NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, my paper appears to be telling me that a $25 million museum that is based on the Book of Genesis being factually correct is being built within 6 hours drive of 2/3 of the population of the US.

I'm kinda at a loss for words. Is this a good thing? Freedom of expression beign what it is, or is it just... bizzare.

edit: Oh, and the article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html

I can think of better things to do with that money. Eating it is pretty high on the list relative to building a museum based on the Book of Genisis.

EDIT:Though I would go to point and laugh(very loudly) at the many contradictions within Genisis.

I hate Genesis....and to think they have just reformed without Peter Gabriel:eek:

Well, my paper appears to be telling me that a $25 million museum that is based on the Book of Genesis being factually correct is being built within 6 hours drive of 2/3 of the population of the US.

I'm kinda at a loss for words. Is this a good thing? Freedom of expression beign what it is, or is it just... bizzare.

edit: Oh, and the article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html

It will be built entirely by the 900 ft. Jesus. :)

It will be built entirely by the 900 ft. Jesus. :)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/a_17.jpg
SuperJesus, away!

We pass the site where one day an animatronic Adam will squat beside the Tree. With this commitment to authenticity, I find myself asking what they are doing about the fig leaf. Marsh considers this gravely and replies: "He is appropriately positioned, so he can be modest. There will be a lamb or something there next to him. We are very careful about that: some of our donors are scared to death about nudity."

The same will go for the scene where Eve is created out of Adam's rib, apparently, and parents will be warned that little children may be scared by the authenticity of some of the scenes. "Absolutely, because we are in there, being faithful to scripture."
Roflcopterwaffles.

I can think of better things to do with that money. Eating it is pretty high on the list relative to building a museum based on the Book of Genisis.


But you don't know where it's been!

But you don't know where it's been!

I'm gonna launder it first. :rolleyes:

It will be built entirely by the 900 ft. Jesus. :)Jesus was otherwise engaged, so they came up with the next best thing - inserting into their workers contracts that they believe in creation theory... woo!

They're free to build what the like I suppose. I'd have to think of it as a theme park rather than a museum though.

I'm gonna launder it first. :rolleyes:

*sigh of relief*

What a sad waste of money....

Wow...

Wish my country did this sort of stuff.

Shame I'm from a backwards country founded by convicts rather than an advanced society founded by puritians.

Well, my paper appears to be telling me that a $25 million museum that is based on the Book of Genesis being factually correct is being built within 6 hours drive of 2/3 of the population of the US.

I'm kinda at a loss for words. Is this a good thing? Freedom of expression beign what it is, or is it just... bizzare.

edit: Oh, and the article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html
Well, why do they nead to build it? The could simply ask their lord to create it!

Wow...

Wish my country did this sort of stuff.

Shame I'm from a backwards country founded by convicts rather than an advanced society founded by puritians.

...Sarcasm right?

...Sarcasm right?

just a little

Well, why do they nead to build it? The could simply ask their lord to create it!

You think God has $25 million? He couldn't even afford to send his son to college, he's clearly poor.

You think God has $25 million? He couldn't even afford to send his son to college, he's clearly poor.

It's because the churches are skimming the weekly collections.

I hate Genesis....and to think they have just reformed without Peter Gabriel:eek:

I didn't know that Peter Gabriel had anything to do with Genesis. I also thought that Sega had gotten out of the console biz.

It's because the churches are skimming the weekly collections.

This explains why bishops have those fancy rings.

Actually, this puts me in my of that Simpsons epsiode where Ned builds Maude World & everyone gets high from a gas leak.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-Alert Einstein


...that quote will never get worn out. :p

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-Alert Einstein


...that quote will never get worn out. :p
Why do we need to alert Einstein? Should I shine a spotlight into the sky with a particular symbol on it? :p

So many things that the money could be better spent on.

As earlier noted food would be a good one.

haha, sorry, yeah, of course, I meant the quote was by Albert Einstein.

anyway

I am a Christian, I'm a member of a conservative, Presbyterian church (fear not... I come in peace ;) ) It seems to me most of the people here are a bit antagonistic towards this idea of the creation museum... why? I think the creation museum is a great idea, but, I don't think anyone gets converted by scientific proofs... or if they did, they would likely convert back to atheism when the next lot of bones got dug up or what not. So, my question is, if you are horrified by this museum, why? What is it going to do that is so awful apart from educate those who choose to attent about another (or their own) belief system?

"I never lied, but if I was asked a question about the age of the universe, I answered from my knowledge of the topic, not my beliefs."

Um, so this means one of the chief "scientists" responsible thinks it's OK to fudge the truth to get what he wants (his Ph.D.). This is one problem that I have with the Christians - the whole "the end justifies the means" thing.

And second - how is this not lying? If he believed that the Bible was true, and stated something else, what else is this?

He didn't have the courage to stand up for what he professes to believe.

And so what is right? His beliefs contradict his knowledge? Does that mean that beliefs are the opposite of knowledge?

What is it going to do that is so awful apart from educate those who choose to attent about another (or their own) belief system?

This isn't the problem for me. It's the whole idea that people who believe in creationism want to ban the teaching of evolution. They adamantly believe theirs is the only way (despite not, you know, being there when the world was created) and no other belief system should be tolerated.

To me the great mystery is more related to how non-life became life. Seems like there is a lot of room there for God, maybe - but the actual truth is, no one really knows exactlly what happened at the beginning of the world and the beginnings of life on earth.

haha, sorry, yeah, of course, I meant the quote was by Albert Einstein.

anyway

I am a Christian, I'm a member of a conservative, Presbyterian church (fear not... I come in peace ;) ) It seems to me most of the people here are a bit antagonistic towards this idea of the creation museum... why? I think the creation museum is a great idea, but, I don't think anyone gets converted by scientific proofs... or if they did, they would likely convert back to atheism when the next lot of bones got dug up or what not. So, my question is, if you are horrified by this museum, why? What is it going to do that is so awful apart from educate those who choose to attent about another (or their own) belief system?


the money was better spent elsewhere

This isn't the problem for me. It's the whole idea that people who believe in creationism want to ban the teaching of evolution. They adamantly believe theirs is the only way (despite not, you know, being there when the world was created) and no other belief system should be tolerated.

To me the great mystery is more related to how non-life became life. Seems like there is a lot of room there for God, maybe - but the actual truth is, no one really knows exactlly what happened at the beginning of the world and the beginnings of life on earth.

I had to laugh when I read this. In the nicest possible way, of course. I've heard this said by creationists as well. *sigh* well, centrism wins again, eh

I completely agree with 'no one really knows'. I refuse to form a concrete personal opinion on this matter - sometimes other Christians tell me that you have to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, because otherwise it calls into question the truth of the entire bible. I just tell them - "I'm confused right now, I'm gonna wait and ask God when I die. After all, it's not like God would send someone to hell for not being intelligent enough to see exactly how he created the world."

haha, sorry, yeah, of course, I meant the quote was by Albert Einstein.

anyway

I am a Christian, I'm a member of a conservative, Presbyterian church (fear not... I come in peace ;) ) It seems to me most of the people here are a bit antagonistic towards this idea of the creation museum... why? I think the creation museum is a great idea, but, I don't think anyone gets converted by scientific proofs... or if they did, they would likely convert back to atheism when the next lot of bones got dug up or what not. So, my question is, if you are horrified by this museum, why? What is it going to do that is so awful apart from educate those who choose to attent about another (or their own) belief system?I think part of my problem with it is that everything within the museum is fake... apart from two tortoises. Now I'd admit that museums should be able to use some... uh... fakery to illustrate a point (there is a limited amount of artifacts to display across the the world ie. things from egyptology). Which brings me to another point. The people building this museum, more or less, believe that the earth is 6,000 years old... so where does that place the pyramids. The Pyramids at Giza are thought to be about 7,000 years old, which would make them older than time itself.

