I grew up and was educated as an evolutionist. I am a school teacher with two college degrees (secular schools) and I have been to 13 countries around the world. I am a creationist and proud of it. It is not my reading of the Bible that has led to me becoming a creationist but simple mathematics, college textbooks and common sense. I.e. the universe is 157 billion light years wide and only 15 billion old. Start from the center of the universe and do the math (157/2) - 15 = 63.5 someone is missing 63.5 billion years if according to Einstein nothing moves faster than the speed of light. There are lots of evidences outside of the Bible that points toward a young earth model. I.e. Decay of earth’s magnetic field, efflux of oil from traps by fluid pressure, formation of river deltas, decay of short and long period comets, influx of elements into the ocean via rivers. All of these facts comes from college textbooks and can be verified easily. You can stay trapped by your worldview or open your mind and learn. I have been to lots of museums and I have enjoyed them all. If I ever go the Kentucky, I might go to a creationist museum and I will enjoy myself because I’m not afraid to learn.

Daryle, Boise, ID

I wasn't referring to plant species changing in a lab, this has been observed in nature and not all animals that are interbred are sterile. We can certainly agree to disagree that this museum has actual scientific evidence, that's ok with me. Everyone is free to believe what they will. Hopefully people will education themselves on the controversy before they visit it.

Karen, Greensboro, North Carolina

I don't know that the information you quoted regarding the fossil record is correct. To use it in this context would pretty much be circular reasoning anyhow. The fact that they may have changed plants species in a lab is a far cry from it happening naturally. I also don't think animal interbreeding has really been all that successful. Aren't the offspring usually sterile?

I will go back to something I said earlier. There are ex-evolutionary scientists who are fully aware of the theory of evolution and who are now creation scientists. They would be way more equipped to discuss this than I am.

My main reason for posting was to raise awareness that people who believe in the creation world view aren't necessarily wackos or stupid but that there are valid reasons to consider their view. It's not just a matter of "It's in the Bible so we believe it." There IS actual scientific evidence that supports their conclusions and it would be worth a visit to the museum to check it out.

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

I did not say that evolution cannot be observed, only one mechanism of evolution, speciation, which as it turns out I was wrong anyway. Changes in species have been observed in both plants and animals by way of interbreeding as well as in laboratory. The fossil record also supports evolutionary change via a large body of verified fossils (ie equine, primate) that show evolutionary change. I'm not at all sure what you mean when you say that forensic science isn't obvious or that it has automatic "credibility"..to which branch are you referring? If you mean forensic biology (dna, fluids, serums) or forensic anthropology (bones) both of those deal with hard material evidence and both sciences are subject to the scientific method of inquiry, which all science is held to..

Karen, Greensboro, North Carolina

and athough you might want to include the Big Bang theory in with evolution theory it doesn't make your argument valid as neither evolution theory nor forensic biology/anthropology test the evidence for or against the Big Bang theory.

Karen, Greensboro, North Carolina

Oh, I might be wrong but I think you misunderstood my "mooch" comment. It's hard to explain but my thinking is that since forensic sciences aren't as obvious (ie tangible, repeatable, observable) as the others, it shouldn't have automatic "credibility" just because it is called science. For example, you mentioned that evolution cannot be observed because it takes millions of years. If it can't be observed, then that would make it less provable than the other sciences that can be observed. I think people automatically assume that because it is called science, then the conclusions are factual. Does that make my point clearer?

What is the evidence for species changing into another species?

p.s. yes I introduced the Big Bang theory into my last post because i would consider that part of forensic science along with evolutionary theory

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

I have to emphatically disagree with you Michelle that science does not rely on faith it relies on empirical evidence. Life has not been observed changing from one species to another because this takes millions of years but the fossil record does show evidence of this. Forensic science doesn't "mooch" of other sciences since many sciences actually complement and corroborate theories proposed in another. I am pretty sure that we have very different definitions of what correct inferences are and how they are drawn from evidence. BTW evolution doesn't propose how life came to be, that is the Big Bang theory, and it is a different theory.

Karen, Greensboro, North Carolina

The scientific community also relies on faith if you get right down to it. For example, life has never been shown to come into existence from non-life. Life has never been observed changing from one species to another. While it is always being observed changing WITHIN a species, there is no evidence (contrary to what some might say) of a species changing into another species. (Imagine if penguins went extinct and we found only fossilized remains....they would likely be called transitional fossils). I don't think that forensic science should be able to "mooch" off of the reputation of the other undeniably true sciences. It is not able to repeat nor observed what happened. Therefore, it should not be so bold to claim that it has all the answers of our origins. "Once upon a time there was nothing. Then it exploded. Billions of years later, here we are....." Faith? (if this is a double post, it's because half of the posts don't end up on the board!)

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

The scientific community also relies on faith if you get right down to it. For example, life has never been shown to come into existence from non-life. Life has never been observed changing from one species to another. While it is always being observed changing WITHIN a species, there is no evidence (contrary to what some might say) of a species changing into another species. (Imagine if penguins went extinct and we found only fossilized remains....they would likely be called transitional fossils). I don't think that forensic science should be able to "mooch" off of the reputation of the other undeniably true sciences. It is not able to repeat nor observed what happened. Therefore, it should not be so bold to claim that it has all the answers of our origins. "Once upon a time there was nothing. Then it exploded. Billions of years later, here we are....." Faith?

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

Karen, I'm not sure we're talking about the same evidence. I AM referring to actual physical scientific evidence (NOT faith). I think you are talking about the conclusions that are being drawn from the evidence. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, if there is a God and He created the world (the way creationists believe) and we observe the physical evidence and draw correct inferences from it, then those conclusions would be factual and correct. If there is a God and He created the world that way and we observe the evidence and say that it happened by evolution AND if that is not how it happened, then it doesn't matter if 100% of the people on the earth espouse it to be true...it will never be factual and correct.

MACRO-evolution has never been observed. Think about it. The evidence being provided for MACRO-evolution is all MICRO-evolution evidence. The fact that birds beaks got bigger or smaller indeed supports MICRO-evolution but it doesn't explain how birds changed into, say, dogs.

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

The evidence that you say is being shown is not falsifiable. Everyone has a right to their beliefs, but it is FAITH IS NOT SCIENCE. Science deals with knowledge that is falsifiable, that is it can be proved or disproved by way of observable and repeatable experiments using the scientific method. Religion deals with knowledge that is unfalsifiable, it cannot be proved or disproved by way of observation or repeated scientific experiments that is why religion is called faith and sometimes even blind faith. This is a simplification: the scientific community accepts a theory as fact when testable mechanisms of a theory have been proved over and over so that the conclusion of the scientific community is that the theory is indeed a fact. In the case of evolution, it is accepted as FACT in science although the mechanisms for it are considered THEORY: such as natural selection, speciation, genetic drift, etc…the mechanisms remain theory because these may be disproved in the future but the FACT of evolution is accepted because it can be tested and observed through repeated experiments and observations.

Karen, Greensboro, North Carolina

The mistake that many creationists make is in not separating scientific theory from fact. It is naïve, in my opinion, to think that creationist arguments are trying to combine creation with evolution. This is why people are “afraid for their children” and why creationists, as you say, are labeled as stupid. In the case of this museum the attempt is to try to discredit evolution in favor of creationism. The objective of the creationist movement is to stop evolution being taught in biology classes in favor of creationist theory, which will always be theory because it is a FAITH based concept, not a scientific one. I’m not trying to say that it isn’t possible that Christianity isn’t true, it may well be, but its teachings belong in the church not in a public science class, especially in the U.S. and much of the world where countries increasingly have multi-ethnic societies.

