NationStates Jolt Archive

Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/creation_museum)

The mini-disney world remark is golden. Is this going to be like the episode of simpsons where ned flanders opens the christianity theme park?

Your thoughts?

I've seen this place's website, and I thought it was a joke. This place being real makes me fear for the future of humanity.

Creationism should be in a museum. As an example things people used to believe in ancient times.

Oh Jesus Freaking Christ!!!!!!!

This is why we need a second coming. So Jesus Christ himself can bitch-slap these people.

It's in Kentucky. That's right on the border of the Deep South and Midwest. The two areas of the country where most of each population is pro-Creationism. This place is in the perfect spot.

This is why we need a second coming. So Jesus Christ himself can bitch-slap these people.



wow...just...wow.


I just got a mental image...Jesus in full ancient garb, preaching peace, then bitchslapping people.

quite amusing

wow...just...wow.


I just got a mental image...Jesus in full ancient garb, preaching peace, then bitchslapping people.

quite amusing

That is better than the buddy christ!

If they want to do it I say let them. As long as they do this right. Pass no judgment on those who enter I say it's fine.

If they get preachy & tell others their beliefs are wrong once trapped inside, then the place need to be shut down.

To those involved be careful what you create.

snip

Agreed.

Oh Jesus Freaking Christ!!!!!!!

This is why we need a second coming. So Jesus Christ himself can bitch-slap these people.

why would he do that? jesus taught acceptance so i doubt that he would do anything to anti- religious people but educate them.
of course, there won't be a second coming cause he's long dead so i guess we'll both be dissapointed. :(

I like how no person ever takes the time to even learn about what he or she ridicules. If people happened to educate themselves on the subject of Creationism/Intelligent Design, many people would be astounded with the scientific and mathematic facts that essentially deem evolution impossible. The Intelligent Design theory does not even involve 'God' in the Christian sense, it was created by very prevalent professors at very good universities that just saw holes in the evolutionary theory.

Someone posted this a few months ago, which prompted me to look around for it-may I recomend the virtual tour (http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/)? Extra quality.

I like how no person ever takes the time to even learn about what he or she ridicules. If people happened to educate themselves on the subject of Creationism/Intelligent Design, many people would be astounded with the scientific and mathematic facts that essentially deem evolution impossible. The Intelligent Design theory does not even involve 'God' in the Christian sense, it was created by very prevalent professors at very good universities that just saw holes in the evolutionary theory.
Here we go again!
Waiting fore the judgement of other religous beliefs to start in 5...4...3...........

The Intelligent Design theory does not even involve 'God' in the Christian sense, it was created by very prevalent professors at very good universities that just saw holes in the evolutionary theory.

So they pop out a purported theory (ID) that has far more holes, no research whatsoever, and zero real evidence to support it. :rolleyes:

why would he do that? jesus taught acceptance so i doubt that he would do anything to anti- religious people but educate them.
of course, there won't be a second coming cause he's long dead so i guess we'll both be dissapointed. :(
However, when people start f'n up the temple he wasn't above a bitch-slap or two, which might indicate that he'd might be willing to take part in a smackdown or two.

Not an authority, though.

This is why we need a second coming. So Jesus Christ himself can bitch-slap these people.

What's that he's doing? Is that...? NO! IT CAN'T BE!

ITS THE CAMEL CLUTCH...

OF FORGIVENESS!

However, when people start f'n up the temple he wasn't above a bitch-slap or two, which might indicate that he'd might be willing to take part in a smackdown or two.

Not an authority, though.

He also said Judge not less ye be judged
&
Let ye without sin cast the first stone.
Your sitting in judgment of others beliefs here.
Is this how you love your neighbor as yourself?
Judgment of other beliefs = hipocracy= sin
Hows that for some mathmatic theroy for you.