Should do as well as Dinosaur Adventure Land

I (also a Christian) personally think it's great that there's a creationist museum going to be built. I'm in high school, and every day, I am force-fed the idea of evolution, being told it's the only way. So I'm glad that this museum is going to be built, to present another option. After all, they're all just theories.

I (also a Christian) personally think it's great that there's a creationist museum going to be built. I'm in high school, and every day, I am force-fed the idea of evolution, being told it's the only way. So I'm glad that this museum is going to be built, to present another option. After all, they're all just theories.

Oh god Oh god, ITS HAPPENING AGAIN!!!11!1 Please please dont let this thread turn into another "its only a theory!" type mess.

liek thers no prufe. god did it, thats wat all tha scientists at BJU thnk neways, and they r smart.

I (also a Christian) personally think it's great that there's a creationist museum going to be built. I'm in high school, and every day, I am force-fed the idea of evolution, being told it's the only way. So I'm glad that this museum is going to be built, to present another option. After all, they're all just theories.

Jesus Christ wants to punch you in the mouth.

It's so aggrivating when people say "it's just a theory" - of course it's just a theory. It's just a theory that we're all here on the planet earth which rotates around the sun - but it could be that we're completely wrong! It's just a theory, after all.

You're "force-fed" the idea of evolution because it's the most logical and reasonable and proven theory there is in the world on the basis of the process and growth of life on earth. The bible uses circulatory logic which never holds up in the face of independant variables such as science and logic.

The idea that people would spend so much money on a large amount of bullshit is staggering to me - I just can't wrap my mind around it. I'm fairly certain Jesus would've spent that money, I dunno, helping the poor or doing something else charitable and Christian-like, as opposed to wasting it by creating an animetronic Adam that takes a shit behind a bush.

Should do as well as Dinosaur Adventure Land
What's that?
Ooh, do you think the animatronic Jesus will come to life and start attacking the visitors? That would be awesome.

Animatronic Jesus would go haywire and start damning people to hell left, right and centre.

I (also a Christian) personally think it's great that there's a creationist museum going to be built. I'm in high school, and every day, I am force-fed the idea of evolution, being told it's the only way. So I'm glad that this museum is going to be built, to present another option. After all, they're all just theories.

Theories in Science are much more founded than the things for which the term theory is used outside of science.

Oh BTW: Any creationist here with Mac OS X?

Wow...

Wish my country did this sort of stuff.

Shame I'm from a backwards country founded by convicts rather than an advanced society founded by puritians.

don't worry these puritans have a convict as head administrator.

haha, sorry, yeah, of course, I meant the quote was by Albert Einstein.

anyway

I am a Christian, I'm a member of a conservative, Presbyterian church (fear not... I come in peace ;) ) It seems to me most of the people here are a bit antagonistic towards this idea of the creation museum... why? I think the creation museum is a great idea, but, I don't think anyone gets converted by scientific proofs... or if they did, they would likely convert back to atheism when the next lot of bones got dug up or what not. So, my question is, if you are horrified by this museum, why? What is it going to do that is so awful apart from educate those who choose to attent about another (or their own) belief system?

i think most are horrified because of the part i've bolded. Most of us are still waiting on creationists scientific evidence to back up their story. HAving a museum when you have animatronics and no science, is a theme park. These guys should just be honest and call it that

Animatronic Jesus would go haywire and start damning people to hell left, right and centre.

i thought he'd go on a rampage and destroy tokyo?

i thought he'd go on a rampage and destroy tokyo?

I would have thought he'd go for Rome....

Well...

Frankly, I'm speechless. 25 Million for an instrument of misinformation and outright lies about science.

And people blame education...

If there is a God, he's sending these people straight to hell.

i think most are horrified because of the part i've bolded. Most of us are still waiting on creationists scientific evidence to back up their story. HAving a museum when you have animatronics and no science, is a theme park. These guys should just be honest and call it that

Yar. There's a mountain of scientific proof AGAINST the bible, yet they cling to the little bit of stuff that MIGHT be related to something in the bible, suddenly they have "scientific proof".

"Look, they found Noah's Ark!" "... I thought Genesis was all metaphor." "... Fuck you! Fuck you in the ass!"

I would have thought he'd go for Rome....

I know I would. :)

I would have thought he'd go for Rome....

damn! good point. maybe jerusalem?

Well...

Frankly, I'm speechless. 25 Million for an instrument of misinformation and outright lies about science.

And people blame education...

If there is a God, he's sending these people straight to hell.

I know I'm really looking forward to their explanation of how a 12,000 year old universe can have 13 billion year old light in it. :)

I know I would. :)

Rome's a nice city. He should divebomb Vatican City itself.

I know I'm really looking forward to their explanation of how a 12,000 year old universe can have 13 billion year old light in it. :)

That's just the devil trying to trick you.

ROFL! What a waste. They are going to create a museum that revolves around a story that says men have one less rib than women. (Which is false btw) and a talking snake that tries to tempt them with a piece of fruit. Doesn't get more factual than that my friends.

I know I would. :)

Yes, but you'd be busy lifting cassocks to see what priests wear underneath...

I know I'm really looking forward to their explanation of how a 12,000 year old universe can have 13 billion year old light in it. :)

ah you see that's easy. As we all know as FACT god created the universe in 6 days (err. i think).
What few people don't know, is he was contracted to do the job around 13 billion years ago. Hem managed to lay the foundations but there was a labor shortage, so he had to create angels and such to help him.
Then as we all know when you get several employees together they started talking. Topics like "job security", "dental plan" came into the conversation. Next thing he knew the Holy Angel Union was formed. Of course most of us know what its like when you try and bring something to the attention of a boss who thinks he omnipotent!!
Anyway all the issues were resolved and work starts 12.000 & 6 days ago.

Shesh, maybe you should read the bible? its all in there honest

ah you see that's easy. As we all know as FACT god created the universe in 6 days (err. i think).
What few people don't know, is he was contracted to do the job around 13 billion years ago. Hem managed to lay the foundations but there was a labor shortage, so he had to create angels and such to help him.
Then as we all know when you get several employees together they started talking. Topics like "job security", "dental plan" came into the conversation. Next thing he knew the Holy Angel Union was formed. Of course most of us know what its like when you try and bring something to the attention of a boss who thinks he omnipotent!!
Anyway all the issues were resolved and work starts 12.000 & 6 days ago.

Shesh, maybe you should read the bible? its all in there honest

Satan must've been their union rep. :)

Wow...

Wish my country did this sort of stuff.

Shame I'm from a backwards country founded by convicts rather than an advanced society founded by puritians.

You should be ashamed of your country's filthy heathen criminal ways!

Didn't know whether to laugh out loud or to cringe. I especially liked the quotes from the designer, where he dismisses the human ancestor fossils as deformed or diseased and likens them to people he's seen in New York City, and where he says that some of the people investing in the museum as scare to death of nudity.

Amazing.

Jesus was otherwise engaged, so they came up with the next best thing - inserting into their workers contracts that they believe in creation theory... woo!
And if that fails: Bibleman!

http://img318.imageshack.us/img318/8089/motivator7637525un3.jpg

Convert, heathens -- convert, or be raped in the ass.

I could come up with a way to explain Genesis scientifically...but come on now. Before Earth and the Sun, who the fuck decided how long a day was? Right now, a day is 24 of our hours. Before Creation, or the Big Bang, or Whatever the Fuck, God could have decided a day was a quadrillion fucking years if He felt like it.

Besides, we all know God didn't create the Universe. The Universe created God. Futurama said so, and that's that. Anyone who disbelieves is going to Robot Hell in New Jersey.

