Creation Museum a big bang

There are 13 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Nov 5, 2007, titled Creation Museum a big bang. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

Each day near Petersburg, Ky., 1,500 to 4,000 visitors, including busloads from Christian schools and churches, stand in line for as long as an hour to wander 60,000 square feet of animatronic exhibits ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

Jason

Indianapolis, IN

#1 Nov 5, 2007
I would encourage those interested in what creationism teaches to visit this museum for themselves and not rely on the articles on the web about it. The exhibits are state-of-the-art, the volunteers are extremely kind and helpful, and the workmanship is outstanding. Even if you disagree with their message at least give them credit for not just throwing somehting together. In regards to their message, they present it in a way that is easy to understand and follow as you walk through the museum.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#2 Nov 5, 2007
Jason wrote:
I would encourage those interested in what creationism teaches to visit this museum for themselves and not rely on the articles on the web about it. The exhibits are state-of-the-art, the volunteers are extremely kind and helpful, and the workmanship is outstanding. Even if you disagree with their message at least give them credit for not just throwing somehting together. In regards to their message, they present it in a way that is easy to understand and follow as you walk through the museum.
I don't think that anyone has said that they didn't do a fancy job...they put 25 million dollars into it!!!

Their exhibits ARE slick...but they're just "made-up" displays...it's NOT a museum. It isn't displaying natural history to back up its assertions...it's more like a Disney attraction.
Parker

Indianapolis, IN

#3 Nov 5, 2007
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that anyone has said that they didn't do a fancy job...they put 25 million dollars into it!!!
Their exhibits ARE slick...but they're just "made-up" displays...it's NOT a museum. It isn't displaying natural history to back up its assertions...it's more like a Disney attraction.
Which displays are you referring to that are "made-up"?

Also, what is your definition of a museum? Here is meriam-websters:

?an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value; also : a place where objects are exhibited"

Just because you do not agree with their message does not mean it isn't a museum.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#4 Nov 6, 2007
Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
Which displays are you referring to that are "made-up"?
Also, what is your definition of a museum? Here is meriam-websters:
?an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value; also : a place where objects are exhibited"
Just because you do not agree with their message does not mean it isn't a museum.
A museum displays artifacts relating to the information being presented...other than a few basic fossils, this "museum" lacks any such thing. It fails your definition instantly...

"Made-up displays"? Animatronic dioramas of Humans and Dinosaurs together... that's "made-up"...

The "ark"...? Made-up...

While it's true that museums have dioramas and exhibits that are reconstructions, they are based on REAL evidence...NOT Ken Ham's fantasies and the like!
Jason

Indianapolis, IN

#5 Nov 6, 2007
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
A museum displays artifacts relating to the information being presented...other than a few basic fossils, this "museum" lacks any such thing. It fails your definition instantly...
"Made-up displays"? Animatronic dioramas of Humans and Dinosaurs together... that's "made-up"...
The "ark"...? Made-up...
While it's true that museums have dioramas and exhibits that are reconstructions, they are based on REAL evidence...NOT Ken Ham's fantasies and the like!
You claimed that the Creation Museum was not a museum. When a definition of a museum was provided you then re-defined the definition of a museum to fit your belief.

Do you see why that is dishonest?

If the only way you can make the claim that something "isn't a museum" is by redefining the defintion of a museum, then you are being dishonest.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#6 Nov 6, 2007
Jason wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed that the Creation Museum was not a museum. When a definition of a museum was provided you then re-defined the definition of a museum to fit your belief.
Do you see why that is dishonest?
If the only way you can make the claim that something "isn't a museum" is by redefining the defintion of a museum, then you are being dishonest.
I was going by his definition of "an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value"...

There is nothing there that meets THAT definition...

ANYTHING is a museum by the standards of the other definition he gave.

What is dishonest is their "museum"! The geology is laughable...
Agnostic

United States

#7 Nov 6, 2007
You know, I think the people who established this museum are laughing their butts off at the gullible people who actually believe the stuff exhibited.

I figure that a couple guys were probably sitting around one night getting stoned, and came up with a great practical joke. They wanted to see how many people would donate to them to establish this museum, and then how many gullible people would pay to come visit.

They probably never dreamed that their practical joke would become reality, but, oh my goodness, people actually donated money to help create this place, and people actually pay admission to see the exhibits.

I can't believe that anyone would take this place seriously. It's obvious that it's a prank, and those responsible should be lauded for creating (hee,hee) such a successful prank.

As a fellow practical joker, even though my jokes are very harmless and are small scale, I must applaud the creators of this museum for the success of their joke. Well done!(But watch the pot and alcohol. It could lead to major legal problems.)
Jason

Indianapolis, IN

#8 Nov 6, 2007
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I was going by his definition of "an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value"...
There is nothing there that meets THAT definition...
ANYTHING is a museum by the standards of the other definition he gave.
What is dishonest is their "museum"! The geology is laughable...
Could you provide an example from the museum as evidence for your statement "the geology is laughable"? Please use a specific example from the museum itself.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#9 Nov 6, 2007
Jason wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you provide an example from the museum as evidence for your statement "the geology is laughable"? Please use a specific example from the museum itself.
The "museum" specifically claims that there was a "Noah's Flood" (a global flood). It's a mainstay of the "museum" presentation.