He also said Judge not less ye be judged
&
Let ye without sin cast the first stone.
Your sitting in judgment of others beliefs here.
Is this how you love your neighbor as yourself?
Judgment of other beliefs = hipocracy= sin
Hows that for some mathmatic theroy for you.
However, judging the evolutionists-who are operating on years and years of collected and observed and demonstratable evidence, and deciding they are wrong-which is the primary thrust of ID/creation arguments-doesn't that do exactly the same thing? Do I have to accept every idea that comes down the pike? Are you prone to believing I have a giant invisible bunny named Harvey that follows me around and gives me advice? Isn't there a point where someone has to go, "Show me, cause that don't sound right."?

However, judging the evolutionists-who are operating on years and years of collected and observed and demonstratable evidence, and deciding they are wrong-which is the primary thrust of ID/creation arguments-doesn't that do exactly the same thing? Do I have to accept every idea that comes down the pike? Are you prone to believing I have a giant invisible bunny named Harvey that follows me around and gives me advice? Isn't there a point where someone has to go, "Show me, cause that don't sound right."?
No but I they are not bound to follow the rules of your religion though. If you are a true christian you do which includes not publicly passing a judgment on anothers belief.
Start being a humble shepard & teach the word without insulting others beliefs.
If you can do that I can call you a true Christian.
Otherwise you better start reexamining your faith.

As a christian, I wonder why in a religion full of metaphors, so many refuse to consider Genesis as one.

To me God is God regardless of how he is God.

No but I they are not bound to follow the rules of your religion though. If you are a true christian you do which includes not publicly passing a judgment on anothers belief.
Start being a humble shepard & teach the word without insulting others beliefs.
If you can do that I can call you a true Christian.
Otherwise you better start reexamining your faith.
Okay, but I'm not a christian-and the ID/Creationist people are. They are the ones passing judgment on evolutionists (far more than actually supporting thier own theory).

Kinda off the rails here. Especially if you thought I was a christian. At this point I don't even know what you are arguing.

You know, I really don't care if this museum is built or not. Just as long as no tax money is spent on it, and no tax benefits are given to it, I'm completely fine. Science has proven creationism false, and no matter how much evidence they show, people are still ignorant to the truth of science. Faith may go far. But faith does not outweigh fact.

why would he do that? jesus taught acceptance so i doubt that he would do anything to anti- religious people but educate them.
of course, there won't be a second coming cause he's long dead so i guess we'll both be dissapointed. :(

Okay, you took that way too literally. First, by these people, I meant the museum builders. Secondly, I was just trying to be funny. Trying, apparently, being the operative word here. Jesus wouldn't bitch-slap anyone. He was a pacifist.

Okay, but I'm not a christian-and the ID/Creationist people are. They are the ones passing judgment on evolutionists (far more than actually supporting thier own theory).

Kinda off the rails here. Especially if you thought I was a christian. At this point I don't even know what you are arguing.
Sorry thought you were supporting Kalumanati. My bad!

I like how no person ever takes the time to even learn about what he or she ridicules. If people happened to educate themselves on the subject of Creationism/Intelligent Design, many people would be astounded with the scientific and mathematic facts that essentially deem evolution impossible. The Intelligent Design theory does not even involve 'God' in the Christian sense, it was created by very prevalent professors at very good universities that just saw holes in the evolutionary theory.
Kinda funny, then, that there are more scientists named Steve who accept evolution as fact than there are scientists of any name who deny it. ;)
In fact, I'll wager that in order to "educate yourself," you just read some books by Behe or Gish or someone like that. Perhaps you didn't even read those books--you just got your facts from AIG. I'd recommend Talk.Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org) for a more in-depth examination of evolution.

Actually I have read Michael Behe's book, I have heard Dr. Gish and I don't have an exact opinion of how the earth came about at the moment. What I do know is that the Creationists/IDs have enough mathematical and scientific evidence on their side for me to not consider evolution. For anyone to say evolution is fact, they are denying the fundamental principle of science, observability. No one has actually seen anything evolve apart from accelerated means in a lab which is caused by scientific interference, therefore it cannot and never will be proven.