I already knew about it. The US should allow the creation museum as part of free speech. It will be preaching to the 45% of all Americans which are converted.

"I never lied, but if I was asked a question about the age of the universe, I answered from my knowledge of the topic, not my beliefs."

Um, so this means one of the chief "scientists" responsible thinks it's OK to fudge the truth to get what he wants (his Ph.D.). This is one problem that I have with the Christians - the whole "the end justifies the means" thing.

It doesn't necessarily mean that he lied, or that he even 'fudged' the truth. He simply answered according to the prevailing theory, even though he didn't believe that the theory was true. Thus, he answered according to the theory, not according to what he thought was true.



And second - how is this not lying? If he believed that the Bible was true, and stated something else, what else is this?

He didn't have to state that the prevailing theory was a right one, just that it was the prevailing one. He admitted that he thought the Bible was the truth all along, but just didn't admit this out loud.


He didn't have the courage to stand up for what he professes to believe.

Easy for you to say. For him, it could have meant being rejected from continuing university studies. Furthermore, it isn't necessary to state in your exam paper what you believe to be true. It isn't lying to give an answer according to a theory, even if you don't believe that theory to be accurate.


And so what is right? His beliefs contradict his knowledge? Does that mean that beliefs are the opposite of knowledge?

I believe it would make more sense to quote his use of the term 'knowledge' in quotation marks. He obviously didn't believe that the prevailing theory was the truth, but he referred to it as ''knowledge''.

Didn't know whether to laugh out loud or to cringe. I especially liked the quotes from the designer, where he dismisses the human ancestor fossils as deformed or diseased and likens them to people he's seen in New York City, and where he says that some of the people investing in the museum as scare to death of nudity.

Amazing.

You might have noticed that the writer of the report was quite hostile towards the museum. Hardly a unbiased source. Could he/she be trusted to represent what the designer really meant? I certainly don't get that feeling.

I already knew about it. The US should allow the creation museum as part of free speech. It will be preaching to the 45% of all Americans which are converted.

I don't think anyone's saying it should be stopped, though I agree $25,000,000 could be better spent by the people investing in it.

I don't think anyone's saying it should be stopped, though I agree $25,000,000 could be better spent by the people investing in it.

My thoughts exactly. You could probably feed an entire 3rd world country for a year on that....

I don't think anyone's saying it should be stopped, though I agree $25,000,000 could be better spent by the people investing in it.

What about the money spent on putting man on the moon. Couldn't that have been better spent also? On food, perhaps? What's your point?

anyone with money can build anything they like. but pointless things shouldnt come out of tax payers money.
they should spend on more usefull things like a museum about me.

What about the money spent on putting man on the moon. Couldn't that have been better spent also? On food, perhaps? What's your point?

I think the US government never claimed to follow Jesus' example by giving everytihng they have to the poor, did they?

What about the money spent on putting man on the moon. Couldn't that have been better spent also? On food, perhaps? What's your point?

I suppose it might have, sure, but some cool things came out of the space program so I think it was money fairly well spent. And the 25 million spent on this museum certainly helped the local economy in the area, so it wasn't a total waste. And after all, Dr. Dino's theme park in Florida just went belly-up, so I suppose the Young Earth Creationists need a replacement.

I suppose it might have, sure, but some cool things came out of the space program so I think it was money fairly well spent. And the 25 million spent on this museum certainly helped the local economy in the area, so it wasn't a total waste. And after all, Dr. Dino's theme park in Florida just went belly-up, so I suppose the Young Earth Creationists need a replacement.

this is how i would put the space program to use. launch creationists into space.

I think the US government never claimed to follow Jesus' example by giving everytihng they have to the poor, did they?

Try to think of this issue in terms of being an evangelical Christian (I know you are not). Define the 'poor' in terms of being spiritually poor--that includes everyone who doesn't have a faith in God, or not a very healthy one. Giving money to such a cause really is giving to the poor. The rich need Jesus just as much as anyone--so does the average American.

Try to think of this issue in terms of being an evangelical Christian (I know you are not). Define the 'poor' in terms of being spiritually poor--that includes everyone who doesn't have a faith in God, or not a very healthy one. Giving money to such a cause really is giving to the poor. The rich need Jesus just as much as anyone--so does the average American.

Perhaps if you looked after the "physically" poor and let the spirituality follow as it may, the world would be better off. I think there are quite a few people around who would take a meal or decent housing over a museum showing Adam and Eve cavorting with Tyrannosaurus Rex.

But most people aren't evangelical christians. Most people don't want to see money so horribly wasted.

Try to think of this issue in terms of being an evangelical Christian (I know you are not). Define the 'poor' in terms of being spiritually poor--that includes everyone who doesn't have a faith in God, or not a very healthy one. Giving money to such a cause really is giving to the poor. The rich need Jesus just as much as anyone--so does the average American.

I never saidd they shouldn't be allowed to waste their money any way they see fit. But this thing is certain to lose them a lot of credibility... if there's a lot left to be lost by now.

But most people aren't evangelical christians. Most people don't want to see money so horribly wasted.

why is it any of your business how someone else spends their money?

What can you even say to something like this? It's clearly indicative of a wider problem with the United States...

As I've pointed out before, this whole "taking the Bible literally" bit is relatively new. Back in the 5th century AD St. Augustine was writing treatise after treatise on the importance of interpretation. Quite frankly, Christians are short-changing themselves by viewing Genesis as some kind of ancient science-textbook written by God as opposed to a complex metaphor about the condition of humankind.

What can you even say to something like this? It's clearly indicative of a wider problem with the United States...

As I've pointed out before, this whole "taking the Bible literally" bit is relatively new. Back in the 5th century AD St. Augustine was writing treatise after treatise on the importance of interpretation. Quite frankly, Christians are short-changing themselves by viewing Genesis as some kind of ancient science-textbook written by God as opposed to a complex metaphor about the condition of humankind.

From what I can tell, it's a pretty US-centered problem. I just hope it won't spread...

I like the bit about the poodles. That really shows the mental stability of these individuals.

Perhaps if you looked after the "physically" poor and let the spirituality follow as it may, the world would be better off. I think there are quite a few people around who would take a meal or decent housing over a museum showing Adam and Eve cavorting with Tyrannosaurus Rex.

cavorting? CAVORTING?!?

at least they should be shown RIDING a T-Rex!

and fighting of the "mutants" with their cruxifix guns that are loaded with holy uranium depleted bullets!

Think of the poor children expecting a fun day out and being taken to this instead. But people should be allowed to spend their money how they like, though it is almost certain to lose the investors their money in the same way as Dr Dino's Dinosaur Adventure Land. But hey creationists throwing money away has to be a good thing.

I like the bit about the poodles. That really shows the mental stability of these individuals.

Well, poodles, you know they're ... French ... :p

What about the money spent on putting man on the moon. Couldn't that have been better spent also? On food, perhaps? What's your point?

That also should have been spent elsewhere but at least that was science spending that much on religion which is supposed to be charitable.... whaaaa? but yes those are also funds the we should feed to Ifreann

Try to think of this issue in terms of being an evangelical Christian (I know you are not). Define the 'poor' in terms of being spiritually poor--that includes everyone who doesn't have a faith in God, or not a very healthy one. Giving money to such a cause really is giving to the poor. The rich need Jesus just as much as anyone--so does the average American.

Anyone who thinks that non-young Earth Creationists are going to visit this museum for any other reason that to laugh at it is either incredibly naive or incredibly arrogant. This museum will serve two purposes: 1) To reaffirm what Young-Earth Creationists already believe to be true - something that could be just as easily accomplished in church, for much, much less money and 2) Provide amusement for those who would find such a bastardization of science to be funny (not to mention the whole, "We want to be authentic, but nudity is teh bad," portion of the tour).

