Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:Bart,
I apologize. My initial reply was not to your OP, but to Gman's comments.

Sorry that I Iumped in my question to you without distinquishing.

I've been to the museum, and it is quite interesting. Although I don't agree with everything at AIG, particularly whenever someone atributes YEC to orthodoxy, I do like much that they offer. Jason Lisle (phd in astrophysics) is a wonder at exposing loggical fallacies in evolutionary thinking.

If the ark is the dimensions listed in the bible, then it is most certainly a problem for OEC. Makes absolutely no sense. When you actually see the literal size of the ark, it might change your perspective.
Not only was the ark big enough to hold the different kinds of animals, but it was large enough to hold a LOT more people.

Either way I think it'd be kind of cool to have a life size replica. At least we can point it as proof to the detractors who think it can't be built or won't float.

Byblos, is there a chance that this YEC ark will create more detractors? Skeptics may see the replica ark and think "Wow!, maybe the bible was correct after all!" Just to hear AIG say that dinosaurs were on the ark, and 2 of every animal on the earth as well. I can see those skeptics being even more skeptical.

Why would you call it a YEC arc? It's an arc built on the exact biblical specifications so it's nether YEC nor OEC. And you know what Rick, skeptics will always find asinine reasons to doubt anything biblical but that should not stop us from from building it 'cause you know what happens when you build it ...

I'll answer your question with a question of my own. Who would be funding and building the ark? If the ark was built and put in a museum that wasn't funded by YECs, then I wouldn't have called it a YEC ark. Maybe I'm wrong in assuming since it is going to be a part of the YEC museum, isn't it going to have all kinds of YEC props to add to the YEC 6,000 year old earth and dinosaurs living with man etc.? Yes, I know what happens when they build it. People will come out to see the amazing ark, and be bombarded with YEC rhetoric.

Canuckster1127 wrote:A literal ark is not the exclusive domain and belief of just those who take a YEC view.

Bart, this would be a literal ark , complete with dinosaurs, and all kinds of animals from all over the earth, correct? If it were only an empty, life size ark replica, without the YEC props, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I recently received a sponsorship request for the ark from AIG. 5000 for a beam, 1000 for a plank, 100 for a peg.. Actually it will be quite interesting to see this thing built.. Not that I support AIG... It will be 24.5 million to build.

http://arkencounter.com/?utm_source=aig ... kEncounter

People will come out to see the amazing ark, and be bombarded with YEC rhetoric.

People will come out and be presented with a perspective from a YEC worldview.

Things you can do with $24.5 million Dollars.

Send 1,000 African Christians to Seminary
Dig 4,000 wells for villages without potable water
Provide 1,000 schools for students in third world countries who are currently uneducated
Establish 100 clinics in areas where over 30% of the people are suffering and dying from AIDS
Feed 100,000 children for a year who would otherwise die of starvation
Provide construction materials, engineers, plans and permits for 100 community centers in countries with no such facilities

OR

Build 1 big to scale replica of Noah's Ark to attract people to hear your perspective of what time frame God created the world in.


(Hmmmmm, I guess I DO have an opinion ..... )

Sure Bart. We could run through a list of things that people spend money on, and compare it to where it could/should have been spent. We can do that among our local congregations. Actually if people who claimed to be Christian wanted to, they could do all of the above, and a whole lot more. Sadly you guys are looking at this one way. And that is with the venom you have for AIG.

I don't think they would build the attraction unless they thought it would more than pay for itself in increased attendance. It is a museum afterall. And a museum is only as good as its best attraction. That's why themeparks spend millions. Of course I doubt you are going to start a thread on how much some churches spend on new buildings. I wonder how much that bball arena cost Joel Osteen's bunch. I can just about bet you that some congregations spend close to this if not more on facilities.

I will gladly criticize those who deserve criticism....it annoys me when churches spend money on ridiculous amounts of aesthetics, absolutely!!

Considering how amazing computer technology is out there, there are plenty of cheaper alternatives to spending all of this money that can show the perspectives of the ark. But they aren't JUST buildign an ark, are they? They are selling/presenting along with that an interpretation of the Bible with very clear connotations...."this is the only way to interpret the Bible". And that is what I criticize.

We are certainly entitled to our opinion and our opinions are not "venom". To say that I believe that the AiG museum is way off base, uses bad science, and perpetuates and encourages divisions in the church is not venomous (unless you would like to paint AiG and others with that particular brush!)