Karen, Greensboro, North Carolina

I didn't know that consensus was required for something to be factual. I thought that the fact that something was actually true made it factual...not the number of people who believe it. Scientists have been wrong in the past and will be wrong again. If all the evidence is allowed to be shown, then perhaps a debate on the actual evidence will be forthcoming. An open dialogue with ALL the evidence being examined is probably the best way to come to the truth. I am not a scientist so my knowledge is limited but there are scientists on both sides of the issue who would intellectually up to the challenge. As an aside, I wonder also why the creationists are criticized for not giving $27 million to the poor, etc. but Disney and Hollywood and Target etc. are allowed to spend money on their ventures. Before you say that they DO give money to the poor, don't you think that the creation museum will do that (and that the people involved probably already do) once it's up and running?

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

And the facts that you claim are religious aren't automatically false because you call them religious. While there are a multitude of false religions, it IS possible that Christianity is true. And if it is, then the facts that you consider Christian could be possibly true. Secular (for lack of a better word...or non-creation-) scientists could be wrong in their conclusions. The fact that their interpretations conflict with the creation scientists doesn't automatically negate the creation scientists' positions. There are some pre-suppositions that you make that never allow agreement to happen.

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

Why is it ridiculous to point out the fact that this "museum" cost millions of dollars? It was built to add credibility to the creationist agenda. If you choose to believe the "ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" that you claim this "museum" displays that is your business but please know that the information being presented is NOT “evidence that everyone would agree is scientifically, verifiably FACTUAL". Many of the so called truths represented in this museum are based on half truths of concepts accepted in the scientific community (and no not all scientists are secular in their beliefs) mixed with religious beliefs.

Karen, Greensboro, North Carolina

All I have to say is that I think Jesus would have been able to find a much better way to spend $27 million dollars than to build a creationist museum in Kentucky. What about feeding the poor? What about vaccines for children and healthcare for people in Third World countries? What about clean drinking water for impoverished people? Seriously...what a huge waste of money.....

Karen, Greensboro, North Carolina

It's ridiculous that people are criticizing the amount of money spent on this. If people attend the museum and learn from the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (you know, like evidence that everyone would agree is scientifically, verifiably FACTUAL) that perhaps the conclusions that have been reached by the secular scientific community don't actually make the most sense, then people may open their minds to the possibility that the creationists are right. If so, they may also accept the fact that there is a God Who sent Jesus to save us. If so, they may decide to accept His free gift of salvation which is eternal life. And how much would YOU pay for others to obtain eternal life vs. eternal death? $27 million? p.s. I'm sure you give ALL your non-essential money to feed the poor, etc. right?

People keep saying that the creationists are stupid, etc. How stupid is it to NOT examine ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE but hold dogmatically to your indoctrinated opinion?

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

All I have to say is that I think Jesus would have been able to find a hell of a lot better way to spend $27 million dollars than to build a creationist museum in Kentucky. What about feeding the poor? What about vaccines for children and healthcare for people in Third World countries? What about clean drinking water for impoverished people? Seriously...what a huge waste of money.....

Karen, Greensboro, NC

Romans ch 1 v 20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For all those who have come to a decision concerning tthis topic based upon their indoctrinated world view and are preaching from inside the box in which they have been placed and can not find a way out because they refuse to remove those glasses they wear which are no longer useful to find the way out Jesus Christ says this to you all " I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE "
Prise off those glasses try these new ones which will fit better and then you will see .
John 3:16

Steve, chester, ch5 4lf

The thing that bothers me the most about this argument is that half of the issues would be solved if Christians just took the time to learn the history of their religion. Judaism requires study of ancient texts and languages to fully appreciate their beliefs. All Christianity requires is sitting under a roof one day a week.

Do most Christians realize their flood story was borrowed from a much older Sumerian myth (good ole' Gilgamesh), and was in fact not world wide but localized...it makes total sense if you understand the flood cycle in Sumer which is quite volatile. Do they realize that whether or not Jesus was the son of god was VOTED ON by the religious figures of the modern era??

Creationists act like the bible is the be-all, end-all of Christianity. A tremendous amount has been edited out over the years or never included in the first place. Go back and read the Coptic scripture and then try to tell me the Creationist "museum" has a leg to stand on.

Meret, Los Angeles, California

Just another example of creationists trying to make scientific fact fit their own bill...and what exactly does belief in evolution have to do with teen pregnancy and pornography??? Oh...right, nothing. It's amazing that people can believe in 'faith' and then give up on it at the same time by trying to 'prove' it.

SmallTownGirl, Fort Smith, AR, USA

I think its a joke how people can sit here and say "what a laugh", "they dont know anything" and that creationism is a story.

So what if it is? its an answer, Id rather listen to that then be bored to death in a dingy science class....

Its irrelivant to say "creationism is right" because its not, its a good story with some rather insightful messages...

and its irresponsible to say "evolution is right" because it makes you look like an idiot, because half the people who say they understand evolution, dont. Evolution is an Idea, but its a pretty fragile on at that. Mr Darwin started his hypothesis thinking that he was Evolutionary superior than people native to Africa and Australia. It turns out he wasnt...

Just accept that humans cant know everything, but work on the supposition of it being true, if we go around saying this is better than this etc, that my friends is Fascism.

Jack Jones, London, England

Personally I wish them all the best in their endeavour, I wouldnt like to preach to them on their values or beliefs as I think thats up to them both how they spend their money and time.
You wouldnt catch me going to a theological them park but then again that's my choice. I can find nothing wrong with encouraging children to learn ethical and moral values.

charles thomson, singapore, singapore

To call this place a museum is miss leading... You may as well call Disney Land a museum, hey perhaps Mickey Mouse actually existed, in fact no forget perhpas... It is my firmley held belief that Mickey and Donald really existed, I know it's true becuase I found it written in a old book at the back of my shed ;-)

MoralAthiest, West Malling, UK

Get real you true believers. It was and always is a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc. man who said/says "God said.......".
God never says a word. How can He ? He never existed in the first place. You are all praying to a vacuum in outer space. If that's your 'bag' its O.K. with me. Just don't expect me to be suckered in by the 'mad mullahs' blarney like the rest of you.

Erico, Nottingham, U.K.

Aha, Georgia - you think that's a stupid question? No, the question is perfectly OK. It merely demonstrates how irrational it is to think you can create a god and then claim he's almighty. Won't work - as the intelligent question most succinctly proves. -- I ask you again, can your god make a bird which flies so fast that he can't catch it? Can he? Can he catch it then? If not, he's not "almighty", is he? -- Almightiness is obviously a logically impossible concept. So please, either stick to logic, or forget the argument.

alan, cologne,

Aha Georgia - you think that's a stupid question? Not so. It merely demonstrates the absurdity of the concept of "almightiness" which you attribute to your god. Won't work, I'm afraid. Either he can create a bird that flies so fast that it's impossible for him to catch it, or he can't. If he can, he can't catch it - OK? -- It's not sufficient to say "that's stupid" when your logic fails you. Of course you can simply admit that your "faith" is illogical, unreasonable - (I won't say stupid).

alan, cologne,

Dangerous as it is, creationism is a laugh a minute isn't it. Evidently you can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

Stephen Thomas, London,

what is wrong with you people??? Are you that blind to think your one answer is the only answer. I've been aound the world and heard beautiful creation strories: a giant sea bird in Finland, a gold fish in certain parts of china, A bull in the mideast. Each story is just as beatiful as the next, but thats where it stops, they are just beatiful, certainly not factual. Are you all really niave enough to believe that you(out of everyone else) are lucky enough to have the RIGHT AND ONE CORRECT STORY. Think about that logically for a moment. YOU, where lucky enough to not be born hindu, muslim, jewish, or any of the other myriads of faith that exist on our planet. YOU HAVE CHOSEN THE ONE CORRECT FAITH. Even though members of other faiths hold as strong a conviction about there faith as you... You know yours to be correct. Ask a muslim, Mohammad is the one true saviour. Ask a christian, Jesus is the one true saviour, ask a Jew, Abraham is the chosen one... YOURS IS THE ONE, HUH?

jamie vandeberg, dayton, OH

I'd like to know how many people have learned evolution AND creation. (not "God said it, so it's true") But the facts that creationists give. Creationists tend to learn both sides of the story before they start accusing.