I also have looked through many of the links, pages, and articles of Talk Origins, including the ones that object to Behe's theory, as well as other evolutionary material. Although the whole ID theory is not fullproof, the mathematician in the ID 'committee' if you will, for all intents and purposes proved that it is impossible for evolution, such as the scientific world has faith in, is physically impossible even over billions of years.

Kinda funny, then, that there are more scientists named Steve who accept evolution as fact than there are scientists of any name who deny it. ;)

That took me a second. Quality.


Sorry thought you were supporting Kalumanati. My bad!
It happens. Probably a RIF error of my own as well.

No one has actually seen anything evolve apart from accelerated means in a lab which is caused by scientific interference, therefore it cannot and never will be proven.

Drug resistant bacteria.

Kinda funny, then, that there are more scientists named Steve who accept evolution as fact than there are scientists of any name who deny it. ;)



Also, it depends on what your definition of scientist is, I personally know probably 60 people who have degrees in the sciences who believe in creationism/ID, and that is just from my church. Many of those are engineers, doctors, we even have two people with PhDs in Chemistry in my church, and my church is tiny compared to many... only about 250 members. I myself am in college studying to become an engineer and have seen no direct evidence supporting evolution. In fact, all the profs can really say is, 'This evidence points to evolution as the logical choice... etc.' but even one of the PhDs at my church who I am good friends with thinks that it is all illogical and bullcrap. His dissertation was even ID theory based, and he still received his PhD from Purdue. I am pretty sure you cannot personally argue with a PhD in Chemistry.

Drug resistant bacteria.

Evolution by definition is a series of changes that creates a new genus from these changes, which has never been observed. Drug resistant bacteria or building up immunities is a form of adaptation not a changing of the fundamental's of the organism.

-snip-

Are you prone to believing I have a giant invisible bunny named Harvey that follows me around and gives me advice?

-Snip-

Dude. That would be so totally awesome if you did.

Do you? Please, oh please say you do! I don't need demonstrable proof of said rabbit, I just need for you to say you do. That's cause I've got at least a mustard seed of faith! Far out!

Evolution by definition is a series of changes that creates a new genus from these changes, which has never been observed. Drug resistant bacteria or building up immunities is a form of adaptation not a changing of the fundamental's of the organism.

Genus? Species, binky. Not genus.

I could point you in the direction of the HIV virus if that would make you feel worse. That thing switches its genetic makeup with almost routine frequency, in essence generating new species of itself at the proverbial drop of a hat.

HIV is a virus, it is not a 'living' organism, therefore your point is moot.

It reproduces.

It feeds.

It responds to stimuli.

The definition of life is still under debate. Some would say this constitutes life, others would say it doesn't. I say it does. You say it doesn't. Oh well. Sucks for you.

But lets just get back on track here and honk you on the nose with the 'Definition' of evolution.

(Webster)
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

(American Heritage)
3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

(Oxford)
• noun 1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.

(Encarta)
1. BIOLOGY theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. On this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. BIOLOGY developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material

(Wordsmyth)
1. the continuous modification and adaptation of organisms to their environments through selection, hybridization, and the like.
2. the theory or study that describes this process as the cause of species' existence and characteristics.

Hmm. Lessee...

Yup. Drug Resistant Bacteria ARE evidence of evolution. Why? Because those bacteria that are already resistant (bacteria don't BUILD resistances, they don't last long enough), are suddenly the ones with the leg up in bacteria society. They're the ones that get to keep going. They're the ones that propagate. They're the ones that remain.

The gene that makes those bacteria resistant to drugs remains.

But one wonders where that gene for drug resistance came from. Surely we would have had documented instances of such things arising before we noticed they were there... right? One cannot really attribute the development to behavioral changes, because bacteria don't have brains... their responses to external occurences are dictated entirely by their genetic coding, Telling them the equivalent of If X happens, then Do Y, except if Z is bigger than you, and so on.