No one is going to be converted by this museum. It is preaching to the choir. In fact, some people may actually be converted away from Young-Earth Creationism, by the rather dubious depictions of humans alongside dinosaurs.

Anyone who thinks that non-young Earth Creationists are going to visit this museum for any other reason that to laugh at it is either incredibly naive or incredibly arrogant. This museum will serve two purposes: 1) To reaffirm what Young-Earth Creationists already believe to be true - something that could be just as easily accomplished in church, for much, much less money and 2) Provide amusement for those who would find such a bastardization of science to be funny (not to mention the whole, "We want to be authentic, but nudity is teh bad," portion of the tour).

No one is going to be converted by this museum. It is preaching to the choir. In fact, some people may actually be converted away from Young-Earth Creationism, by the rather dubious depictions of humans alongside dinosaurs.

We've already had some YE group bring a bunch of teenagers through the Museum of Nature and Science here in Denver to have the "real story" explained to them and to have the errors of evolution pointed out using the displays. It was kind of sad, in a way, and it also pissed me off, too. Those kids were already gone.

Does this mean that Dinosaurs were around for at most 40 years? I'm kind of judging the fall of man by Eve's ability to have babies.

why is it any of your business how someone else spends their money?

Because it is incredibly idiotic (and hypocritical) to join a religion that puts an emphasis on helping the poor and disparaged on this earth while sinking enough money to feed thousands upon thousands of people, into a “museum” that is nothing but a laughing stock waste of money.

Because it is incredibly idiotic (and hypocritical) to join a religion that puts an emphasis on helping the poor and disparaged on this earth while sinking enough money to feed thousands upon thousands of people, into a “museum” that is nothing but a laughing stock waste of money.

don't know if you noticed or not.....but I wasn't talking to you.

Quoth the docent:

"Now this here, yall, is a dai-ramma of onna noah's relations killin a monkey and a dinosaur"

"Here we got the bust of the famous splorer Doctor Kent Hovind, now the bible say he was smarter than ein-stein, figure out man aint come from no monkey. He in jail now"

"This here a model of a monkey, now do that look like your grandaddy? Evolution tell you that monkey there your grandaddy."

"This here a model of the noah's ark, which they done found on the mountain in turkry where noah park it. If you look in the window you see there some zebras and a giraffe in there, and a herd of cattle."

What about the money spent on putting man on the moon. Couldn't that have been better spent also? On food, perhaps? What's your point?

The point is that while a trip to the moon is an expenditure of explorers and other secular scientific individuals, a $25,000,000 creationism museum is dedicated to the fallacies of christian faith instead of to the truth of it; That Jesus' message had everything to do with helping the sick, poor and desperate and living a good honest life and nothing to do with buiding a shrine to religious pride.

:)

Well, my paper appears to be telling me that a $25 million museum that is based on the Book of Genesis being factually correct is being built within 6 hours drive of 2/3 of the population of the US.

I'm kinda at a loss for words. Is this a good thing? Freedom of expression beign what it is, or is it just... bizzare.

edit: Oh, and the article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html
Is it bad that I'm so desensensitized to the stupid stuff people do, that hte thing thats been bothering me the most is the bit about being within a six hour drive of 2/3 the population, it just seems rather small of an area, of course I'm probably underestimating how far one can get in six hours of continuous driving by highway.

Why do we need to alert Einstein? Should I shine a spotlight into the sky with a particular symbol on it? :p

Try using a solar array with E=mc2 etched on it. He won the Nobel for photoelectric effect, not relativity, hence the solar panel.

Didn't know whether to laugh out loud or to cringe. I especially liked the quotes from the designer, where he dismisses the human ancestor fossils as deformed or diseased and likens them to people he's seen in New York City, and where he says that some of the people investing in the museum as scare to death of nudity.

Amazing.

I'm wondering why they don't tell us that the dinosaur fossils are just fossils of other creatures, too? Wouldn't that work better than adding them to the Biblical story and suggesting that they coexisted with humans without any history of such interactions ever being recorded?

And, *of course* they're scared of nudity. Obviously, even though nudity represented innocence in the Garden of Eden, it's bad to show it because nudity=sex and sex=immoral unless it is missionary position with your opposite sex spouse for the express purpose of procreation.

Young Earth Creationists piss me off to no end. I seriously cannot wrap my head around how utterly stupid their beliefs are. I don't know how they manage to hold them with the systematic and rigorous debunking even a mediocre amateur scientist could do. This museum is simply a temple to stupidity.

I'm wondering why they don't tell us that the dinosaur fossils are just fossils of other creatures, too? Wouldn't that work better than adding them to the Biblical story and suggesting that they coexisted with humans without any history of such interactions ever being recorded?

And, *of course* they're scared of nudity. Obviously, even though nudity represented innocence in the Garden of Eden, it's bad to show it because nudity=sex and sex=immoral unless it is missionary position with your opposite sex spouse for the express purpose of procreation.

I had a YEC tell me the dinosaurs were just crocodiles and other reptiles that didn't stop growing.

I'm wondering why they don't tell us that the dinosaur fossils are just fossils of other creatures, too? Wouldn't that work better than adding them to the Biblical story and suggesting that they coexisted with humans without any history of such interactions ever being recorded?

And, *of course* they're scared of nudity. Obviously, even though nudity represented innocence in the Garden of Eden, it's bad to show it because nudity=sex and sex=immoral unless it is missionary position with your opposite sex spouse for the express purpose of procreation.

Good point on the dino fossils. I'm surprised Hovind never thought of that one. When you're assuming an omnipotent creator, why even explain fossils at all? It's just God putting things in the earth for an inscrutable reason. Nothing to see here, folks, move along now, move along.

Good point on the dino fossils. I'm surprised Hovind never thought of that one. When you're assuming an omnipotent creator, why even explain fossils at all? It's just God putting things in the earth for an inscrutable reason. Nothing to see here, folks, move along now, move along.


I've heard that one too. It's just a "test" of one's faith.

I've heard that one too. It's just a "test" of one's faith.

But that would imply God is a deceiving little bastard that likes to try and trick you. Which would mean that taking all his words literally is stupid.
Unacceptable for a fundy.

But that would imply God is a deceiving little bastard that likes to try and trick you. Which would mean that taking all his words literally is stupid.
Unacceptable for a fundy.

No, it's not "deceiving", it's testing. Like giving someone boils and torturing them because the Debbil said that person wouldn't keep the faith.

No, it's not "deceiving", it's testing. Like giving someone boils and torturing them because the Debbil said that person wouldn't keep the faith.

Nah. Deliberately planting false evidence and erasing everything that could point to the truth except some poorly translated quotes is more than just testing.

Nah. Deliberately planting false evidence and erasing everything that could point to the truth except some poorly translated quotes is more than just testing.

Well, but who are you to question God? Your interpretation is wrong, that's all.

Well, but who are you to question God?

One of his children that hopes to grow up one day ?
Won't get there without learning to think for myself.

One of his children that hopes to grow up one day ?
Won't get there without learning to think for myself.

Thinking for yourself is not a requirement, just faith. All will be explained once you get to Heaven, assuming you get to Heaven.

I (also a Christian) personally think it's great that there's a creationist museum going to be built. I'm in high school, and every day, I am force-fed the idea of evolution, being told it's the only way. So I'm glad that this museum is going to be built, to present another option. After all, they're all just theories.

So, obviously you haven't been paying attention in class.

I can think of better things to do with that money. Eating it is pretty high on the list relative to building a museum based on the Book of Genisis.

EDIT:Though I would go to point and laugh(very loudly) at the many contradictions within Genisis.

