The museum has highlighted only their conclusion. But will they put in fine print at least like many commercial product labels the assumptions that long-age history scientists have made to arrive at the conclusion?

Will they ever in fine print say how they have calibrated their fossil dating methods?

Why are the long-age atheists and agnostics mad at the Bible only?

Will they ever challenge Hinduism or Islam or any other creation stories?

Well, perhaps not deliberate on the part of the human who wrote it - that person (or persons) may have simply got confused (which in itself is scary in a place that's supposed to be about education), but one can be almost certain it was deliberate by 'the god of evolution'.

It's certainly not a valid definition of the word "fossil"!

Do the people that run this museum really think that anyone will fall for that? Wow, this just shows that the anti-creationists really are getting desperate. The fact that they have to keep moving the goalposts in order to win their argument is just revealing. Let's see:

1) We point out that molecules-to-man evolution violates the definition of the word "science" and that creation and evolution are two frameworks through which the same evidence is interpreted, so they redefine the word "science" in such a way to make evolution "scientific" and to exclude creation.

2) We point out that many people with the same credentials as secular scientists reject evolution, so they redefine the word "scientist" in such a way to exclude any opposition to evolutionary dogma.

And now they are redefining what a fossil is? This is absurd! How do people not know better?

This museum obviously lacks credibility straight up as they can't even define 'fossil' properly.

But I can just imagine the furor had the sign read a more pessimistic: 'Evidence of Death about 4,500 years ago'.

The father of all lies, Satan, and his secularist allies are leaving no stone unturned in propapating the lie of evolution. Part of the process is to repeat it often enough to make it appear as fact. Your ministry is important to help educate as many as possible. Do not despair. God's truth has already won and will one day be apparent to all.

Anti-creationists also seem to define logic, understanding and scientific literacy as evolution-exclusive as well. It comes as no surprise to me that they try to make the definition of a fossil evolution exclusive too. I'm going to do a Youtube video on this! What's the name of the museum?

PS: I like to keep the distinction between "evolutionist" and "anti-creationist." One defends evolution rationally and scientifically, while the other defends evolution irrationally and religiously (like that museum display, it's clear the work of anti-creationists).

Ha ha! When I saw that definition I couldn't help but laugh! We must really be getting under their nerves! This shows their complete bias and hatred for anything that refutes their (little "g") god. They so desperately want to live the Romans chapter 1 life that they will change the meaning of words to preserve their completely illogical beliefs.

Jesse M, people do not see what you have highlighted because it would not matter if the Lord Himself went before them, their eyes are veiled. They have hardened their heart so like Pharaoh, the Lord has honoured their decision, and led them in slippery places. They have talked themselves into evolution. As you have probably noticed, it's mostly political these days, it seems to be 95% rhetorical garbage that even pre-teens could find fallacious.

I am not against the genuinely intellectual evolutionist who at least knows his/her stuff inside out, but the tumult of bandwagon buffoons is becoming a deluge! It seems words, or indeed, "epithets" and "rhetoric" is now the name of the game.

It's 'MAKE the Creationist look bad with our words, BECAUSE we can't rebut them logically!!'

But as it happens all of those fossils *are* older than 7000 years. Geology, radioactive isotope physics, and archaeology all independently arrive at consistent dates much much older than 7000 years. And my Oxford English Dictionary reads "Fossil, noun: 1: the remains or impression of **prehistoric** plant or animal embedded in rock and preserved in petrified form, 2: (derogatory or humorous) a person or thing that is outdated or resistant to change" [emphasis my own]. So maybe the museum was using fossil in the common and non-technical sense, in which case it's about spot on that human records don't go much further back than 7000 years.

The last gasps of a desperate religion. My prayers go out to whoever made this *convenient* error, and that the museum corrects it. May Jesus be glorified through his creation, Amen.

Wouldn't it be ironic if their choice of dates actually would make people wonder what the Bible says that they are trying so hard to cover up?