"If god is almighty, is he able to create a bird which can fly so fast that he can't catch it?"

How can you ask such a stupid question? That's like saying "Can I do something impossible, yet possible at the same?"

It's an impossible question to answer, because there is no answer.

"The bible is a work of fiction not meant to be taken literally, you can't squeeze scientific facts into it just because you want to believe what it says."

There are accounts of science facts in the Bible that could never have possibly been proved at that period of time. And yes, there is evidence of how old the Bible is, and when everything was written. Perhaps it was inspired by an intelligent designer?

Georgia, Bangor, Maine

""Were you there? That is one of Answers in Genesis's favorite questions to ask. Were you there to observe evolution take place? No. Was I there to watch creation take place? No. But I know someone who was... God. Were you there to see the museum? I have seen it and walked through its halls. Evolutionists want to make us creationists out to be people who believe in fairy tales. Look at the facts. Go visit the museum. If you can't make it here to Kentucky, then visit their web site... answersingenesis.org. They will present the facts and show you how the problems with evolution and how creation fits scientific thinking better. Were you there? Have you given it a chance?""

AMEN TO THAT.

amy, ohio,

i'm sick of hearing creationist veiws and those of other religions who claim to uphold the bibles teachings yet misrepresent it by not quoting from it properly.Take for example the so-called creationist veiw that the earth and the universe was created some 6000 to 10,000 years ago.The bible does say about creative days but also refers to all the creative days as one day at Genesis2:4.Also 2 Peter 3:8 says a day with God is like a thousand years.So true christians cannot be dogmatic in this area, the point is that God created things in order in the beginning.From what I have studied with my religious organizatioin MANKIND has been on earth for just over 6000years scince Adam based on chronology in the bible.The flood of Noah has messed up carbon dating and the dating of fossils- the dates of which palaeontologists and evolutionists never agree on anyway.To say dinosaurs were with man or on the ark of Noah is speculating and encourages criticism of the bible.dont go beyond the bible.

Jonathan King, Tullamore, Ireland

can it not be that God guided the process of evolution??

bc, england,

"dMh", somebody does give Christmas presents out. If you understood I.D. theory you might have guessed that. But then if atheists believe material objects can have no source of existence I suppose they can believe presents spring out of nowhere too.

For those evolutionists delighted at spotting the absence of evidence to support a museum exhibit juxtaposing Noah with dinosaurs, how about presenting us with evidence to support the famous textbook drawing juxtaposing various ape-like figures with man, presented as "fact" regarding lineage? Remember - if asked to trace your own genealogy, pointing to an animal bone is not enough. Or, maybe Mr. vodka can provide some evidence for his just-so story about the evolution of the eye. (And you laugh at Genesis!)

I have read an early 20th century schoolbook which asserts that, evolutionarily speaking, Africans are closer to apes than Europeans. As a Christian I find this racist. How does an evolutionist deny this "fact"? Lack of evidence?

Kevin, London,

The Andromeda galaxy has been measured at 1 1/2 to 2 million light years away. This measurement is based on the scientific calibration of variable stars, and has nothing whatever to do with Darwin! If the universe is only a few thousand years old, how is it that we can observe the Andromeda galaxy?

Spencer Wise, Severn, Maryland, USA

Andy, Collingwood>"Tell me one thing:
How did this happen so that we conveniently live on a planet that has oxygen. How did this happen so that we conveniently live the right amount of space from the sun that we can prosper. "

oxygen was created by life on Earth, it was toxic when it was first around, but life evolved around it to use it

are you invoking the weak anthropic principle?or the inverse gambler's fallacy...:-D

>"For those evolutionists: If evolution is true, then how did we form eyes? Did they just form and we decided not to poke them to see if it hurt? "

if *we* is humans, then, no of course *we* didn't evolve eyes, they evolved long before us. our ancestors of 3 billion years ago had a couple of light sensitive cells and they have progressed down the years through the species

complexity does not imply creation, are you adding the watchmaker argument to your repertoire?

darth vodka, london,

Dear Robert of Toronto - you're merely confirming my argument that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with believers about "belief" or "faith". As soon as believers run out of arguments, they abandon logic - end of discussion. Now listen carefully:- If you say that god is "immanent" (and so beyond all logic), you are pre-supposing a belief in his existence. And I'm still waiting for someone to give me a good logical reason for believing in any god in the first place. Could you perhaps give me one?

alan, cologne,

Michelle from Winsor I don't know what text book you are using but men and dinosaurs were millions of years apart.

What amazes me is that in this enlightened age there are still people stupid enough to belive in Creationism and how they desperatly 'update' this with bogus ideas: Like a drowning man clutching at straws.

Robert Miles, Southend,

Am I alone in thinking that by interpreting the bible in a way that includes dinosaurs the creationists' arguments are evolving?

Steve Turnbull, Munich, Germany

I wonder if it is open on Sundays....

I think the creationism museum is a good thing - anyone with any kind of capacity to reason intelligently will quickly see what a poorly patched together theory it is, and hopefully it will be a catalyst that moves them to question thier faith and with luck, bring them out of that whole delusion.

Andy, Seattle, WA

It is a shame that this debate has become vitriolic and often fact-free. As someone who studied physics at university I am able to understand what is, and what is not good science. The plain truth is that good science must follow the observation - hypothesis - experiment - deduction - conclusion model. Only by rigorously and repeatably testing hypothesies can good scientific laws be established. If one applies this criterion to the mutation/selection evolution model then it fails on all counts.
1] No evidence can be found for any possible mechanism that would enable a living cell to form by whatever means from simple non-living matter.
2] Observed mutations are uniformly deleterious or at best neutral.
3] Natural selection alone cannot produce new genetic codes needed for new organs and systems.
Therefore evolutionists are adopting a belief system and should not criticise those of differing beliefs.
Scientists who endorse atheism should not use evolution to justify their faith.

D J Shires, Bournemouth, England

Interesting to see how many people "fear for their children" because of this museum. As a christian and a doctor, I intend to teach my three children to think for themselves as my parents did for me.I will expose them to both sides of the argument but I won't be afraid to let them know what I believe. I too fear for your children if all you are going to teach them is atheistic dogma. I see the results of having no moral authority other than your own in my clinic every day of the week.

Dr Steve, Lethbridge, Canada

Actually Barry, if you're a Christian you're supposed to love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, and strength and, also, to love your neighbour as yourself. If you love the Lord, you should have a relationship with Him.

I wonder what an extreme fundamentalist Christian would look like. I guess he'd be loving the Lord and loving his enemies and neighbours.

I'm glad my bank teller is an extreme banking fundamentalist when it comes to handling my money/bank transactions. I'd hate for him/her to be moderately honest when doing so.

Creationists have a realistic world view by believing the creation story. After all, it's what actually happened. Why everyone wants to squash their SCIENTIFIC conclusions is scary to me. Unless we believe in the religion of (MACRO)evolution/darwinism (yes we know things evolve within species--MICROevolution)...we are viciously attacked...our scientific claims/evidence are NOT debated...we are personally attacked.

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

re: the appendix
Do you understand the difference between micro- and macro-evolution? NO ONE disputes micro-evolution.
When the appendix became obsolete, did we change species? Or are we still humans? Where has it ever been demonstrated that species have evolved into DIFFERENT species? Does the fossil record support it? Where are the bird-cat fossils, or the fish-lizard fossils or the cow-whale fossils (you know, transitionary ones)? There are none. Have you ever EXAMINED the FOSSIL EVIDENCE, you know, scientifically?

It's funny how "scared" people are that our children won't think critically. You don't show evidence of any critical thinking; but rather that you're following Darwinism/pop culture blindly without examining the evidence and drawing logical conclusions. Wouldn't those who demonstrate critical thinking embrace this new museum and be eager to see the scientific evidence they provide and then adjust your conclusions if the evidence demands it?

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

MistyMich, your science is awful! Carbon dating uses the radioactive half-life of certain chemicals, which can be more than 50,000 years. Darwin observed genetic adaptations on the Galapagos islands, which as they were so distant had to be down to evolution.

