out at the evolutionists in attendence there.

  Nor should you. Such museums teach what is known about the world through the rigorous investigation of the available evidence. They educate and entertain, adding to the sum total of human knowledge. No thinking person would condemn a museum for not trying to pass off ancient mythology as fact.
• 

  moshe

  Paul seems very dedicated to his Church and for him this is a belief system that makes sense to him. However, If he ever had a crisis of faith, then he would be out of work, wouldn't he? I think they jump through hoops at this museum to disprove scientific discoveries and their methodology to me, seems very much like the wording used in WT publications. It is hard to believe that all these scientists are as dumb as this museum makes them out to be. The problem for religionists is only one scientist has to be right to disprove the Bible's creation story and the Flood of Noah. This can never be admitted.
• 

  truthsearcher

  I think they jump through hoops at this museum to disprove scientific discoveries and their methodology to me, seems very much like the wording used in WT publications. It is hard to believe that all these scientists are as dumb as this museum makes them out to be. The problem for religionists is only one scientist has to be right to disprove the Bible's creation story and the Flood of Noah. This can never be admitted.

  First of all Moshe, I wasn't sure from your comments, but have you visited the museum?

  Secondly, if there is any wording similarities between the WT and the museum, then it is probably because the WT is a huge plagarist and has never done any original research. So I wouldn't be surprised if they took information from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International and inserted them into their publications, with their own little twist on the matter, of course.

  I have had several opportunities to attend scientific lectures by creation scientists--they are highly specialized in their fields, and out there doing some cutting edge research. We all have the same evidence--but we choose to interpret that evidence based on our faith--if your faith is A-Theism then you will not have the same interpretations and conclusions as those who are Theistic. If your faith is Naturalism then you will not have the same conclusions as someone who believes in the Supernatural. But believe it or not, the evidence for creation actually fits well with what is observed.
• 

  Gopher

  Atheism is faith?

  In what?
• 

  truthsearcher

  Atheism is faith that there is no God
• 

  Gopher

  Atheism is faith that there is no God

  I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't let my belief be defined this way.

  Atheism does not make any claims or denials about God. It's just simply choosing not to believe in any god. That's not faith. Faith involves belief in the unseen or the unknown. Atheists generally believe in evolution, however that doesn't involve faith either. Evolution is the scientific postulation of how life forms developed - not how life or this universe originated. So again, no faith is involved here, just science. Nobody can scientifically prove or disprove the existence of a God, so technically that makes us all agnostic (= without knowledge). Some agnostics choose to have faith and believe in a deity. Atheists choose NOT to have such faith. Put another way, if you believe in the Christian God and not the Hindu pantheon of gods and goddesses, then you are a-theist towards the Hindu deities. You don't need to have faith that the Hindu deities don't exist, you just simply don't believe it - and maybe don't give it much thought.