This weekend I traveled to Hebron Kentucky and joined a group from our church and some other various friends and relations at the Creation Museum. It was very interesting, it explored and disproved the idea that creation is not backed by science. In fact, the presentations gave strong arguments against the theory of evolution, showing that the science that claims to prove this evolution theory is not only flawed with circular thinking and erroneous assumptions but also that when it really gets down to it, the idea of biblical creation is the more scientifically logical conclusion, backed more clearly explicitly by science.
I gave my camera to a young boy I knew from Indiana at the museum and let him use it all day, some of the pictures were really neat that he took, a bit of a diffrent perspective if you will.....?
After the museum Wesley and I stayed at a hotel and drove an hour over to Louisville the next morning. We pretended to be tourists and explored the city for a few hours and then went to the Kentucky Center to attend Otello; an Opera by Verdi taken from the play Othello by Shakespeare.
We had seats two rows from the stage and right in the middle, it was pretty cool! The Opera was amazing, even though it was in Italian :D
This is a bit of modern art in front of the Kentucky Center, we also almost got caught up in a AIDS walk next door to the Center that was taking place the same day : /
2 comments:
I find it interesting when people consider that is is either/or instead of both (or some of both) at the same time. I cannot understand, I guess, how one makes the other impossible. Evolution is a theory. Theories change, evolve if you will, changing as new data becomes available. It doesn't negate my belief that God created the world nor the infallibility of the account of how he created it, though I do not read it literally, rather I read it spiritually. I do respect what you believe, however, and do not denigrate your position.
I am glad you find these views interesting. Micro and Macro; I will assume you know the definition of, and, how they apply to the theories you cling to. The fact that in the created genetic code of any animal and humans is the potential to make small changes to adapt to their environment, woolly mammoths having wool whereas elephants don't for example. Survival of the fittest if you will? Micro evolution. However, Darwin and his followers suggested possible further abilities of genetics to not only change in small adaptability ways but to actually change species as well. Macro evolution. However, this theory was tested and could not be proved and no evidence was found to support it at all, in fact, much evidence was found to prove it's impossibility, even studies done with DNA and genetics can't come up with any possible changes except the ones we already knew about, (see example earlier) Macro evolution is an outdated theory, like the widely believed theory of spontaneous generation. It takes a lot of faith to believe in the scientifically impossible (the mathematical possibility that the genetic code could have happened without killing itself says that every step of evolution is mathematically/scientifically impossible) So you have a choice, to put your faith in a literal God who can and did create everything or to believe, at least in your case, in a God that isn't literal and let you evolve. Both take just as much faith, in fact, yours takes more. I applaud you for that. And I, though I can not agree with you, do not impose my views upon you either. I just wish people could be selfish enough to decide for themselves on things without being so afraid of offending that they just negate themselves. The new data you speak of is available and has been for a very long time, you are just ignoring it to justify your views. Oddly enough, it was once thought the other way around.
Post a Comment