Ben, York,

"If god is almighty, is he able to create a bird which can fly so fast that he can't catch it?"

Not a believer, but if God is immanent then the question is apples and oranges.

Robert, Toronto, Canada

I was relieved to read that "Eugenie Scott, director of the National Centre for Science Education, calls the museum “the creationist Disneyland”. "

For a minute I was worried that he might have thought the museum had some vague connection with reality. Clearly he understands that, just like Snow White and Goofy, his museum is a fantasy entertainment for children whose critical faculties are as yet undeveloped!

Kevin, Kent,

I had a look on their website (answersingenesis.org) and clicked on 'evidence'. It starts off going on about circular thinking amongst science-believers. Then the entire 'evidence' is based on the presumption that you have to start with the 'word of god', which sounds a little circular to me................ I couldn't find any evidence after 10 minutes of reading. Its more a self-justification argument.

I think they just trying to copy the successful use of science by the success of the church of scientology.

Ian, Manchester, UK

Presenting any part of the bible as scientific or irrefutable fact is a betrayal of the most basic tenets of Christianity. Seriously, read John's Gospel, chapter 3 and think about it.

Gabriel Casey, Belfast,

Oh, and there are good technical explanations of how the animals could all fit on the ark with people and food. Just do your research. BTW, there are lots of creationists who have PhDs. And high IQ's. Have you ever considered that their conclusions might be logical, well-thought out ones? You may have not seen the evidence that leads them to their conclusions. It's not very scientific to dismiss them without considering their proof. And the proof is NOT "the Bible says so". While we CAN believe that and SAY that, we don't even have to. The case stands alone WITHOUT the Bible. It's not about religion. It's about SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and drawing inferences from the evidence. Have you ever considered that evolutionary theory/darwinism is a religion? I mean people are so defensive of that and cling so tightly to those beliefs...and they haven't even seen all the evidence and they don't seem to care about the fallacies in it. And they ridicule/attack those who disagree. SAD.

MistyMich, Windsor, Canada

To one person's question: God was there from the beginning and was always there. Perhaps he created himself, thus, making a paradox. I'm not sure.
To most of the people thinking that we're just blindly following a belief.
Tell me one thing:
How did this happen so that we conveniently live on a planet that has oxygen. How did this happen so that we conveniently live the right amount of space from the sun that we can prosper.
For those evolutionists:
If evolution is true, then how did we form eyes? Did they just form and we decided not to poke them to see if it hurt?
"Early life form: Hey... there are blobs on my head, I wonder if it hurts me... lets' find out. OW!"
I don't think that ever happened. The same for ears and such.
People consider coincidence and convenience on some low level where people think no God exists. Us, we believe (us, Christians and other religions) it on a higher level where God gives us these things we call miracles.

Andy, Collingwood, Ontario, Canada

I love it. These crackpots are taking creationist beliefs to their logical and ludicrous conclusion. "Rally for reason" should let them make fools of themselves and reveal the whole creationist mumbo jumbo as ridiculous.

In their defence, at least they have made a decision to believe the Bible and deny science. If you believe in miracles, then no scientific evidence can be trusted.

The "intelligent design" promoters however are stuck in a dilemma between believing the Bible, and actually studying the evidence properly. As so many people who commented here have revealed, its easier to have an opinion if you dont bother too much about evidence.

A Clarke, London,

The fact that the Bible was written by men, edited by men and had sections omitted, and that it is ALWAYS open to interpretation, is reflected in this ridiculous bid to turn a scientific, dare I say, fact and fit it into what they would have liked to have happened. Just change your story to fit your needs... how unholy is that? No denying that the Bible is an exceptional work of literature and has helped us to identify basic concepts of morality, but it's awful to indoctrinate children like that and retard them against science. Why not teach their children to be open minded and learn to make their own decisions, and then if they want to embrace intelligent design or creationism they can? Organised Religion is, quite frankly, dangerous in my opinion. Personal religious belief is the important thing. Surely the only way one could truly be judged by God would be on the basis of how they have defined their life through choices, rather than being told what to do all along the way...

James Holloway, Edinburgh, UK

My final say on this matter: We must realise that it is useless to try and have a rational, logical discussion with "believers". Example:- If god is almighty, is he able to create a bird which can fly so fast that he can't catch it? Well, creationists, is he?? This shows that the very concept of an Almighty God is in itself logically impossible. The usual escape is for the believer to say - "That is something that we humans can't understand." End of argument. End of logic. We non-believers rely on our common sense, our observations of reality and logical argument. Believers simply cannot back up their positon in the same way (rationally), but have to resort to blind "faith" in ancient writings or obscure personal revelations. - Never the twain shall meet.

alan, cologne,

I consider myself a mainstream 'normal' Christian and as such I believe God created the world. Genesis does fit with the science of evolution; both express truths, one revealed by science and the other by the personal revelation of Christ (you might not accept that yourself but it still stands as a rational, logical statement.)

The creation of the earth in 6 days is a metaphor, and the detail of the book of Genesis a tool though which we can learn and understand more about God's purpose for the world.

I don't think God would go to the trouble of inventing such a wonderous process as evolution without wanting to watch it pan out!

Whatever your view of any religion look at the moderates and don't give the fundamentalists the 'air-time' they crave to propagate such utter tosh as dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

J, Norwich, UK

Why should we fear the dissemination of lies?

10,000,000 plus killed in the name of God by rampaging religious fanatics.

Zero dead by rampaging scientist killing in the name of evolution.

God will always exists because there will always be things that we (humans) don't understand.

You should not treat evolution as a religion either.

The museum is going to do a deservice. Don't use your God given brain; it is anti-christian. To have Faith is to believe without having the evidence at hand. To try to prove that the world was created 6000 years ago by using the Bible is idiotic. The bible explains how human beings are suppose to act and who to believe and why. A person who believes in God doesn't need a museum to believe. A person who believes doen't care about irrelevant dates (6000 or millions of years ago). Apparently, the museum sponsors' faith hinges on weather the world was created or it evolved. How sad for them.

nc, Tampa, FL

Well, we have some splendid examples right here of how creationist lies poison people's minds. "No intermediate forms" recites one --- who knows nothing about the fossil record. Another brings up the canard about Hitler and evolution --- blissfully unaware that Hitler believed in the fixity of species and claimed Jesus as the inspiration for his anti-semitism. "Darwin was a racist", cries another, knowing nothing of Darwin's opinions on race. "Evolution cannot be proved" opines someone who has, clearly, no knowledge of the proofs provided by genetics, biogeography, the fossil record, developmental biology, behavioral ecology, comparative morphology, and developmental biology. "Entirely theory" recites another, who has heard the phrase "theory of evolution" but never found out what it means.

And, of course, there are the people who claim that scientists wouldn't object to creationist lies unless they were true. No, people. Scientists object to creationist lies because they are lies.

Dr A, Leicester,

Creationism seems to manipulate the evidence to fit the story (the Bible), whereas the story (the theory) should be put forward to fit the evidence. Example: the Bible mentions dragons ergo they must have been talking about dinosaurs. This is not science but blind assumption.

Creationists deny scientific evidence. Example: the denial of transitional fossils such as archaeopteryx (lizard/bird transition), therapsids (lizard/mammal transition), traidobatrachus (labrynthodont amphibians/modern frog transition), icthyostega (aquatic/land-based vertebrate transition). Denial of the facts is not science it is deception.

Creationists deny evolution because they do not want to believe that the Bible could be just a collection of stories written by less scientific people looking to explain the world in which they lived. The Bible is the foundation upon which their lives are based and as such any flaw in it destroys that foundation and renders their faith pointless.

RW, Madrid, Spain

I don't think its fair to brand all creation beliefs in the same way. Many have seriously credible answers, and yes many are loonetics. Why don't we learn from the worlds oldest civilisation, the Vedic's of India.

