Of course there are contradictions in the biblical texts - for a good overview of them, this resource is pretty good: Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

They also do a Skeptic's annoted Qu'ran, just in case anyone thinks they're Christian-bashing.

The whole point about Genesis is that there are even biblical literalists who don't believe in a young Earth. It seems to be a largely American interpretation that the Earth was created in six literal days. Even if you ignore science and use the biblical texts themselves, there are a couple of obvious points here: what does the word "day" mean in the Genesis account? The Sun wasn't created until day four (the day *after* fruit trees were created, incidentally), so the usual Hebrew definition of a day as the period from sunset to sunset couldn't have applied. Secondly, Genesis is presumably talking about God's definition of "day" - which we know from Psalm 90 is "a thousand years" in human terms.

However, "a thousand" is absolutely *not* the literal interpretation. Biblical literalists need to read the *original* texts, not English translations. The word אלף is used in the original, which means "many", "a multitude", "a thousand", or "a tribe". Basically, Psalm 90 is an early version of the theory of relativity, and states that time passes at different rates for different observers according to their frame of reference. Six "days" from a God's-eye view means six times a multitude of years from a human perspective. That "multitude" could be a thousand, a billion or whatever.

My objection to creationism as shown in this museum is its sheer lack of imagination. Surely a diety who brings an entire vast Universe into being, who fine-tunes the laws of physics so that over 13 billion years a cosmos of such elegance and vastness develops unimaginable levels of complexity is far more awe-inspiring than the rather primitive Hephaestus-like god of the forge who hammers out a few planets and takes a day off? If there is a creator god, I think he or she is rather bigger and more magnificent than the one envisaged by the creationists.

I didn't know that. A lot of people take it literally, and live with the idea quite happily.

A lot of people believe in Santa Claus too. That doesn't make it true.

Try to look for reasons to believe? What kind of backwards philosophy is that?

How about seeking the truth, whatever it may be!

Truly that is so, Tad. But I feel that if people are happy and not pushy, then it really doesn't matter.

I tend to believe in a Creator initiated evolution. Keeps me happy. And gives me moments to say, "here, here" to nearly everyone.

OD

Personally, I have no problem with someone creating this park, but it does not fit the definition of a museum.

museum - Definitions from Dictionary.com


mu·se·um /myuˈziəm/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[myoo-zee-uhm]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed.

Me either. Considering it isnt true at all.

One doesnt need to argue for creation, to disprove evolution. It disproves its self. Well, not all of evolution, but the parts were we evolved from apes is rediculas. Established fact hu? They have you right where they want you.

,

Ridiculous as in irrational or ridiculous as in contradictory with preheld notions? Think about it. Are humans and apes really that different? Sophisticated interspecies communication, social structure, aversion to murder & theft, and social hierarchy. These have all been observed in chimps alone and have been common traits in every human society since the dawn of man. The only difference is more developed intelligence on our part. Not to mention the striking vestigial, embryonic, and genetic similarities in both species.

And who would these people be? The evil secular scientists who hold PhDs and have evaluated & reformed the theory since before either of us were in diapers? Face it, creationism is a modern idea, created not in a quest for the truth, but simply to disprove Darwin. It's a reactionary science, which makes it a junk science because it already has an agenda and already has bias that affect the results.