Hate to annoy you region neighbour, but what exactly are these many contradictions in Genesis? I'd just like to know, for future reference. Or are you just stating something, which, obviously nobody seems to have debated because they all agree?

Actually I think that this Creationist museum is a very bad idea. It's just another way to mock Christianity. That place will be egged/vandalised no doubt. The only people that'll go there will be Sunday school groups on educational trips. People will keep bringing up what a complete waste of money it is/was for years. They'll be arguing why there aren't evoultion museums, or how this is another prime example of Christianity being 'forced' on non-Christians. And so on.

God doesn't ask to have monuments built for him. What he wants is a church; i.e. the people, the believers, not fancy buildings. This is another example of Christianity going corporate and losing sight of its main target.

I had a YEC tell me the dinosaurs were just crocodiles and other reptiles that didn't stop growing.

Believe it or not, I've seen Hovind or someone like him claim just that, as if it were scientifically demonstrated. He claimed (against all evidence to the contrary, of course) that reptiles never stop growing until they die. Therefore, the reptiles in Eden would have gotten huge before the fall, since there was no death. :eek:

Hate to annoy you region neighbour, but what exactly are these many contradictions in Genesis? I'd just like to know, for future reference. Or are you just stating something, which, obviously nobody seems to have debated because they all agree?

As far as scholars can tell, there are at least two very separate Creation stories compiled in Genesis. The first, by what scholars often refer to as the Priestly author (generally believed to be a priest or collection of priests), portrays God as almighty, as separate from human beings. Human beings (both male and female) are portrayed as the pinnacle of God's creation (created last, and together) who are to be wardens of a sort.

In the second account, by what is generally referred to as the Yahwist author (typically believed to be an author or authors who compiled stories that had been passed down by oral tradition for generations), portrays God as much more human-like. God walks with Adam and Eve in the garden, and even makes mistakes. In that account, humanity is not created last. Man (Adam) is created before plants and animals (both of which are created well before human beings in the first account). Eve, on the other hand, is created after these things. In this account, everything beyond the dirt itself is created *for* man (gender specificity intended). Man is the reason for creation, not the pinnacle of it.

God doesn't ask to have monuments built for him. What he wants is a church; i.e. the people, the believers, not fancy buildings. This is another example of Christianity going corporate and losing sight of its main target.

That's pretty much what it boils down to, and what many in the thread have been getting at when they talk about wasting money. That money could be used to help the poor and suffering. Why is it being used on a museum created solely for those who are so weak of faith that they need to pretend that science "proves" their faith correct?

Thinking for yourself is not a requirement, just faith. All will be explained once you get to Heaven, assuming you get to Heaven.

I am sorry, but I refuse to be the lazy child.

I am sorry, but I refuse to be the lazy child.

Oh, well, see you down below. :cool:

What a horrible waste of money.

What a horrible waste of money.

That doesn't even begin to adequately describe how tremendously this idiot project squanders money, labor, land, materials...hell, time, oxygen...the list goes on and on. The really sad part, of course, is that a lot of people will go in there sincerely believing some of that bullshit. Or worse, come out of there sincerely believing some of that bullshit.

And the United States slides further down the list of relevant nations.

In the second account, by what is generally referred to as the Yahwist author (typically believed to be an author or authors who compiled stories that had been passed down by oral tradition for generations), portrays God as much more human-like. God walks with Adam and Eve in the garden, and even makes mistakes. In that account, humanity is not created last. Man (Adam) is created before plants and animals (both of which are created well before human beings in the first account). Eve, on the other hand, is created after these things. In this account, everything beyond the dirt itself is created *for* man (gender specificity intended). Man is the reason for creation, not the pinnacle of it.

Strange, but I've never heard of that version; nor would I agree with it. I'd better chck that one up so that people don't start hurling the 'stupid' or 'ignorant' insults at me.

That doesn't even begin to adequately describe how tremendously this idiot project squanders money, labor, land, materials...hell, time, oxygen...the list goes on and on. The really sad part, of course, is that a lot of people will go in there sincerely believing some of that bullshit. Or worse, come out of there sincerely believing some of that bullshit.


I highly doubt that this place is going to convince anyone of anything. At most, it will be used to convince young children who were going to be indoctrinated anyways.

Strange, but I've never heard of that version; nor would I agree with it. I'd better chck that one up so that people don't start hurling the 'stupid' or 'ignorant' insults at me.

Have you read the book of Genesis? If you have, you have already read both accounts. The priestly account begins with Genesis 1:1 and runs through 2:3. The Yahwist account begins in Genesis 2:4 and is completed at the end of Genesis 2. What follows is the Yahwist account of the fall of man and the eviction from Eden.

That doesn't even begin to adequately describe how tremendously this idiot project squanders money, labor, land, materials...hell, time, oxygen...the list goes on and on. The really sad part, of course, is that a lot of people will go in there sincerely believing some of that bullshit. Or worse, come out of there sincerely believing some of that bullshit.

And the United States slides further down the list of relevant nations.

Indeed, forgive my lack of criticism of the subject.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-Alert Einstein


...that quote will never get worn out. :p

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/wkpjr1967/einstein.jpg

Quoth the docent:

"Now this here, yall, is a dai-ramma of onna noah's relations killin a monkey and a dinosaur"

"Here we got the bust of the famous splorer Doctor Kent Hovind, now the bible say he was smarter than ein-stein, figure out man aint come from no monkey. He in jail now"

"This here a model of a monkey, now do that look like your grandaddy? Evolution tell you that monkey there your grandaddy."

"This here a model of the noah's ark, which they done found on the mountain in turkry where noah park it. If you look in the window you see there some zebras and a giraffe in there, and a herd of cattle."

wow. you bring the museum to life...

you should apply for a job

That doesn't even begin to adequately describe how tremendously this idiot project squanders money, labor, land, materials...hell, time, oxygen...the list goes on and on. The really sad part, of course, is that a lot of people will go in there sincerely believing some of that bullshit. Or worse, come out of there sincerely believing some of that bullshit.

And the United States slides further down the list of relevant nations.Maybe someone should ask AlQuaeda for another plane...
Really. :rolleyes:
.

Have you read the book of Genesis? If you have, you have already read both accounts. The priestly account begins with Genesis 1:1 and runs through 2:3. The Yahwist account begins in Genesis 2:4 and is completed at the end of Genesis 2. What follows is the Yahwist account of the fall of man and the eviction from Eden.

That pretty much sums it up.

Of course, if you can maintain that the Bible is one consistant work with a unity present throughout the entire work. But in order to do so, you have to either a) interpret Genesis as metaphor, analogy, or poetry (which, incidently, does not necessarily mean it is not divinely inspired metaphor, analogy, or poetry) or b) have faith in this unity despite the immense, gaping contradictions.

If you accept a, you will agree with any sane, secular individual that the monument to stupidity being erected is exactly that.

If you accept b, you shouldn't be surprised that people without faith find there to be said contradictions, nor should you attempt to argue with them and try to convince them otherwise, since it is a matter of faith and is eludes reason entirely.

Besides, we all know God didn't create the Universe. The Universe created God. Futurama said so, and that's that. Anyone who disbelieves is going to Robot Hell in New Jersey.
As =POPE= I endorse the above post.
That also should have been spent elsewhere but at least that was science spending that much on religion which is supposed to be charitable.... whaaaa? but yes those are also funds the we should feed to Ifreann
Yes, give Ifreann all your money.......>.> <.<
Quoth the docent:

"Now this here, yall, is a dai-ramma of onna noah's relations killin a monkey and a dinosaur"

"Here we got the bust of the famous splorer Doctor Kent Hovind, now the bible say he was smarter than ein-stein, figure out man aint come from no monkey. He in jail now"

"This here a model of a monkey, now do that look like your grandaddy? Evolution tell you that monkey there your grandaddy."