Simon, London, United Kingdom

Sad to see people thinking creationism is valid. Especially Christian creationism, why aren't the creationist theories of other societies and religions equally valid?. Or are they backward and too primitive to consider?. For those who think Evolution is a ''theory'', they do not understand, what a theory means in scientific terms. For brevity's sake it means WE ARE QUITE CERTAIN WE HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO BE SURE. Why aren't other theories of science attacked with such relish?. As Daniel Dennett an American philospher said ''The theory of evolution/Natural selection is like ''universal acid'' it is so corrosive it will eat through anything i.e just about every traditional religious idea. So he called it ''Darwin's dangerous idea''. And so that's why most creationists and their cohorts do whatever they can to undermine it. To those who support creationism, I ask one question, are the vast majority of scientists,who specialize in Evolutionary Biology and other fields of human,plant and animal studies wrong by stating
that evolution is a fact?. If they are wrong, then they are the most mega incompetent bunch of scientists, who had the misfortune to have walked the earth and are a shocking indictment on their Ivy league universities/research institutions.

Tola Somuyiwa, Croydon, London, England

This museum concerns me deeply for three reasons.

Firstly, the £14 million ploughed into this venture could have gone to chariable works or helped those in true need. If I have spare cash it goes into a charity box where it may do some good. I don't build a giant placard stating which charities fit into my world view. It's a rough analogy, but when such vast sums are involved rough is good enough to shame.

Secondly, is this museum no different to those 'institutions' ran by Mullahs on the borders of Afghanistan? They both preach to the converted, serve to inspire a false sense of strength and brotherhood in the face of 'persecution' among followers, and have no place in the modern world.

Thirdly, and most personally, I do believe in God. Whom I believe coded the universe (possibly in seven days) and set it running. In 100 years scientists may still be calling me a fool, but Creationists will be more likely to be stoning me to death for heresy, just like the Dark Ages (again).

Stuart Short, Sunderland, UK

Personally I do not feel threatened by someone having a different viewpoint from mine no matter how different it is. The only problem is when "they" (meaning anyone) start openly saying they are superior and start painting the opposing side as "dangerous", saddening, sickening etc. There is even a post here that compares people who believe in creationism to fundamentalist Islamics who are blamed 911.

This is VERY dangerous ground to tread. This could (and is) leading to a society where people are openly discriminated against because of their religion (I read some news articles where some evolutionists were arguing over whether or not a person should be able to get a particular college degree if they were religious). That kind of a society WILL have a showdown. Will we have a Nazi like science based society or will we have a fanatical religious based government that kills anyone that dares to suggest that the Earth is round. How about SHUT-UP or you'll get us all killed.

Byron, La Salle, IL/USA

One thing that occurs to me is that these animals on the ark and their descendants must have been pretty incestuous if they managed to breed and repopulate the entire species.

Same goes for Adam and eve's descendants actually.

Would have thought God might frown somewhat on all this in-breeding.

Nic, London,

Ah, Michelle, the glory of irony is clearly lost on our friends across the pond. And IMHO this is absolute rubbish and furthermore immoral.

Ben, York,

Both creation and evolution are religious concepts. Both rely on faith in things which are not fully known or understood. Merriam Webster defines "religion" (among other definitions) as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." (source: "Merriam Webster Online") The reader should note there is no requirement for a religion to be based upon a deity for it to be categorized as a religion. Both evolution and creation use the same observed science. The difference isn't in the science available to each side, but the conclusion(s) drawn from each person's own personal worldview, values and belief system (including the religion of evolution). These contribute to the assumptions upon which each theory is based. A "young earth," creation-based worldview is well supported in science, as it appears this new museum demonstrates. Those who are critical and/or doubting should hold judgment until attending the new AiG museum near Cincinnati.

Steve, Castle Rock, CO

Rather sad really - this kind of thing gives religion a bad name. Most insightful comment is whether or not we would have "deduced" a 7-day creation about 6000 year ago (Bishop Usher and all that) if the Bible had never been written. I doubt it.

And I'll also go one better - the Australian Aboriginals believe in the Dreamtime and the Rainbow Serpent, that created all known features of the world. Now, clearly the Aborigines, having been in Australia for a *very* long time (40000+ years), knew the land of Australia pretty well. Why shouldn't we then take them seriously and teach our children about the Rainbow Serpent? Surely if we go looking for evidence we'll find it?

The truth is that Genesis is just another yawn-making creation myth.

Philip, Stuttgart, Germany

Calling it a "museum" implies that there is some sort of academic intelligence behind it. It is nothing more than propaganda designed to teach children fantasy as fact and to reinforce that fantasy for adults. I'm amazed at the lengths some religious people go to trying to convince themselves that what they believe is the truth is in fact, the truth, in this case, MILLIONS of dollars.

Maybe the next one will be "The Flat-Earth Museum".



PS Is this the 21st century or did I get off at the wrong stop?

KKNYC, New York, NY, USA

By denying the truth these people are doing more harm than good. their children HAVE to live and work in the REAL world, and these erronious images which have been foisted on them will lead to their children being ridiculed. They will even end up angry with their authority figures, when they realise that they have been lied to all of their lives, and this will result in them rebelling even more.
I would like to know just for the record how the image of an herbivore t-rex will prevent any one getting pregnant, new form of contreception is it?

j fox , hertfordshire, england

I have a question I'd like to put to the Creationists - what evidence do you have that your version of Creationism is the real one? For example, why do you deny the truth of a giant and a cow made of ice giving forth the Universe? Or do you have any evidence that Brahma did not will everything into existence? I would genuinely love to know of any evidence that shows that Christian Creationism is in fact the correct one.

M Jones, Brighton,

Hannah, do you actually believe that's the crux of the argument? And you're calling creationists genius?

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

I'm an American living abroad and have done so for the last 13-15 years. I'm always amused by the goings-on in my country. Now what with the latest being that dinosaurs being brought onboard an ark, is not only laughable but pathetic. Ignorance is one thing, but this has crossed the line into the moronic. All I can add is that someone should play the theme music from the movie "The Deliverance" when one enters into this theme park.

Gern, Winnipeg/London, Canada/UK

Yes, clearly it is evolution which makes teenagers watch porn.
Tell them that dinosaurs were on the ark - that'll put a stop to it.

Genius.

Hannah, Leamington Spa,

Barry Mellish>the world was created in seven days

six

;-)

darth vodka, london,

I don't understand why dinosaurs and humans co-existing is so hilarious. It's not like they were pets or anything. They were on the earth at the same time as humans (perhaps that's why there is still c-14 in the fossils or why "fresh" dinosaur bones were found in recent years). Big deal.

Michelle, Windsor, Canada

The thing that has always really confused me about the creationist account is that there appear to be two quite different accounts (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) Anyone care to tell me which one is the correct one?

Iain, York, UK

Here is what the Jehova's Witnesses told me while trying to sell their religious views:
The King James version of the bible and most others were mistranslated. Upon translating them again over 6000 mistakes were corrected, mostly in simple words (God was used in place of Jehova, etc). They did point out though that the word used in Hebrew means period of time, not a literal 24 hour day. Therefore the universe and everything was created in 6 time periods and we are living in the 7th while God rests.
If I wasn't so obsessed with sex and porn I would probably convert as they seem to be the only branch of Christianity who bothers to investigate anything in their own teachings.

J, Denver, CO, USA

My faith as a Christian centres around the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus not on whether the world was created in seven days or evolved in millions of years after the big bang (which is the theory I think most probable). The problem with all extreme fundamentalists of any religion is that they look at the details and forget the big picture - which as a Christian should mean love thy neighbour.

Barry Mellish, Bromley, UK

I guess these radicals feel that if they can make an exhibit showcasing their fiction that it will make it that much more real.

The bible is a work of fiction not meant to be taken literally, you can't squeeze scientific facts into it just because you want to believe what it says.

Joe, Lincoln, TX

biology IS a religion. I could rap about that for a while; maybe later.

richard katz, Richmond, USA California

Apparently the Creationists' reality check got lost in the mail.