It is their money, absolutely. Do I think it's the wisest use of the money? no....but then again I think to even build that museum was a waste of money.

And yes, I have plenty of scorn towards churches who waste money of ridiculous things...we as a church body waste too much money on crazy auditoriums, sound systems, expensive instruments....

Give me a simple buildings with a few pretty things with a basic piano with the human voice, with instruments that people themselves own and bring. How about that?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Things you can do with $24.5 million Dollars.

Send 1,000 African Christians to Seminary
Dig 4,000 wells for villages without potable water
Provide 1,000 schools for students in third world countries who are currently uneducated
Establish 100 clinics in areas where over 30% of the people are suffering and dying from AIDS
Feed 100,000 children for a year who would otherwise die of starvation
Provide construction materials, engineers, plans and permits for 100 community centers in countries with no such facilities

OR

Build 1 big to scale replica of Noah's Ark to attract people to hear your perspective of what time frame God created the world in.


(Hmmmmm, I guess I DO have an opinion ..... )

Great points Bart...

jlay wrote:Sure Bart. We could run through a list of things that people spend money on, and compare it to where it could/should have been spent. We can do that among our local congregations. Actually if people who claimed to be Christian wanted to, they could do all of the above, and a whole lot more. Sadly you guys are looking at this one way. And that is with the venom you have for AIG.

I don't think they would build the attraction unless they thought it would more than pay for itself in increased attendance. It is a museum afterall. And a museum is only as good as its best attraction. That's why themeparks spend millions. Of course I doubt you are going to start a thread on how much some churches spend on new buildings. I wonder how much that bball arena cost Joel Osteen's bunch. I can just about bet you that some congregations spend close to this if not more on facilities.

Jlay. Disagreement with AIG is not venom.

I've left institutional churches in part for the same reason. If an OEC organization were to do something like this, I assure you, my observations would be along the same vein.

I don't see Joel Osteen's arena in any different light. I think it's ridiculous and has nothing to do with Christ, how many religious institutions (most really) spend money while people around the world starve daily.

I believe I did start a thread on a similar line with regard to the Crystal Cathedral's bankruptcy.

If you wish to defend AIG in this regard, that's your perogative. Kindly keep your responses to the issues involved and there's no need to attack me personally for holding the position I do, and I'll try to do the same for you. Deal?

Attack?
Please, no one has attacked you. I never said disagreement was venom. I know you disagree with AIG. And so that is why I see your post as venomous. Is your stab at AIG genuinely concerned with these ways in which money (their money) could be spent? Or is your cirticism of how they spend their money rooted in the fact that you are at odds with their YEC views? The tone of your post leads me to believe the latter. Regardless, it's a very poor argument in my opinion.

My point with Osteen is that they are a church. The AIG Creation Museum is not a church. Nor are they a charity group. And I would at least consider the merits of building attractions that will bring people to a museum to generate revenue, before I start treating them like they are something they are not. Specifically something they do not claim to be. A church, or charity group.

If you want to contend that I am being too liberal with the word venom, then I have no problem with that.
Yes i think there is a lot of venom towards AIG, and I've seen it on display many times here on this board. I'm not saying that some isn't justified. But, I don't know. Because all I usually hear are arbitrary statements, that are very similar to how a lot of new atheists respond to the overall Christian worldview. It's very similar.

Attack?
Please, no one has attacked you. I never said disagreement was venom. I know you disagree with AIG. And so that is why I see your post as venomous. Is your stab at AIG genuinely concerned with these ways in which money (their money) could be spent? Or is your cirticism of how they spend their money rooted in the fact that you are at odds with their YEC views? The tone of your post leads me to believe the latter. Regardless, it's a very poor argument in my opinion.

My point with Osteen is that they are a church. The AIG Creation Museum is not a church. Nor are they a charity group. And I would at least consider the merits of building attractions that will bring people to a museum to generate revenue, before I start treating them like they are something they are not. Specifically something they do not claim to be. A church, or charity group.

If you want to contend that I am being too liberal with the word venom, then I have no problem with that.
Yes i think there is a lot of venom towards AIG, and I've seen it on display many times here on this board. I'm not saying that some isn't justified. But, I don't know. Because all I usually hear are arbitrary statements, that are very similar to how a lot of new atheists respond to the overall Christian worldview. It's very similar.

Jlay,

Ad Hominem - look it up. It's directing an argument to the person you're conversing with and moving focus from the issues to the person.