"This here a model of the noah's ark, which they done found on the mountain in turkry where noah park it. If you look in the window you see there some zebras and a giraffe in there, and a herd of cattle."
If it was like that I'd go just for the laughs.
I had a YEC tell me the dinosaurs were just crocodiles and other reptiles that didn't stop growing.
Wow, super crocodiles......that's awesome.
Hate to annoy you region neighbour, but what exactly are these many contradictions in Genesis? I'd just like to know, for future reference. Or are you just stating something, which, obviously nobody seems to have debated because they all agree?
Huzzah, the people in my region do exist, it's not all a wonderful dream.

Oh, and try http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html for, well Bible contradictions.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/wkpjr1967/einstein.jpg

That picture=win

As far as scholars can tell, there are at least two very separate Creation stories compiled in Genesis. The first, by what scholars often refer to as the Priestly author (generally believed to be a priest or collection of priests), portrays God as almighty, as separate from human beings. Human beings (both male and female) are portrayed as the pinnacle of God's creation (created last, and together) who are to be wardens of a sort.

In the second account, by what is generally referred to as the Yahwist author (typically believed to be an author or authors who compiled stories that had been passed down by oral tradition for generations), portrays God as much more human-like. God walks with Adam and Eve in the garden, and even makes mistakes. In that account, humanity is not created last. Man (Adam) is created before plants and animals (both of which are created well before human beings in the first account). Eve, on the other hand, is created after these things. In this account, everything beyond the dirt itself is created *for* man (gender specificity intended). Man is the reason for creation, not the pinnacle of it.


There is more than one opinion on this part of Genesis (obviously). You have divided the creation story into two different accounts, and drawn the conclusion that it must have been due to separate authors. However, this is not necessarily a safe conclusion, since there are also places in the OT where the style of writing is to describe the same situation twice. Consider how the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy contain so much repetition of the division of land, conquest, journeying through the wilderness, etc. Now, this repetition may be due to the contribution of more than one author, but this is unlikely. Why would they repeat themselves unecessarily. Rather, unlike modern writing which would tend to merge the two accounts into one to give a single view of the event, the repetition is included to demonstrate the different aspects of the event--two or more views of the event. Thus it is easily likely that the same author wrote/compiled the two accounts of creation in Genesis. The second account was simply to bring clarity to the first account, by looking at it from another perspective.

The second point is that there is not necessarily any contradiction between the two accounts in Genesis. The only contradiction that exists is in the interpretations of the accounts, and as everyone knows, interpretation can be rather subjective. How hard it is to interpret scripture in your own favourite way and then claim contradiction? But it doesn't convince the people who can see your bias, only those who think the same way you do to begin with.


Anyone who thinks that non-young Earth Creationists are going to visit this museum for any other reason that to laugh at it is either incredibly naive or incredibly arrogant. This museum will serve two purposes: 1) To reaffirm what Young-Earth Creationists already believe to be true - something that could be just as easily accomplished in church, for much, much less money and 2) Provide amusement for those who would find such a bastardization of science to be funny (not to mention the whole, "We want to be authentic, but nudity is teh bad," portion of the tour).

Perhaps the museum won't impress many, I wouldn't know. I personally would reserve my judgement until I see it for myself--something that every one should do if they consider it important to be objective. For myself, I personally think that the young earth people have some interesting arguments. And even if they do nothing more than highlight our ignorance, then good on them for playing the role of critics. I wouldn't want to stand in their shoes and go through the modern day 'Inquisition' for their convictions.

As for the money issue, I think it jolly well their right to spend their money how the like. And I think it quite ironic that the moment a government spend billions on space programs, some people applaude, but the moment some religious groups spend a fraction of such money money--their money--on a museum, they suddenly get concerned about all the poor and starving in the world. I think it obvious that they are more concerned about criticising the religious rather than caring for the poor.

Sure, the religious are concerned about the poor and starving, as the facts indicate. They certainly give a heck of a lot more than the non-religious. But are they not allowed to spend their money according to their convictions, particularly if they genuinely believe that it will help others? Of course you don't think it will help others, this creation museum, and you may or may not be right, but at least allow them room for integrity with their money.


No one is going to be converted by this museum. It is preaching to the choir.

You don't know that. I have heard of many people becoming Christians when hearing about the young earth arguments--because of it's emphasis on the Gospel (by some proponents). I've actually met several of them.



In fact, some people may actually be converted away from Young-Earth Creationism, by the rather dubious depictions of humans alongside dinosaurs.


I don't see why that would bother you that much--that people would be converted away from the young earth arguments.

And I still don't really see why we should expect to find evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together. In the young earth world view, there wouldn't be that much time for the evidence to accumulate. In such a world view, nobody expects to find human and dinosaur fossils buried together, especially considering how rare fossils are.

Quoth the docent:

"Now this here, yall, is a dai-ramma of onna noah's relations killin a monkey and a dinosaur"

"Here we got the bust of the famous splorer Doctor Kent Hovind, now the bible say he was smarter than ein-stein, figure out man aint come from no monkey. He in jail now"

"This here a model of a monkey, now do that look like your grandaddy? Evolution tell you that monkey there your grandaddy."

"This here a model of the noah's ark, which they done found on the mountain in turkry where noah park it. If you look in the window you see there some zebras and a giraffe in there, and a herd of cattle."
Aren't you worried how accurate you can do a 'Deliverance' voice?

I know I would be if I was you.

For myself, I personally think that the young earth people have some interesting arguments. And even if they do nothing more than highlight our ignorance, then good on them for playing the role of critics.What interesting arguments?
And all they highlight is their own ignorance by failing to support their "criticism" with evidence.
.

Look at it from the bright side; eventually, once creationism and its followers become extinct, the museum can be used as a creationist museum in an entirely different sense.

What interesting arguments?
And all they highlight is their own ignorance by failing to support their "criticism" with evidence.
.

For example, that the hypothetical ape like human ancestor does not currently exist, and that there is no evidence that it ever did. That the notion of it exists is a product of someone's interpretation of the data.

It is good to remember that although the text books are full of ape like ancestors, we haven't actually found any.

For example, that the hypothetical ape like human ancestor does not currently exist, and that there is no evidence that it ever did. That the notion of it exists is a product of someone's interpretation of the data.

It is good to remember that although the text books are full of ape like ancestors, we haven't actually found any.

I'm highly amused by the fact you felt the needs to point out that there are no pre-humans walking around.

For example, that the hypothetical ape like human ancestor does not currently exist, and that there is no evidence that it ever did. That the notion of it exists is a product of someone's interpretation of the data.

It is good to remember that although the text books are full of ape like ancestors, we haven't actually found any.What data? You mean excavated bones? Why do those not support the assumed existence of ape like human ancestors?
.

I'm highly amused by the fact you felt the needs to point out that there are no pre-humans walking around.Well, I have my doubts about that.
.

I'm highly amused by the fact you felt the needs to point out that there are no pre-humans walking around.

It's a bit like doubting that dinosaurs existed, because today we can only observe crocodiles and lizards and no T-Rexes....

Aren't you worried how accurate you can do a 'Deliverance' voice?

I know I would be if I was you.

can't you just hear the banjo in the background.

spooky:(

I'm highly amused by the fact you felt the needs to point out that there are no pre-humans walking around.

Oh, you liked that one did you?
But I doubt that you were highly amused.

Rather, I think you were pointing out how obvious it is that there are no pre-humans currently walking around. However, I thought it was obvious that I meant pre-human fossils, not living specimens. My mistake.

Oh, you liked that one did you?
But I doubt that you were highly amused.