Hal, Vancouver, Canada

I don't really care what they believe, as long as they let me believe what I want. But that seems too much to ask from the evangelists. If they want to spend their money on it let's just wait and see how advanced their science gets as they head backwards.

Isn't a theory only as good as the predictions you can make from it... which would make creationism untenable compared to evolutionary theory which is changing as it is tested.

JM, Glasgow, UK

Where do we draw the line? I'm disgusted by examples like this, we live in a world of scientific discovery, proven, repeatable, testable theories. What will an impreshionable child belive after visting such a "museum" this is counter productive to education.

Teaching religious beliefs as facts, sometimes I cant believe the vile lies these people preach.

At some point a line must be drawn in the sand and we as an educated, rational people must stop allowing religion to be taught as fact.

Stuart Anderson, belfast, UK

I fully enjoyed reading everyones comments here. I, myself, was happy to see the 'realistic' 'pragmatic' 'scientific' thinkers out there menitionin the carbon dating, the moths evolution due to pollution, the dog, and so on. Have any of you 'clouders' of science actually just looked at something in a microscope? I cannot even begin to describe the billions of things we can do and learn with science. Gravity, Magnetism, Fossil Fuels, Chemistry, Biology. If it werent for us, your children would be working in a sweatshop factory in third world United States. But they aren't because of proper education, based on diligence and hard work, and thinking of great minds throughout time. What bothers me in the end, without getting into my personal beliefs in a greater power, is that there are these fundamentalist people out there, who want to 'finally' draw the line in the sand. Maybe if you really grasp and love the science, and figure how to mesh nicely into religion, we will progress.

Brahm, Montreal, Canada

Oh, I see, if Santiago Flores can't figure out how something is done, then it's not common sense and it's also impossible. Interesting. Such critical thinkers on this forum!

S.J.Gould also said that the absence of transitionary fossils was troubling. Punctuated equilibrium is also only a theory. Though evolutionary scientists don't like to admit it, they operate from a specific worldview and posit theories based on that, and had to come up with an explanation for one of the "holes" in their theory.

Forensic science is far different from other sciences. It's more like detective work than observing things happening and drawing conclusions from that. Just because the different sciences are all called science doesn't mean they're all equally valid. MACRO-evolution has never been observed nor duplicated in a lab.

If the fossils are more than 50,000 years old, how is there ANY measurable carbon in them? It should be long gone since they're allegedly millions of years old.

MistyMich, Windsor, Canada

Science has never claimed to have all the answers. It has only ever claimed to be responsible for the search of fundamental truths to our existence and observable reality. If Science cannot supply a satisfactory answer for something right now, what gives religion the right to fill in the gap by default. As with any scientific understanding, it normally takes time to develop a complete conclusion due to all the relentless testing.
What concerns me is the dogmatic, rigid, uncompromising way in which religion attempts suppresses independent thought. Religion will claim something and that’s that. Don’t ask anymore questions. However a scientist will change and adapt his fundamental believes depending on the evidence presented. I knew a Professor whose life’s work was proven to be wrong by one of his peers. This professor had nothing but admiration for the guy who rained on his parade as ultimately truth and scientific fact was the winner.
Would a person of faith ever act in the same way?

Dan, Porsmouth, UK

If one takes away the whole concept of faith - belief that is not based on proof - what else is there is in religion? An inconsistent book which has been put together by a number of unknown people with an agenda, over the period of a few centuries which cannot be tested or verified for accuracy or for editing.

Religion = control = power. Get people to believe, have control of their minds, thoughts and actions - ultimate power.

With so many gods to chose from, there are going to be an awful lot of disappointed people come judgment day. At least, if there is a god in the form that creationists believe, I am on to a winner for he/she/it is bound to forgive me! It's a win-win thing...

Richard , Jersey, C.I.

Its never ceases to amaze me the lengths that creationists will go to try and disprove reality. Why is it they are so unsure of their beliefs that they have to try and force the belief system on everyone else despite the fact they have absolutely no evidence to support them despite their many claims. There is absolutely no evidence that would stand any reasonable scientific scrutiny that supports a creationist basis for the origins of life and the universe. Why can't they just say I believe in a spiritual god that gives me comfort and be done with it. Its called "faith"

Not to do that is to deny the existence of things they use every day that were developed using the exact same scientific method which they say suddenly is completely wrong when it disagrees with their particular belief system. (eg. food we eat (high yielding crops), all medicinal drugs, nuclear power, internal combustion engine, the microchips used in the computer we use for this discussion et etc)

David , Penticton, BC, Canada

To any of you who are using the missing link argument to claim that evolution didn't happen, or that there is no fossil evidence for evolution, that merely proves ou to be extremely ignorant. There are hundreds of documented lines of fossils showing clear evolution following certain events. I'll give you one, the evolution of the horse. In its early years, it was a very small creature, much the same size as a small dog. It existed in swampy territory, and so it gained an advantage by having five flat toes allowing it to move quickly across boggy land where its predators sank in. Therefore, it survived. However, as the land began to dry up, it became more of an advantage to move quickly, and animals move quickest on one toe as such, like a horse hoof. Therefore, it evolved to only have four toes. Then, faster still, three, and finally one hoof. As it did this is gained longer legs as that also allowed it to move faster, avoiding predators.

All this has been shown via fossil evidence

James Bailey, London,

Anyone thought that maybe the reason Americans believe this junk is because of the lack of a welfare state there?

It goes like this. In England we have a comprehensive social security system that supports those who are poor and in need, who no longer need the church to provide that role.

In the US they don't have an equivalent safety net so still turn to the church in the medaeval way.

Maybe this is why all the neo-con christians oppose the state providing any kind of support to the poor??

Just a thought ...

Gary, London, UK

Creationists really are incredible. Incredibly thick. They suddenly believe that tyranosaurus rex was a vegetarian and was one of the many dinosaurs that accompanied Noah on his little cruise. Its also very nice of the recent pope to suddenly declare young children who die before being baptised are spared a purgatorial existance. Who is he to suddenly declare this. Does he really know the mind of YOUR god? I mean did YOUR god give the pope permission to let these all these poor young babies through the pearly gates of heaven?
Creationists believe that the world is no more than 6000 years old. Nice work guys. It is clear to all rational minded people that you all have no idea at all of the universe and its workings. What do you say to the increasing number of planets orbiting far away star systems? I KNOW a lot of you don't even have an idea of how many stars systems there are in this galaxy, let alone how many billions of galaxies there are in the universe!

GIVE US A BREAK!!!, Melbourne, VICTORIA

"Half of Americans don't believe in evolution?" Just who took this so-called "survey?" That's the most preposterous thing I've ever heard? It's like this "study" done by a think-tank of the neo-cons that claims America's poor are actually quite prosperous. Ridiculous!

If you are going to quote stats from a survey--say who did the survey. Results can be, have often been, greatly eschewed by special interest groups. Only surveys by non-partisan, indepenent groups should be quoted as fact.

That said, we have one of the worst public school systems of any industrialized nation, and are, as a nation, sometimes a few fries short of a Happy Meal, so, who knows?

Nancy, Glens Falls , USA NY

Unfortunately Science has a BAD reputation for getting things WRONG. Thank goodness we don't believe the world is flat even thought the moon is round. Those who do have an understand of the rather great lies (scientific errors) portrayed as truth, such played out in the scopes evolution trial 1925, I now treat scientists with great scepticism. I see many so call elite scientists blunder their rebuttal to Christian views, that they shame themselves and devalue their own contributions to knowledge. Much of the scientific discoveries today, leaving no path for the future. Is it science or just a guess or is it just a theory? When did theory become fact and when did sciences become a club. Apparently few people remember what is a fact or a guess. No theory despite who portrays it as truth, is true, just a wild guess. There must be room for new views and help discussion.