Your response, further demonstrates it.

I never said disagreement was venom. I know you disagree with AIG. And so that is why I see your post as venomous.

Huh? You don't see the contradiction in that?

The AIG Creation Museum is not a church. Nor are they a charity group. And I would at least consider the merits of building attractions that will bring people to a museum to generate revenue, before I start treating them like they are something they are not. Specifically something they do not claim to be. A church, or charity group.

This is just factually incorrect. The AIG Creation museum is not a church. You're right there. All that follows however is not correct. They are in fact a charity group and they are not building this ark exhibit from revenues from their museum. Nor are they borrowing the money on speculation that the revenues will cover it. They are asking for contributions and then they are going to charge admission and further promote their museum.

http://creationmuseum.org/about/give/

They are a charity group and they are registered as such, as is the entire AIG organization. So your argument above states that that because they are not a charity group you suspend treating them like something they are not. I know you well enough jlay that you wouldn't purposely mis-state something like this, so I assume you sincerely believed that and simply were mistaken in that impression. You're factually wrong on this matter.

It leads me to ask, however, given that they are in fact a charitable organization and they are asking for direct contributions for their ark, which are tax-deductible, does that change your opinion in any measure? You say you're assessing them in this regard because they are not a charity. I've just shown you by primary evidence, that they in fact are a charity. So, the premise you cite for suspending judgment is false. Does this modify your opinion and lead you to reassess, or will you maintain your position and look for another reason now?

The comparison of disagreement from myself and others with AIG, with new-atheists, is not really worthy of a response and is another example of attacking the person disagreeing with you by an analogous lumping together with others in a contrived guilt by association approach.

It's fine that you agree with AIG and are YEC jlay. That's a perfectly legitimate position to take and I take no issue with you on that nor will I denigrate you personally for your position.

Please note that I've addressed your factual assertions above and not characterized your position or you by inference as "venemous" or anything that reflects negatively upon you as a person. I've not compared you to atheists or other groups in an attempt to disparage your opinion.

bart

Bart, it's pretty apparent that if I respond, this will merely degrade into something personal. Considering what the board has been through recently, I'll share my specific comments in a pmail. Only to say here that I disagree with your evaluation, and will respond here to your assertions about so called charity.

This is just factually incorrect. The AIG Creation museum is not a church. You're right there. All that follows however is not correct. They are in fact a charity group and they are not building this ark exhibit from revenues from their museum. Nor are they borrowing the money on speculation that the revenues will cover it. They are asking for contributions and then they are going to charge admission and further promote their museum.

If you want to talk about fallacies, then perhaps you should examine your own. You see you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. Lumping. They receive charitble donations. They don't run a charity. Big difference. I could give you a lengthy list of museums and not-for-profit groups that qualify under the not-for-profit heading, which receive charitible giving, but are not in the business of using that funding for benevolent giving. Perhaps you'd like me to link the 501c3 regulations. So no it hasn't changed my opinion because this is the fallacy of reification. You are using the word charity in an ambgious way that suits your self. Just as I would not classify the local not for profit art museum a 'charity,' because they are not actually doing acts of benevolence. Even though they receive charitible giving. Oh, and they charge admission.

Fair enough. You were not clear in your use of the word. I would note then that that is something those considering giving money to them should consider, and look to how Jesus instiructed those following Him to invest in the "kingdom of God."

One possible solution to the salt water problem is that, if it was fresh water that made the water rise, then the ocean would be mostly fresh water, with salt water sinking below the fresh water due to density. Then it would merely be an issue of boiling. But, then, there are all sorts of issues with this theory, too.

Interesting tidbits.

The earth is already 70% covered with water.
Scientists argue that Mars was hit with massive floods that rapidly formed massive canyons larger than the grand canyon. And yet there is not a drop of liquid H2O on the planet.

If you leveled all the mountains, and raised all the valleys, the entire surface of the earth, would be submerged by 2.8 kilometers.
Scientists believe that most of the Northern hemisphere was covered in an ice sheet that was up to 2 miles thick at some points.
It is accepted that all the world's Mtn ranges are either the result of the violent tectonic activity, or volcanic activity. Threw observation we know the later can happen very rapidly. Between 1980 and 1986, a dacite lava dome at Mount St. Helens grew to about 1,000 feet high and 3,500 feet across.

The earth has a preserved fossil record. We know by observation that fossils do not form, unless their is rapid burial to preserve them from scavenging and decomposition.