Paul Blizzard endorses the Creation Museum- do you?

by moshe 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jaguarbass

  I once wrote to the museums sponsor, answersingenesis.com about Otzi, the ice man mummy that was about 5000 years old. That would make him a contemporary of Noah and Methusaleh. I wondered how his body could have survived the flood frozen on top of a mountain under an ice glacier. They told me that the scientist's carbon 14 dates were all wrong- so not a conflict at all with the Bible. See how easy that was to figure out?

  I don't know if your response is tounge in cheeck or serious. But man sees what he wants to see. That makes realizing and discerning the truth of our situation most difficult if not impossible.

  The above makes me double minded or multiple minded open to just about anything.

  In my 55 years I have read volumes of pro creatinon litterature. I have supported the instituion of creation research in the past.

  I find it easier to accept their litteral physical findings and interpretations of them than I do of accepting the bible as the word of God. Thats where I have my major problem.

  But I am all for research information and knowlege regarding our exhistence.

  These groups have an agenda a young earth and a bible written by God and they are going to twist all the facts to support that agenda. Which would be well if it were true and didnt require so much twisting and bending and overlooking.

  And I'm not saying its not true. But I do discern a lot of twisting and bending and overlooking.

  I scratch my head and say whats up with that.

  -
• 

  jaguarbass

  Gopher I respect your deffinition of your brand of atheism. And I think well theres multiple definitions of Christians, and theres multiple definitions of atheist.

  Most dictionaries have multiple definitions of most words.

  The worlds not black and white in Dub land Christianity or the land of the atheist.
• 

  Gopher

  theres multiple definitions of atheist.

  This is true. And this causes confusion. Some definitions found in dictionaries are simply based on popular usage or opinion, and not on how atheists actually define their belief. Such dictionaries and their definitions cannot be taken seriously in a discussion like this.

  The root meaning of atheist is "without a deity". It is simply lack of belief. Many atheists don't rule out the possibilty of a god, they just don't see evidence enough to make them want to have faith. A narrow sliver of atheists actually proclaim there's no such thing as god. These are the ones that certain religious apologists focus on, as if all atheists are out to argue against a god and possibly even put down believers at every opportunity. While there are some atheists like that, most are not that way.
• 

  Gopher

  These groups have an agenda a young earth and a bible written by God and they are going to twist all the facts to support that agenda.

  This is the motive behind the new Creation "Museum". Real science doesn't ignore and despise data that happens to be contrary to a preconceived notion.

  And this is happening in the most technologically advanced nation on earth? If our country feeds junk science to the next generation of children, we will be easily surpassed. We may have to outsource our science laboratories in the future.
• 

  moshe

  No, I have not been to the museum yet. The crux of the matter is that some Christian scientists who have faith in the young earth model are at odds with the majority of the scientists who argue for an old earth model. The earth sure looks old to me.