Big Valley Creation Museum is open!

[Crymson]

I don't know how this slipped under the radar!

Well, i'm glad to say that the Big Valley Creation Museum is finally open, after a successfull July 18th Grand opening.

Some of more interesting exhibts include the "Dinosaurs and humans" display, which shows considerable evidence that not only did dinosaurs exist recently, but that humans existed with them.

Also there are some interesting interactive displays with bacterial flagellum and DNA which provide compelling evidence for creation and refute any unguided, "natural" processes, such as evolution.

http://www.bvcsm.com/

[thrasher22]

They sounds to be on the more liberal side of the creationists, so I can't rag too much on them. Its nice to see someone from that side laying things out in a scientific manner rather than the typical "nuh uh, thats not what the bible says" I tend to hear.

However, the heading quote ""I spent more time in this museum than I did in the Smithsonian" - visitor from Montana" just reinforces my feelings about creationists

[lint]

Has anyone been? I think it would be a good laugh, but don't feel like paying admission just to see the "evidence". That being said, can you enlighten us as to what evidence they have that dinosaurs and humans co-existed? Interested to know what evidence that is fatal to the evolutionary dogma has remained a secret for all these years.

[codetrap]

Wow. I think I'm gonna take the wife up there this weekend! She'll get a kick outta this.

[Canmorite]

'Science Museum' and Creationism don't mix well. Unless you're talking junk science.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

....Hahahahahaha!!!!!



Oh, you're serious.






....ahahahahahaha!

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Canmorite
'Science Museum' and Creationism don't mix well. Unless you're talking junk science.

I believe in Creationism AND Evolution, and I'm not talking junk science.

[GTS Jeff]

I'd like to see it. Roadtrip anyone?

[Crymson]

I'd go for a cruise up there, i didn't here were so many people on beyond as passionate about this kind of thing as me!

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Hakkola


I believe in Creationism AND Evolution, and I'm not talking junk science.

How can you believe both? They contradict themselves...

Most 'science' behind creationism is junk, from what I've seen. Biased and unsupported 'evidence' that has many holes.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Canmorite


How can you believe both? They contradict themselves...

Most 'science' behind creationism is junk, from what I've seen. Biased and unsupported 'evidence' that has many holes.

Creationism is a set of firm believe pass off as science.

Evolution is a scientific believe waiting to be disproved.

One is constant, one is forever changing. Neither can be proved to be absolute truth and both are hard to debunk. But at least evolution is a theory based on physical evidence and not just some religious passage.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Canmorite


How can you believe both? They contradict themselves...

Most 'science' behind creationism is junk, from what I've seen. Biased and unsupported 'evidence' that has many holes.

How do they contradict? I could post some links to respected christian scientists that believe in both as well, but I've already done that in another thread. I don't believe in any 'science' behind creationism, I don't believe that the earth is only 10 000 or however many years old, and I laugh at people that do.

The only thing that the english version of the bible says that is strange is the unit of time in creation being a day, where as the original texts say epoch, which is a period of time, not a day.

[gpomp]

i saw this on ctv news about a month ago. they were interviewing the people who started the museum and such. after that, they interviewed a REAL scientist from the university of calgary who pretty much said these guys were complete idiots.

[Hakkola]

Long read, but this is how Creationism and science coexist in my belief system.


", God “formed” man of the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7). This Hebrew word (yatsar) means “to mold” or “form,” which implies time. Yatsar is used specifically of the work of a potter (cf. Jer. 18:2f.)."

Not my own words.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html


"Most people read the Genesis creation account without using the scientific method and, therefore, make assumptions that are not supported by the text. For example, the first rule of the scientific method is to establish the initial conditions, or the frame of reference. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the frame of reference is "the surface of the waters" of the earth. Most people have made the mistake of assuming the frame of reference of Genesis 1 is heaven or somewhere above the earth.
What does the text specifically say? The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first "day" (Genesis 1:1, ~16 x 109 years ago) (3). In other verses, the Bible says that the earth is controlled by the heavens, refuting geocentrism (4). In Genesis 1:2, God was "hovering or brooding" over the seas of the newly formed earth (4.4-3.8 x 109 years ago, 5). We know from science this is where the first unicellular life forms first appeared (6). The Hebrew word, rachaph, translated as "hovering or brooding" is used only twice in the Old Testament. The second reference is to an eagle caring for its young (7). Therefore, it seems likely that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 may be referring to God creating the first life forms in the sea.