So how exactly would you explain this sudden development of bacteria 'developing' resistances to these drugs? Did they... learn it?

Actually I have read Michael Behe's book, I have heard Dr. Gish and I don't have an exact opinion of how the earth came about at the moment. What I do know is that the Creationists/IDs have enough mathematical and scientific evidence on their side for me to not consider evolution. For anyone to say evolution is fact, they are denying the fundamental principle of science, observability. No one has actually seen anything evolve apart from accelerated means in a lab which is caused by scientific interference, therefore it cannot and never will be proven.

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I also have looked through many of the links, pages, and articles of Talk Origins,

Must have missed that one up above then... :rolleyes:

And IDers don't actually have any mathematic or scientific evidence on their side.

Its funny to see people bash on god and the bible when probably none of you have read the bible through or read it on a consistent base to actually study it.
so if you found a "flaw", fine its not like you read the bible anyways

Kal, the improbability argument is itself flawed. It assumes, for one thing, that molecules could only replicate if they approach the complexity of macromolecules we see in life today. Many scientists now believe that the original self-replicating molecules may have been much simpler. The odds of such a molecule forming over a few billion years are not so long as the ID camp would have you believe--especially since molecular evolution may be less random than they thought.

I'll give you the example of chirality. When amino acids form, we would expect to have an equal number of left-handed and right-handed molecules. That would, of course, make it very difficult for life as we know it to form, since all life uses left-handed amino acids. But when amino acids are created in the lab, and when we observe amino acid concentrations found in meteorites, we find that there are actually slightly more left-handed amino acids than right-handed ones. We're still not entirely sure why, but it looks like some of these random processes might not be so random.

Its funny to see people bash on god and the bible when probably none of you have read the bible through or read it on a consistent base to actually study it.
so if you found a "flaw", fine its not like you read the bible anyways
I know a lot of atheists, and most of them have read the bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com) cover-to-cover. Some of them are more knowledgeable about the bible than any Christians I've ever met, and I've met plenty of devout Christians.

For your entertainment: link (http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/05/12/boll/story.gif)

Just wondering... cos I honestly don't know: if you "can't believe in God because you can't see how something could be created out of nothing", how do you believe in a universe that was created out of nothing? I've just never had this question replied with any intelligible comeback. As far as I've ever seen, there has been no explanation given for how the universe happened out of nowhere.

Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/creation_museum)

The mini-disney world remark is golden. Is this going to be like the episode of simpsons where ned flanders opens the christianity theme park?

Your thoughts?

There is already a christianity theme park. Its called "Holy Land Experience" and it's located in Orlando Florida. http://www.holylandorlando.net/

I like how no person ever takes the time to even learn about what he or she ridicules. If people happened to educate themselves on the subject of Creationism/Intelligent Design, many people would be astounded with the scientific and mathematic facts that essentially deem evolution impossible. The Intelligent Design theory does not even involve 'God' in the Christian sense, it was created by very prevalent professors at very good universities that just saw holes in the evolutionary theory.

Please direct me to five papers in Nature where I can get an introduction to this idea. If such papers aren't available, then your post is nonsense.

Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/creation_museum)

The mini-disney world remark is golden. Is this going to be like the episode of simpsons where ned flanders opens the christianity theme park?

Your thoughts?
I look forward to this. I can't wait to see the "Dragon" exhibit, at the Museum of Creationism. You know. Dragons.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/TECH/science/11/03/dinosaurs.oxygen.reut/vert.dinosaur.jpg

http://www.courtenaymuseum.ca/paleo/paleo/dinosaur.gif

http://www.windaisy.com/image/dinosaur.jpg

Actually I have read Michael Behe's book, I have heard Dr. Gish and I don't have an exact opinion of how the earth came about at the moment. What I do know is that the Creationists/IDs have enough mathematical and scientific evidence on their side for me to not consider evolution. For anyone to say evolution is fact, they are denying the fundamental principle of science, observability. No one has actually seen anything evolve apart from accelerated means in a lab which is caused by scientific interference, therefore it cannot and never will be proven.