Mr Steven Heath, Maitland, Australia

I find it funny that they do not mention the name of the Creator. The Lord, Santa Clause is going to be angry when he comes to judge these people. He will judge you whether you believe in him or not. That's right, he is making a list. It's offensive to see these people treat Santa as a children's fable. Where else to presents come from? Clearly, the concept of a "present" exists innately in our mind, therefore there must be someone who gives them out.

The songs and books are not myths, they are real. People have seen him. Ask almost any child. And to those who deny his existence, there will be no presents for you. Unless He, in his mercy and forgiveness, leaves you a piece of coal. And you will be thankful for what you receive from Him.

We should all follow the example of His disciple Rudolph. We all have our special talents that He can make use of. And once we see that, we can be accepted into his Kingdom, Santa be praised.

dMh, USA,

I met a man on a bus once who, seeing me carrying a Catholic missal, proceeded to tell me that Jesus was the sun and the moon was the Devil. Would "The Times" use that eccentric gentleman as the basis for an attack on Christian theology? Of course not. By all means report on the museum as a curiosity. To attempt, however, to make an argument against the theory of intelligent design out of ridiculing this (reportedly) eccentric millionaire shows a lack of reading on the subject.

(As for atheism, that hypothesis - falsely claimed to be scientific - has already been discussed recently on this Web site under an article by Richard Dawkins. Finding an eccentric millionaire in Kentucky won't make it any more scientific.)

Kevin, London,

The problem with human beings is their continual search for reason and meaning. The problem with the physical world is that it has none. One way humans explain the world is by creating gods and such. Why? Because its so much easier than accepting we, the world, the universe has no meaning. Science seeks the how of things, not the why.

Science is intrinsic to the world, religion is a human creation.

S, Manchester, UK

Oh, dear, oh, dear.

hamish, oxford,

We are still left with the problem that if the flood just physically could not have happened.. not enough water on the planet.. and if there were and all the land were coverd. hymalayas etc. there wouldn't be enough oxygen on the arc to support life.

Katie M, London,

seriously the christians are joking right?

orla, limerick,

just because one is agnostic and open-minded doesn't mean one has to accept that any old crap "might be" true. you zealots push the (healthy) sceptic into cynicism. there are many devout believers, all believing something different. maybe there are many truths. maybe there is one complex truth. seems unlikely there is just one truth understood by the most simple-minded lukcy souls. you'll have a job convincing anyone who is not a desperate sucker prepared to take a blind leap. maybe dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago (quite long enough for a bit of evolution, I'd have thought), maybe just a few thousand and someone wanted us to think it was longer ago. in the end, being nice to each other is more important, wouldn't you say? as for the likelihood of evolution producing this world... it could have been any world. it doesn't have to be directed to this point. a coin can land heads or tails. once it's tails, no point trying to explain why it had to be.

jem, london, uk

It's a children's attraction and only that, it cant be a museum unless the exhibits are historically correct. Which, judging by the existence of fossils, they're not.

Creationists, i think you need a reality check; it's possible to be a Christian and not believe in the biblical creation, just as the red sea didn't ACTUALLY part and five fishes and four loaves didn't ACTUALLY feed five thousand people. The good book is an eclectic mix of the factual (people and places) and the metaphorical.

This doesn't make me more likely to get pregnant out of wedlock or look at internet pornography, but it does mean that i've got a world view that is credible, and recognises the importance of scientific discovery, and evolution.

And I even had a creationist catholic primary education.

Emma, Banstead, Surrey

Science doesn't try to "disprove" or wrong any religious belief, it is just the application of common sense. For example: There are, lets say, 1 million land animals living today (conservative estimate), plus , say, another conservative estimate of 100,000 land species, now extinct, in the fossil record. Now, an elephant needs to eat about a third of its weight, DAILY, of plant matter to survive, not to mention buffalo, zebras, llamas, etc (and who knows how much a vegetarian T-Rex would have eaten). So, how exactly did Noah and his wife (I presume) manage to not only keep the lions from the gazelle's throats, but feed, clean faeces and take care of over 2 MILLION animals, while still piloting their oil-tanker of a ship through a deluge? How does evolutionary theory have more holes than this? By the way, something often lost in these discussions: Fossils are not bones, they're minerals (i.e. stones) how the heck did a flood turn thousands of kg of bone into stone in a few months time?

Santiago Flores, Birmingham, UK

Andy, I'll explain: Oxygen isn't (conveniently) here because of us, we are here (and our bodies function) because of oxygen. The sun isn't where it is because of us, we are where we are (and our bodies function) because of the sun. In diffferent condtions we would have "evolved" differently. Please, creationists, get things the right way round.

alan, cologne,

-There is a difference between Macro evolution and Micro Evolution. Micro Evolution is the type of evolution that a lot of people here and using to try and prove Macro Evuliton is right. Such as different breeds of dogs and other such animals. Micro evolution is the change of Genetic information within a species, how ever there is really no new information added. Such as a dog getting wings or a Fish getting legs.
Macro evolution on the other hand is where a species will get entirely new information. Such as, a dog getting wings or a fish getting legs. This adding of new genes, accidently, is impossible. Its like putting watch pieces into a Jar, shaking it and expecting a fully made watch to come out.

What I am trying to say is stop being so self indulgent, ignorant and stupid. Do some REAL research and look at cold HARD facts before making such assumptions that have already been made. There is no visible evidence to support evolution. Only Opinionated facts!

Enough said? I Think so

Lee, Hamilton, New Zealand

"Vegetarian T-Rex - Have you seen his teeth?"
How about the grizzly bear - have you seen his teeth? Funny - they are used mainly for berries etc.

It's amazing what you can see without the Evolutionary Dogma Rose Tinted Glasses on.

Sounds like the religious fanatics are gathering around the entrance to the Creation Museum as I type to protest. "All Hail Darwin and his High Priest Dawkins"

Dr Steve, Lethbridge, Canada

And a "day" lasted 24 hours even when the sun wasn't created until day 3?

Besides, the Bible is in support of evoutionary creation: "And God said, 'Let the EARTH produce living creatures.'"

jesse, asdf,

I can't believe I'm saying it, but there has actually been more science discussed here by the creationists than the evolutionists.

The ultimate protest to this museum would be for you to address and disprove the evidence they put forth. I do not mean simply dismiss it as false because it's different from what you believe; that's essentially the same thing you are accusing creationists as doing.

I've researched this topic for the past 5 years and still haven't been able to make up my mind on it. It's not as as clear cut as the mainstream has led you to believe.

Brian B, Jacksonville, USA / Florida

You think evaluation is us being here by coincedence? Wow, you ready need to read something other then your fictional Bible. Saying the character of God (you know, the guy from the book) perhaps created himself or he always existed is pretty far fetched and so unbelievable, it just doesn't make sense. Because you don't know the answer you choose to believe in God, because it's 'an' answer, there's no logic for that.

Jason Jorgensen, Surrey, Canada / BC

Science has never claimed to have all the answers, only the responsibility for seeking the fundamental truths of our existence and observable reality. Even if the answers are incomplete, why does religion get to plumb the gaps by default? It's just a question of time, technology and thorough testing. Something that 'faith sufferers' don’t seem to understand in the rigid, dogmatic world of religion which seeks to suppress independent thought and encourage self righteousness. A combination that in this day and age, as we’ve all seen, can be very dangerous indeed.

Dan, Portsmouth, UK

People shouldn't say they believe in evolution because belief is psychological, evolution is science.

If something is true then it just is, so example:
- 'I believe water is a liquid'
- no, it's: 'water is a liquid'

- 'I believe things are the way there are today because of evolution'
- no, it's: 'Things are the way they are today because of evolution'.

Another thing that is annoying, when something great happens people will thanks God giving the character of God all the credit. But when something horrible happens they don't blame him.

Jason Jorgensen, , Surrey

This article says half of Americans believe the world was created 6000-10000 years ago. That's not true at all. I have personally met only one person in my entire life that actually believed in that brand of creationism... and I'm an American. Most creationists believe that God created the universe prior to the existence of dinosaurs... that evolution is part of God's crazy plan. I don't believe in any kind of intelligent design, but I know plenty of rational people that do...

