Evidence for God from Science

I wonder if building the ark would have generated that much controversy if it were being built by someone other than AIG, perhaps an entity associated with science or history such as the Museum of Natural History (not that they would).

Honestly I don't see this as anything but positive, irrespective of AIG's motives behind building it. I don't have any plans to visit the museum any time soon but if I were to be in the area I wouldn't miss the chance.

It is because there will be a specific and rather dogmatic philosophy presented along with the building that generates the controversy. Let's face it, I doubt that they will present both takes on Genesis here. The frustration is that those who go will be presented with one view, and one view only. (And I would be willing to bet that there would be something about "compromising" scripture with regards to OEC or local floods).

I would still say that it's a waste of money considering the advancements of CGI capabilities. However, it is their money and they can certainly do whatever they want.

Zoe,
Nor are they obligated to. This is a private museum. And no one is obligated to go.

There is absolutely no way that CGI could capture the effect of having the actual thing.

Dogmatic actually fits. I'm certain Noah's preaching was dogmatic. Repent or perish. No room for interpretation.

I realize that...and I agree that it is their money to use. BUt in terms of why *I* would disagree with it, it would be primarily that they are propagating their own limited interpretation (which, yes, is their right to do). I was referring primarily to those of us OEC who would see it as being interesting....but those who will go to this museum will hear over and over again that the only Biblical and proper interpretation is a YEC interpretion. You say that's great, I say that's unfortunate.

They will perpetuate the YEC view that those unfortunate OEC'ers are destroying the church and compromising the scripture. Let's face it, they aren't sitting there with open arms saying "we all agree that God made it"....there's is a "this is the only way to look at Genesis and if you disagree you are undermining scripture"

Of course CGI could do it! Why not? You can work out perspectives, actually a person walking through it. And if you wanted to, you could build a section of it to then allow for the person to see it as if it's a cross-section of the ark. Now that would be a good compromise. Shoot, I've seen CGI that shows the Temples, the colliseum, Pompeii....with the advancements of CGI, you could even make a video game if you wanted to.

Zoe,
I've been to the museum, and although the YEC position is forefront, I can't say that I recall them attacking OEC positions in the manner you are presenting. They do challenge these positions in a their material, but I don't hear it as you are siting. In fact I don't recall it being at issue in the museum at all. It is much more an attempt to promote the YEC position than it is an attempt to tear down the OEC position.

They have a CGI film about the Ark. It's cool. I've also seen CGI presentations of architecture, but they don't compare with seeing the actual thing. I've done CGI amusement rides that simulate roller coasters. Do they compare to the real thing? No. They also have a cross section of the Ark inside the museum. It's neat, but it fails to capture what you are claiming.

jlay wrote:Zoe,
I've been to the museum, and although the YEC position is forefront, I can't say that I recall them attacking OEC positions in the manner you are presenting. They do challenge these positions in a their material, but I don't hear it as you are siting. In fact I don't recall it being at issue in the museum at all. It is much more an attempt to promote the YEC position than it is an attempt to tear down the OEC position.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... e-present/

But excitement continues. After your ‘walk through history,’ you’ll return to the present-day world and examine the most intriguing ‘facts’ we have today. You’ll see, as never before, how our understanding of the events of the past, help us to understand the biology, geology and cultures of the present-day world. You’ll carefully compare evolutionary explanations and assumptions—like the big bang, alleged apemen and old-earth ideas—against the facts.

You’ll be free to roam and explore the exhibits in any order you choose, but everywhere you turn, you’ll see how the facts, when interpreted through the lens of biblical history, are consistent with the Bible but not with assumptions about ‘millions of years.’

By God’s grace, we hope to challenge every doubter to reconsider their compromise positions when they see how science confirms the Bible. We also pray that many will come to accept the truth of the Bible, including the gospel message.

I would say there is no need to deliberately attack...it is so pervasive to the museum that it is a natural conclusion that to be OEC is not only the wrong way but also equal to believing in evolution. When one's entire museum's foundation is based on "this is the truth" one hardly needs a megaphone to understand that their entire belief revolves around us being wrong. When you have a billion dollar museum, seductive articles and fear at going against the Bible at your side, one hardly needs to attack.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/ ... collection

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /old-earth

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... old-earth/

It seems rather silly to maintain that there isn't hostility....they just have cloaked it in thousands of "this is the truth" presentations.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ung-is-old
(I like this satire....no, they're not hostile....)