Ok, if ID has scientific backing you will be able to list 5 scientific sources for evidence supporting it. Owing to the nature of the subject, the most relevant journals are Nature and Science. Given the sheer volume of papers published in these journals, it should be no problem for you to provide 5 papers.

For your entertainment: link (http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/05/12/boll/story.gif)
This (http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/05/16/tomo/story.jpg) as well.

Evolution by definition is a series of changes that creates a new genus from these changes, which has never been observed. Drug resistant bacteria or building up immunities is a form of adaptation not a changing of the fundamental's of the organism.

That's simply false. You claim to be acquainted with the relevant literature - how did you manage to miss the multiple observed speciations?

I like how no person ever takes the time to even learn about what he or she ridicules. If people happened to educate themselves on the subject of Creationism/Intelligent Design, many people would be astounded with the scientific and mathematic facts that essentially deem evolution impossible. The Intelligent Design theory does not even involve 'God' in the Christian sense, it was created by very prevalent professors at very good universities that just saw holes in the evolutionary theory.

Allright.. educate me then.
1. How can one test the intelligent design hypothesis ? If one cannot it is after all per definition not a valid scientific theory (which does not necessarily mean it is wrong, just that one has to take it on "faith" like a religion)
2. What kind of professors ? Prominent (astro)physicists specialised in this specific subfield where stellar evolution vs intelligent universe design is concerned and biologists in this specific subfield for ID of life vs evolution - or was it created by for instance prominent experts in French literature ?
And as asked by others: articles in peer reviewed journals please..
3. You say ID does not rely on God in the Christian sense. However, would you agree it is *implied* - in the sense that most people in the western world will think of God and not for instance a little green man from betelgeuse ?

Heh, yeah. On the contrary, if the proponents of Creationism would bother studying the methods of geology and palaeontology (instead of just calling them nonsense outright and coming up with pseudoscientific explanations), they might realize that a Young Earth is simply impossible. :rolleyes:

2. What kind of professors ? Prominent (astro)physicists specialised in this specific subfield where stellar evolution vs intelligent universe design is concerned and biologists in this specific subfield for ID of life vs evolution - or was it created by for instance prominent experts in French literature ?
And as asked by others: articles in peer reviewed journals please..

Here is some info on a few critics of evolution:
Dr. Periannan Sanapathy PhD molecular biology and biochemistry and C.E.O. of Genome Technologies

Lima-de-Faria cytogeneticist

Michael Denton: Senior Research Fellow in Human Molecular Genetics at the University of Otago in New Zealand, Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute

Dr. Lee Spetner: Professor of Biophysics at Johns Hopkins University

Michael J. Behe: biochemist

Fred Hoyle: Astrophysicist. Founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge.

Here is some info on a few critics of evolution:


One word: Steve.

I never heard of the first four, but Behe and Hoyle are very (in)famous for their statements. They are also often cited as 'nobel-prize winning scientists' on Creationist pages, although neither of them did ever win a nobel prize.

Hoyle should also be noted as the inventor of the term 'Big Bang' (which he coined because he found the idea ridiculous). Other than that, he made a number of statements which were proven to be wrong, such as the claim that Archaeopteryx was a hoax.

One word: Steve.

Oh yeah! and Steve
:p

Just wondering... cos I honestly don't know: if you "can't believe in God because you can't see how something could be created out of nothing", how do you believe in a universe that was created out of nothing? I've just never had this question replied with any intelligible comeback. As far as I've ever seen, there has been no explanation given for how the universe happened out of nowhere.

Alright then. If you believe that God created everything, and everything must be created, then who created God?

Also, although I am not that clear about this, as I am a Biology major, and it is difficult for the human mind to grasp, there was no *before* as such before the Big Bang, which the universe that includes Space and Time was a result of. Hence nothing was really created, if you get my gist.