Doug, Bournemouth, UK

I love this for its utter stupidity and lavish waste of money. Think of what $27 million could do for improving schools?

If I were inthe neighborhood, I'd pay the 'museum' a visit to have some hearty laughs. It may prove a profitable hit for this reason.

Something near or around half of Americans believe in this ridiculous myth as revealed truth.

Can it be any wonder that government in America time and time again has no difficulty fooling the people into pointless wars?

Insanity seems an important national trait. Perhaps owing to a bad gene pool from all the mad puritans who migrated to its shores?

As Mark Twain pointed out a century ago, just the light from the stars takes millions and millions of years to reach earth.

6000 years of history indeed.

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

I have one question though, where are all those other extinct animals we know from fossils? I mean, if T-Rex was on Noah's arch, then surely there must have been a pair of everything from mamoths, and sabre toothed tigers to the ancestors of whales and horses (or, in creationist terms "those animals which look so darn much like whales, but walked on land"). I mean, if there are at least a million genetically unique species today (actual figure is way higher) plus all the species ever uncovered through fossils and other remains, how the hell did Noah get them in the ark? Moreover, how did he feed them? Elephants require something like 30% of their own body weight DAILY of plant stuff (and who knows how much a vegetarian T-Rex would've eaten), not to mention giraffes, buffalo, llamas, cows, pigs, lions pumas, jaguars, wolves, how exactly did Noah and his wife manage to feed them all AND pilot their oil-tanker of a boat through a deluge? Science is about common sense, religion is not.

Santiago Flores, Birmingham, UK

To one person's question: God was there from the beginning and was always there. Perhaps he created himself, thus, making a paradox. I'm not sure.
To most of the people thinking that we're just blindly following a belief.
Tell me one thing:
How did this happen so that we conveniently live on a planet that has oxygen. How did this happen so that we conveniently live the right amount of space from the sun that we can prosper.
For those evolutionists:
If evolution is true, then how did we form eyes? Did they just form and we decided not to poke them to see if it hurt?
"Early life form: Hey... there are blobs on my head, I wonder if it hurts me... lets' find out. OW!"
I don't think that ever happened. The same for ears and such.
People consider coincidence and convenience on some low level where people think no God exists. Us, we believe (us, Christians and other religions) it on a higher level where God gives us these things we call miracles.

Andy, Collingwood, Ontario, Canada

As a Scientist, what I am frightened of is the level of ignorance in society. The museum is a symptom, and I think in many ways a wake up call to many scientists about the level of misunderstanding present in society. Particularly the comment about tax dollars. Publicly funded scientists who believe in evolution cure disease!
1) C-14 labelling is innacurate to a point, but w.r.t. the age of the earth it is backed up by a lot more evidence (Fe particle orientations, solar particles, and other geological evidence) w.r.t. dinosaur bones there is also ca radioactive decay and geological evidence to demonstrate the age of the fossils.
2)where you there? Yes I was, as were most responders, the AIDS virus has evolved in a clear and demonstratable fasion over the past 20 years. (unless it was sent by satan to be the exception to prove the rule?)
3) lack of transitionry fossils, yes, its called punctuated equilibirum, I believe the theory was suggested by S.J.Gould?

Robert McGuiness, London, London

Tyrannosaurus rexs on the ark? Maybe that explains what happened to the unicorns...

And hey we've all seen the Flintstones, how did they make that if dinosaurs and people didn't live alongside each other?

There seems to be two types of posters on this forum evolutionists and those that don't understand evolution so revert to some weird superstition. "I don't understand X therefore god exists" or "scientists cannot demonstrate Y happening right here right now therefore evolution is nonsense" are arguments that show a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionists stance.

The reason that most evolutionists do not argue with creationist theory is because it is not work arguing about. If I were to claim Brian the pink rhino lived in the north pole and controlled our weather I doubt many would waste their breath to respond. Equally: God the invisible entity made us all in some weird metaphysical laboratory is just as ludicrous.

Creationists please look at the facts.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Oh so that means the we shouldn't believe in evolution because it is still labeled as a theory, ok then from now on Einstein's Theory of relativity its also a lie because its still labeled as a theory.

CharlesDarwin, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador

To one person's question: God was there from the beginning and was always there. Perhaps he created himself, thus, making a paradox. I'm not sure.
To most of the people thinking that we're just blindly following a belief.
Tell me one thing:
How did this happen so that we conveniently live on a planet that has oxygen. How did this happen so that we conveniently live the right amount of space from the sun that we can prosper.
For those evolutionists:
If evolution is true, then how did we form eyes? Did they just form and we decided not to poke them to see if it hurt?
"Early lifeform: Hey... there are blobs on my head, I wonder if it hurts me... lets' find out. OW!"
I don't think that ever happened. The same for ears and such.
People consider coincedence and convenience on some low level where people think no God exists. Us, we believe (us, Christians and other religions) it on a higher level where God gives us these things we call miracles.

Andy, Collingwood,

Humans and dinosaurs coexisting? Yes, I believe this is known as "The Flintstones" hypothesis!

TC, San Diego, U.S.A.

The problem with human beings is their continual search for reason and meaning. The problem with the physical world is that it has none. One way humans explain the world is by creating gods and such. Why? Because its so much easier than accepting we, the world, the universe has no meaning. Science seeks the how of things, not the why.

Science is intrinsic to the world, religion is a human creation.

S, Manchester, UK

Creationists, explain to me the proof of your belief without mentioning evolution? I don't need to pick holes in the opposition argument to reinforce what I know to be correct. Can you do the same?

Richard, Shrewsbury, UK

If the bible did not exist, would anyone come to the conclusion that the world was created in 7 days? I highly doubt it.

Adam, London,

The problem with human beings is their continual search for reason and meaning. The problem with the physical world is that it has none. One way humans explain the world is by creating gods and such. Why? Because its so much easier than accepting we, the world, the universe has no meaning. Science seeks the how of things, not the why.

Science is intrinsic to the world, religion is a human creation.

S, Manchester, UK

What I find 'disturbing' and 'frightening' (to use the words of creationists) is that this so-called museum is that it is being used to demonstrate something that is demonstrably incorrect. It is a manipulation of facts to 'prove' a theory, that to any rational person is quite obviously wrong. It is rather like denying the holocaust, just because you say it dodn't happen that doesn't alter the facts. This museum is what, in the good old days, we called a 'lie'. Creationists not only wish to live this lie, but also impose this lie on others through a process of 'education', or brain-washing as it's called in all the war movies.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

how do creationists explain the appendix?

i feel that an explanation might be necessary for some:

the appendix: a (now) completely obsolete part of the body that once helped to process raw meat. No longer necessary due to the fact that we (mostly) now cook meat before eating it.

dom, london,

"three of ten Republican presidential candidates said in a recent debate that they did not believe in evolution"

I woner howmany beileve in 'End Times' ?

I can't belive that they were not laughed off the stage, still only in america.

Rog, rog,

Hi Creationists:

suggestion: get together somewhere like Montana, perhaps somewhere else in the states, and build your own country (how about Utah? Well......if you believe in Mormonism that might not be too comfy....), or maybe China (ah....Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism...and Christianity....what to pick?), or maybe Australia (pretty darn Christian! Even the Aboriginies were converted without force...right?), and so on and so on....

We all have a worldview. Your worldview scares the crap out of me because it means your children are going to be restricted in their ability to think critically about their own religion, about the Bible, and ya know? Maybe everything you believe isn't true...could that possibly be? I'll grant you that everything I know definately isn't true!

Joe, Whoville, UK

Hey wake up here guys things evolve to a degree and most Christians can agree to the degree, but to say we were some gunk that crawled out of water and then later from monkeys became people, and have no in between proof is to me much harder to believe than what the Bible says. Keep in mind there are degrees and many misunderstandings even in the above article in its wording and interpretaion. Go visit the museum if you are not afraid of it... :-)

Mike Owens, Toronto, Canada

We were obviously placed he