Rather, I think you were pointing out how obvious it is that there are no pre-humans currently walking around. However, I thought it was obvious that I meant pre-human fossils, not living specimens. My mistake.

So you assume that Australopiticus, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, etc. are nobody's ancestors and simply died out without leaving their DNA to further adapt?

It’s a bit like doubting that dinosaurs existed, because today we can only observe crocodiles and lizards and no T-Rexes....
What’s more bizarre is inferring that because you don’t accept scientific evidence, your specific Judeo-Christian god must have created the world in a few days.

*sings*
How bizarre..dumdumdum dumdumdum dumdumdum...

What’s more bizarre is inferring that because you don’t accept scientific evidence, your specific Judeo-Christian god must have created the world in a few days.

*sings*
How bizarre..dumdumdum dumdumdum dumdumdum...

Huh? I never knew I owned a god.

Where do I pawn it?

Oh, you liked that one did you?
But I doubt that you were highly amused.

Rather, I think you were pointing out how obvious it is that there are no pre-humans currently walking around. However, I thought it was obvious that I meant pre-human fossils, not living specimens. My mistake.

So for you an absence of dinosaur and human fossils together doesn't disprove young earth creationism but a lack of a particular fossil for a common ancestor of apes and humans does disprove evolution to you? Talk about having your cake and eating it...

What data? You mean excavated bones? Why do those not support the assumed existence of ape like human ancestors?
.

You mean the fossils like Lucy? Where the lower body is supposedly very human like, and supposedly stood upright and walked on two feet (despite the living pygmy chimpanzee walking upright about 10 percent of the time). And the upper body of Lucy apparently is virtually indistinguishable from an ape's. Not much there to support the claim that Lucy was a member of the species of human ancestors.

please read this about the "museum" in kentucky. Trust me guys you appreciate it!

ARTICLE (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june05/creation_3-28.html)

Huh? I never knew I owned a god.

Where do I pawn it?
Crossed wires.

The you I referenced was the hypothetical Creationist you, not Cabra West you.

Sorry matey.

So you assume that Australopiticus, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, etc. are nobody's ancestors and simply died out without leaving their DNA to further adapt?

No, I don't assume anything here, but I do QUESTION the conclusions of popular theory, unlike a lot of people here, it seems.

Oh, you liked that one did you?
But I doubt that you were highly amused.

Rather, I think you were pointing out how obvious it is that there are no pre-humans currently walking around. However, I thought it was obvious that I meant pre-human fossils, not living specimens. My mistake.

Lucy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html)

Australopithecus africanus (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afri.html)

Homo erectus (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/03/20_daka.html)

What do you call these?

You mean the fossils like Lucy? Where the lower body is supposedly very human like, and supposedly stood upright and walked on two feet (despite the living pygmy chimpanzee walking upright about 10 percent of the time). And the upper body of Lucy apparently is virtually indistinguishable from an ape's. Not much there to support the claim that Lucy was a member of the species of human ancestors.

Just like all these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29) are fake, right?
Sounds like you're uncovering a massive conspiracy here....

So for you an absence of dinosaur and human fossils together doesn't disprove young earth creationism but a lack of a particular fossil for a common ancestor of apes and humans does disprove evolution to you? Talk about having your cake and eating it...

In a young earth scenario, there isn't much time for the accumulation of fossils, so one would not be surprised if they were not there to be found.

In an old age scenario, there is plenty of time to see the fossils, even if they are very rare. We are talking about a difference of millions of years.

It pays to pay attention to the details.

No, I don't assume anything here, but I do QUESTION the conclusions of popular theory, unlike a lot of people here, it seems.

Fair enough. Theories are meant to be questioned.
So, what exactly are you questioneing, and what other explanation can you offer? And what data do you have to back your explanation?

Lucy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html)

Australopithecus africanus (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afri.html)

Homo erectus (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/03/20_daka.html)

What do you call these?

I call them fossilized bones, unlike the chaps who go much further and claim that they know them to be human ancestors.

In a young earth scenario, there isn't much time for the accumulation of fossils, so one would not be surprised if they were not there to be found.

In an old age scenario, there is plenty of time to see the fossils, even if they are very rare. We are talking about a difference of millions of years.

It pays to pay attention to the details.

Consifering that fossils are indeed rare, and that new fossils are being found every minute all over the globe, how do you explain their existance?

6000 years is a little short to cover even the fossils found so far, let alone those that probably will be found in years to come.

Fair enough. Theories are meant to be questioned.
So, what exactly are you questioneing, and what other explanation can you offer? And what data do you have to back your explanation?

I think one ought to question pretty much everything.

I also think that it is important to think about alternative explanations.

But one does not need to have an alternative explanation before they begin the questioning process.
One does not need a water tight alternative explanation for the license to question.

I do have some ideas of alternative explanations, but none that I think are water tight.

Oh BTW: Any creationist here with Mac OS X?

No creationists believe apples come from trees and involve original sin.

I think one ought to question pretty much everything.

I also think that it is important to think about alternative explanations.

But one does not need to have an alternative explanation before they begin the questioning process.
One does not need a water tight alternative explanation for the license to question.

I do have some ideas of alternative explanations, but none that I think are water tight.

You haven't even formulated the questions yet, as far as I can see.... let's hear them.

Consifering that fossils are indeed rare, and that new fossils are being found every minute all over the globe, how do you explain their existance?

6000 years is a little short to cover even the fossils found so far, let alone those that probably will be found in years to come.

It all depends on how long it takes to make a fossil. Some people have claimed millions of years. But that is what they say about coal. Now we know that we can make coal, real coal, in about 24 hours with the right conditions. Perhaps the same is true for fossils.

... are we actually debating whether the world is 6000 years old?

Holy Eris, what’s going on?

EDIT: meh, more important things to do, like watching Neighbours.

I call them fossilized bones, unlike the chaps who go much further and claim that they know them to be human ancestors.

Well, it's pretty obvious they are bones, but I was wondering what else you'd call them, since you seem to reject the view that they represent species possibly ancestral to humans.

I think this sums up that article well...


"Poodles are degenerate mutants of dogs. I say that in my lectures and people present them to me as gifts."

It all depends on how long it takes to make a fossil. Some people have claimed millions of years. But that is what they say about coal. Now we know that we can make coal, real coal, in about 24 hours with the right conditions. Perhaps the same is true for fossils.

Coal has been made within a few days ever since the middle ages.
I think you might be talking about diamonds there. Yes, they can be made artificially, but the conditions used to produce them cannot be found in nature. The natural process does still that a few centuries.

Fossils can't be created artificially, as far as I know. And they do take certain conditions to be created. But I'm no geologists, I'm sure they could answer that more comprehensively
But given that a huge number of fossils are found in layers of different age, and given that we do in fact know how long it did take for these layers to accumulate, we can confidently assume that the earth is older than 6000 years.

You haven't even formulated the questions yet, as far as I can see.... let's hear them.

Oh, you are curious, eh?

Well, then, how do you know that the world is older than, say, 100 000 years (just to pick a round number)? What sort of evidence do we have that proves that the world is older? Are the arguments trustworthy?

Here are some points worth remembering that are yet to be resolved with an old earth.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short (i.e., why would ancient man build megalithic monuments but fail to record history?)

Well, it's pretty obvious they are bones, but I was wondering what else you'd call them, since you seem to reject the view that they represent species possibly ancestral to humans.

No, I don't reject that view. I question it. There is a difference. And if you were scientific, you would also question it.

Well, my paper appears to be telling me that a $25 million museum that is based on the Book of Genesis being factually correct is being built within 6 hours drive of 2/3 of the population of the US.