Since this entirely contradicts all the geologic information we now have...
Jason

Indianapolis, IN

#10 Nov 6, 2007
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
The "museum" specifically claims that there was a "Noah's Flood" (a global flood). It's a mainstay of the "museum" presentation.
Since this entirely contradicts all the geologic information we now have...
What geological information is inconsistent with the world being covered (about 70%) in sedimentary rock (rock that is laid down by water)?
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#11 Nov 6, 2007
Jason wrote:
<quoted text>
What geological information is inconsistent with the world being covered (about 70%) in sedimentary rock (rock that is laid down by water)?
Unfortunately (as you WELL know), that's not what is being claimed!

You remember? Noah? 40 days of rain flooding the Earth, stranding seashells on the mountains, while depositing all the rock strata above crystalline rocks, while leaving an Ark on a stratovolcano?:)

That's Ken Ham's story line, and he's sticking to it.

There is no geological evidence for this. Much sedimentary rock WAS laid down in shallow marine waters (NOT a flood...plenty of fossil evidence showing long periods of stable shallow ocean bottom...coral colonies, crinoid colonies, etc...).

For some reason, creationists start screaming "flood! flood!" at that point and just stop there! Flood rocks would look different... There ARE minor rock layers recording LOCAL floods, of course.

However...much of the sedimentary rock (INTERBEDDED with the marine strata!) was deposited in forested floodplains, deserts, deltas, near mountains, etc...

Extensive dinosaur (and other) trackways...

Mudcracks, lithified cobbles from lower layers in upper layers, sand from upper layers deposited in sun-dried cracks in the lower layers...

Animal skeletons that dried in the hot sun...

Forests still rooted where they grew (in the middle of the "flood rocks"!)...some with dino tracks wandering through them.

Endless, endless evidence of a highly varied series of landscapes, preserving a long sequence of animal and plant evolution...
Jason

Indianapolis, IN

#12 Nov 6, 2007
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately (as you WELL know), that's not what is being claimed!
You remember? Noah? 40 days of rain flooding the Earth, stranding seashells on the mountains, while depositing all the rock strata above crystalline rocks, while leaving an Ark on a stratovolcano?:)
That's Ken Ham's story line, and he's sticking to it.
There is no geological evidence for this. Much sedimentary rock WAS laid down in shallow marine waters (NOT a flood...plenty of fossil evidence showing long periods of stable shallow ocean bottom...coral colonies, crinoid colonies, etc...).
For some reason, creationists start screaming "flood! flood!" at that point and just stop there! Flood rocks would look different... There ARE minor rock layers recording LOCAL floods, of course.
However...much of the sedimentary rock (INTERBEDDED with the marine strata!) was deposited in forested floodplains, deserts, deltas, near mountains, etc...
Extensive dinosaur (and other) trackways...
Mudcracks, lithified cobbles from lower layers in upper layers, sand from upper layers deposited in sun-dried cracks in the lower layers...
Animal skeletons that dried in the hot sun...
Forests still rooted where they grew (in the middle of the "flood rocks"!)...some with dino tracks wandering through them.
Endless, endless evidence of a highly varied series of landscapes, preserving a long sequence of animal and plant evolution...
You are really all over the place in the above response. Everything from dino tracks, to fossilized forests, to birds baasking in the sun.

Have you been to the museum? Just an honest question. Doesn't really mean much in regards to your responses. More out of curiosity.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#13 Nov 6, 2007
Jason wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really all over the place in the above response. Everything from dino tracks, to fossilized forests, to birds baasking in the sun.
Have you been to the museum? Just an honest question. Doesn't really mean much in regards to your responses. More out of curiosity.
All over the place...correct! There is a vast amount of evidence against "the flood". It's not just a little something here or there:)

Have I been there? No... I'd really hate to give Ken Ham my money:)

I've looked at their virtual tour, a couple of other photo tours, read descriptions of others' visits, and have been familiar with their website, their claims, etc., for years. The museum just illustrates Ham's claims...it doesn't add anything new.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Petersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll What Samantha Ramsey's homocide... justified? (May '14) 11 min R T M 790
Reason for Season May 23 car007 1
Tammy Feldhaus May 20 Wondering 1
Poll Who Can Arrest Tyler Brockman? (Sep '14) May 13 car007 12
Is Tyler Brockman a child rapist? (Jun '14) May 11 car007 84
Bryan Stevens Batbershop May 5 sam 7
Poll Should Jack Conway Investigate Tyler Glockman B... May 5 Johnathan D Masters 6
More from around the web

Petersburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]