Here is some info on a few critics of evolution:

Are they also advocates of Intelligent design, or do they just think the theories of evolution (both biological and stellar) are flawed ?
*will check them out*

And here are some scientists who oppose ID and biblical creationism. And they're all named Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp).

Also, although I am not that clear about this, as I am a Biology major, and it is difficult for the human mind to grasp, there was no *before* as such before the Big Bang, which the universe that includes Space and Time was a result of. Hence nothing was really created, if you get my gist.
You're quite right. A quantum-mechanical view of space-time eliminates the need for a singularity--that is, a "beginning." Space and time can be finite but without boundaries, like the area of the surface of a sphere.

Are they also advocates of Intelligent design, or do they just think the theories of evolution (both biological and stellar) are flawed ?
*will check them out*

Some are, some have alternate theories.

Its funny to see people bash on god and the bible when probably none of you have read the bible through or read it on a consistent base to actually study it.
so if you found a "flaw", fine its not like you read the bible anyways

Flawed assumption, my friend... you would probably be surprised to find out just how many of the Atheist/Agnostic crowd HAVE read the bible, often quite thoroughly, and repeatedly.

Some are, some have alternate theories.

IMHO, Fred Hoyle's claims are just plain weird.

IMHO, Fred Hoyle's claims are just plain weird.

So is evolution. Wha?! we came from monkeys?! WTF! It's not weird to you because you've heard it since you were a child and everyone around you has always acted like its not weird. Think about it, every theory on the origin of life sounds weird be it creation, evolution, or whatever alternate model.

Wha?! we came from monkeys?! WTF!

To keep things straight, we did not come from monkeys, we evolved from the same ancestors as monkeys did. That explains why monkeys are still around, too.

ROFL, this is funny, especially when you consider that the creationism in the bible is only ONE interpretation. Who says it's right? Maybe it's wrong, the evolution is wrong and the only true thought is what the Cheyenne used to believe before the white man came (for example).

But in fact, we all know that it was the Great Penguin, who descended from his Holy Ice Floe, waved the Holy Flipper of Creation and thus... the universe was created.

You just don't want to admit it! Heretics!

There is no creationism!

There is no evolution!

There is only PENGUINISM!

So is evolution. Wha?! we came from monkeys?! WTF! It's not weird to you because you've heard it since you were a child and everyone around you has always acted like its not weird. Think about it, every theory on the origin of life sounds weird be it creation, evolution, or whatever alternate model.

Evolution is not weird. If you have minded taking a look at the actual fossils (like i did), you may see that evidence is overwhelming. :p

Evolution is not weird. If you have minded taking a look at the actual fossils (like i did), you may see that evidence is overwhelming. :p

I said it sounds weird, not that it is weird.

I said it sounds weird, not that it is weird.

Ok, you got a point there. But so did the idea the Earth was a globe or the idea the Earth was revolving around the sun when these ideas came up... :rolleyes:

Ok, you got a point there. But so did the idea the Earth was a globe or the idea the Earth was revolving around the sun when these ideas came up... :rolleyes:

Right, now you're getting the drift. Sounding weird means nothing.

You do know that saying something sounds weird is just one step away from telling people that it is weird?

You do know that saying something sounds weird is just one step away from telling people that it is weird?

Not for people that have actually studied one of the "hard" sciences. A lot of aspects from quantum mechanics for instance sound very weird indeed.

Creationism should be in a museum. As an example things people used to believe in ancient times.

Thats a little flawed. One of the most sucessful museums in London is the "Science Museum". See where I'm going...

Thats a little flawed. One of the most sucessful museums in London is the "Science Museum". See where I'm going...

Science progresses and evolves, and sometimes old ideas are discarded ;) ?

This is revolutionary! A museum that actually makes people less intelligent when they visit.

"What did the five fingers say to the face? SLAP! Ha ha ha ha, I'm Jesus Christ, bitch!"