Essentially this is what they are saying
"We aren't attacking....we just say that everything that you (OEC) believe is a compromise to scripture, leads to school violence, is entirely wrong, caving to evolutionists..."...hmmm, no they're not hostile at all...

And for the record, if I may anticipate the reply (that I am just as hostile), I don't ultimately have an issue with someone who wants to believe YEC. I have an issue with their claim that anyone who supports OEC is compromising, leading to school violence, and holds a Biblically inconsistent belief.

jlay wrote:
If you leveled all the mountains, and raised all the valleys, the entire surface of the earth, would be submerged by 2.8 kilometers.

Gen. 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Gen. 1:9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

Another scientific accuracy of the Bible: if the earth was "formless" (no mts) the water would cover the land, as it was in the beginning.

Me thinks someone has an axe to grind.

kmr- great point.

Zoe, as i said they do challenge OEC positions. And as I have also said, I don't agree with AIG's position of making YEC orthodoxy. That is there position, not mine. I don't know if you have been in their bookstore, but they have compiled quite a large library on a variety of topics. Considering your position, I can't say that I'm surprised at your findings of hostility. It is bound to be an issue. Obviously you see their challenges as hostile, and I can't argue against the way you feel. I've already been forced into a defender of AIG on another thread. I'm not going to be forced into it here.

It is a simple fact of the positions, that evolution can not in any form or fashion fit a YEC model. That's not their argument per se. That is just a reality. I was under the impression that you were a theistic evolutionists, or am I remembering this wrong?

Based on this same line of thinking, could I take Bart's comments that YEC involves bad science and bad theology as hostile?

kmr wrote: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.

But according to Genesis 7:11 much of the water came from the "deep." We now the closer water get's to the cracks of the earth, the greater the possibility it will be saturated with salt minerals....

Disagreement is one thing. Bad Science and Bad Theology doesn't equate to being "non-orthodox" or by another term, "heretics." AIG consistently lumps OEC and Evolutionists together and presents OEC as a new position finding its advent as a "compromise" in the age of modern science, ignoring it's rich tradition and heritage back to the earliest church fathers and a consistent position (at times in Church history possibly even a majority position) throughout Church history.

Not all YEC proponents and organizations do this. AIG and Ken Ham in particular do more than disagree. They equate a literal hermeneutic as their sole domain and equate their interpretation of scripture as the only one which respects scripture itself.

I take offense at that.

I won't however make the mistake of equating AIG with all YEC proponents and to that end I'll attempt to remain civil and am willing to be corrected if and when I overstep.

their hostility isn't simply about evolution, it's about old earth....

Look, it's their opinion that anyone who even thinks that the earth is old is compromising scripture....I certainly don't need to put words in their mouths. All I did was a simple search on old earth and I was able to find the lovely little soundbite on old earth and school violence....not to mention the quotes equating old earth and evolution.

It's pretty simple and in their own quote...old earth is akin to supporting evolution and secularism. Those who go to the museum are not presented with anything but a simple message...believe in YEC or you are essentially undermining scripture.

I am currently PC but I would have no issue with theistic evolution as long as it held to God's sovereignty.

So....are you saying that AiG is NOT hostile towards OEC?

true BArt....I agree...my annoyance is primarily towards AiG

According to AIG, progressive creationism...

(1) contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture,
(2) assaults the character of God,
(3) severely damages and distorts the Bible’s teaching on death, and
(4) undermines the gospel by undermining the clear teaching of Genesis, which gives the whole basis for Christ’s atonement and our need for a Redeemer.

So ultimately, the issue of a literal Genesis is about the authority of the Word of God versus the authority of the words of sinful men.

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-creation

Gman wrote:According to AIG, progressive creationism...

(1) contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture,
(2) assaults the character of God,
(3) severely damages and distorts the Bible’s teaching on death, and
(4) undermines the gospel by undermining the clear teaching of Genesis, which gives the whole basis for Christ’s atonement and our need for a Redeemer.

So ultimately, the issue of a literal Genesis is about the authority of the Word of God versus the authority of the words of sinful men.

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-creation

I am sorry but these guys are seriously nuts and a danger to Christianity.

When they start sprouting off absolute nonsense like this

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... sportation

Then I seriously question their sanity.