Both science and God (8) have told us that at the earth's creation, it was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, "darkness was over the surface of the deep." Next, God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness" (Genesis 1:4). It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5).

Genesis 1:6-10 describe the initiation of a stable water cycle (9) and formation of continents (10) through tectonic activity (~2.7 x 109 years ago) (11).


Plant life was created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-13, ~1.0 x 109 years ago). These verses are probably the strongest argument for the day-age interpretation. The verse says quite clearly that the earth sprouted (or brought forth) plants and fruit trees bearing fruit. The process described is clearly similar to what we see today. Fruit trees take years to bear fruit, testifying that the third day was at least several years long, and could not possibly be just 24 hours.

Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long.

Birds (12) (~70 x 106 years ago), whales (13) (~50 x 106 years ago) and sea mammals ("swarms of living creatures," where "creatures" is the Hebrew word nephesh, referring to soulish animals - those that can form relationships with humans) were created on the "fifth" day (Genesis 1:20-21), which would correspond to the end of the Cretaceous period/beginning of the Tertiary.
The fifth day describes a period of time longer than 24 hours as swarms of living creatures are multiplying in the sea.

On the sixth day God created the "beasts of the earth" (in Genesis 1:25 the Hebrew word is chayyah, which is best translated as "wild animal," usually referring to carnivorous mammals (14) (the extinct families Miacidae and Viverravidae, appeared ~50 x 106 years ago or current families Canidae, Felidae, Mustelidae, and Viverridae appeared ~30 x 106 years ago ) and the cattle (the Hebrew word is behemah, from which we get the word behemoth, the artiodactyls (large grazing mammals) appeared ~15 x 106 years ago) and the rodents (mammals that "creep on the ground"). Therefore, the wild and domesticated mammals and rodents were created on the sixth day.

The last creation of God was mankind, who was also created at the end of the sixth day. What about humans and three million year old fossil remains of bipedal primates? I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, although I do not believe they lived millions of years ago. The Bible indicates that Adam and Eve had a relationship with God (Genesis 2-3) and the text says that unique among all the animals, humans are endowed with a spirit (Hebrew, ruach, Greek, pneuma), by which they are able to communicate with and love God. Scientists have found no evidence of religious artifacts before about 25,000 to 50,000 years ago (15), which is the point at which I purpose God created Adam and Eve. The Bible states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (16). A biblical generation, described as being 40 years, would represent at least 40,000 years of human existence. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology). Therefore, I believe that bipedal primates that existed before Adam and Eve, were just part of the animal kingdom, and were not endowed with the characteristics that make humans distinct from animals."


http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
"Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:

The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.
Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."
In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)
The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4).
The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). "

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding... Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, (Job 38:4-9)

The Bible not only tells us that the Earth was dark during its infancy, but it tells us why the Earth was dark - it was covered with thick clouds - something that science confirms."

[Si_FlyGuy]

"I spent more time in this museum than I did in the Smithsonian" - visitor from Montana

[sputnik]

The thing that makes me think that there must be or have been something that created the universe is the simple question...

"What came before that?"

People talk about a big bang. What created the big bang?

Or what created all of the particles and enzymes that evolved into the creatures and plants on earth?

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Neither can be proved to be absolute truth and both are hard to debunk. But at least evolution is a theory based on physical evidence and not just some religious passage.

No..... creationism is actually quite easy to debunk.......

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by Canmorite


How can you believe both? They contradict themselves...

Most 'science' behind creationism is junk, from what I've seen. Biased and unsupported 'evidence' that has many holes.

Exactly.....science based on faith is NOT science.

[D. Dub]

"The "Dinosaurs and Humans" display shows considerable evidence that not only did dinosaurs exist recently, but that humans existed with them. This evidence is fatal to the evolutionary dogma which has dinosaurs extinct at least 60 million years before humans evolved."

[TimG]

i feel like going there just to yank their chains.

i wonder how much federal and provincial funding these guys are receiving.