I'm kinda at a loss for words. Is this a good thing? Freedom of expression beign what it is, or is it just... bizzare.

edit: Oh, and the article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html

So what if it costs $25 million? You make it sound as if public money is being used.

And so what if it's within a 6 hour drive of the majority of the population? You also make it sound as if Americans are going to flock to this thing.

EDIT: I originally forgot to add the word "million" after $25.

Coal has been made within a few days ever since the middle ages.
I think you might be talking about diamonds there. Yes, they can be made artificially, but the conditions used to produce them cannot be found in nature. The natural process does still that a few centuries.

No, I'm talking about real coal. Not charcoal. Real quick coal has only been discovered this year in Germany by the Max Plank Institute. I could give you a link, but it would be in German.


Fossils can't be created artificially, as far as I know. And they do take certain conditions to be created. But I'm no geologists, I'm sure they could answer that more comprehensively
But given that a huge number of fossils are found in layers of different age, and given that we do in fact know how long it did take for these layers to accumulate, we can confidently assume that the earth is older than 6000 years.

Fossils might be able to be created artificially, so long as we know what the right conditions are. It's a big gap in our knowledge.

And with the layers argument, if we question the assumption that those layers took many years to form, then we cannot assume that the earth is older than 100,000 years.

I realize that it is harder to hold questions (rather than hastily formed conclusions) in our minds, but it is a jolly lot more scientific.

Oh, you are curious, eh?

Well, then, how do you know that the world is older than, say, 100 000 years (just to pick a round number)? What sort of evidence do we have that proves that the world is older? Are the arguments trustworthy?

Here are some points worth remembering that are yet to be resolved with an old earth.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short (i.e., why would ancient man build megalithic monuments but fail to record history?)
Can you explain all those propositions?

As to the last one - paper disintergrates easily unless it is in very specific conditions. Buildings containing records get destroyed - Library of Alexandria i think. carvings get weathered. Written languages evolve - cave painting are recordings of history. Cities fall and are abandned.

There is soooooo muchw e don't know about even moderately recent history, even the 'young earth' age does not have a comprehensive history for most of the time earth has been there.

Have you read the book of Genesis? If you have, you have already read both accounts. The priestly account begins with Genesis 1:1 and runs through 2:3. The Yahwist account begins in Genesis 2:4 and is completed at the end of Genesis 2. What follows is the Yahwist account of the fall of man and the eviction from Eden.

I'm sorry. My computer went haywire last night so I wasn't even sure whether that last one had posted.

Thanks for posting that up. I'll actually have to look into that...

Okay so I've read the first two chapters of Genesis, and I really can't see what you're on about. The first section as you put it (Gen 1:1-2:3) deals with the creation of the earth in 6 days and God resting on the 7th. It goes through the whole first week. Now, the second section, rather than being contradictory, seems to back track a few days to when God hadn't yet put plants on the earth and it tells about God forming Adam out of the dust, creating the garden of Eden to the east and putting Adam in there. It describes the garden, and then the creation of Eve. The first passage doesn't mention the Garden of Eden, but that's not to say that it didnt happen at that time. The writer is simply opting to describe the Garden of Eden after discussing creation so that they don't digress from the motive of the first chapter.

Also there is no mention of God walking in the garden in chapter 2; it can be assumed, just like many assume that the 'fruit' was in fact an apple. Nor is it said that when God was creating the world that he didn't descend upon the world to oversee his work. We just know that it happened. So I don't see what is really so contradictory. He does walk in the garden in Chapter 3, but how does that contradict the first chapter.

Also; what 'mistakes' does God make? He knew that Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit; but rather than acting all condascending and accusatory of them he extracts confessions from the two. I don't see it as making mistakes, but, rather, as letting things happen.

Oh, you are curious, eh?

Well, then, how do you know that the world is older than, say, 100 000 years (just to pick a round number)? What sort of evidence do we have that proves that the world is older? Are the arguments trustworthy?

Here are some points worth remembering that are yet to be resolved with an old earth.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

No they don't

2. Too few supernova remnants.

You do know that supernovae dissipate with time, right?

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly

It's amazing what a few passes near a star will do to a ball of ice.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Please google "plate tectonics"

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

:confused:

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Again, :confused:

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

See #4

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.

Did you make this one up yourself?

10. Too much helium in minerals.

What the hell are you talking about?:confused:

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

We know this because we've searched every square inch of the earth, and we know we've found them all. :rolleyes:

13. Agriculture is too recent.

6000 years isn't enough time for agriculture?

14. History is too short (i.e., why would ancient man build megalithic monuments but fail to record history?)

Hmmm.. it's a stumper, yeah? Hmmm... maybe because Stonehenge was built before writing was invented? Incidentally, written history spans about 6000 years. Hmm....

Sure, the religious are concerned about the poor and starving, as the facts indicate. They certainly give a heck of a lot more than the non-religious.

I disagree, corperate America gives religious America a good run for its money for who donates more to charity. And in fact, Bill Gates donated as an individual more money to charity in 1 year then all the religions in the USA COMBINED.

I disagree, corperate America gives religious America a good run for its money for who donates more to charity. And in fact, Bill Gates donated as an individual more money to charity in 1 year then all the religions in the USA COMBINED.

That is a good point.

However, when Bill Gates donates money, everyone knows about it. But when little Billy gives his 50 cents in the offering plate, I suppose there might be some others (his parents?) that know about it. But I do see a difference. Don't you? Do you think it fair to compare the donations of those big corporations with that of individuals?

At any rate, we were comparing the religious to the non-religious. Does anyone know if Bill Gates is religious?

No they don't



You do know that supernovae dissipate with time, right?



It's amazing what a few passes near a star will do to a ball of ice.



Please google "plate tectonics"



:confused:



Again, :confused:



See #4



Did you make this one up yourself?



What the hell are you talking about?:confused:



We know this because we've searched every square inch of the earth, and we know we've found them all. :rolleyes:



6000 years isn't enough time for agriculture?



Hmmm.. it's a stumper, yeah? Hmmm... maybe because Stonehenge was built before writing was invented? Incidentally, written history spans about 6000 years. Hmm....

http://icr.org/article/1842/

I still don't know why anyone who would have the brains to design and construct monuments like Stonehenge couldn't figure out how to preserve their communications. It does seem sus to me.

That is a good point.

However, when Bill Gates donates money, everyone knows about it. But when little Billy gives his 50 cents in the offering plate, I suppose there might be some others (his parents?) that know about it. But I do see a difference. Don't you? Do you think it fair to compare the donations of those big corporations with that of individuals?

At any rate, we were comparing the religious to the non-religious. Does anyone know if Bill Gates is religious?

It doesnt matter. The whole point of this tangent was that these people have spent a massive amount of money on a theme park while at the same time professing to beleive in a book which tells them to take care of the poor and give to charity. Its ridiculous because they are being extremely hypocritical, not just because they built it. The beleifs of the non-religous dont enter into it.

http://icr.org/article/1842/

I still don't know why anyone who would have the brains to design and construct monuments like Stonehenge couldn't figure out how to preserve their communications. It does seem sus to me.

Perhaps because they didn't feel the necessity?

http://icr.org/article/1842/

I still don't know why anyone who would have the brains to design and construct monuments like Stonehenge couldn't figure out how to preserve their communications. It does seem sus to me.

Word of mouth perhaps?
"Hey Joe, look at this big rock thingy I made!"
"Sure is a fine big rock thingy, I think I'll tell the wife. She love big rock thingies"
"Then why'd she marry you ;)"

I still don't know why anyone who would have the brains to design and construct monuments like Stonehenge couldn't figure out how to preserve their communications. It does seem sus to me.

Because they didn't see the point. The very concept of history (as something linear, involving "progress"/evolution or at least change) is remarkably recent in the West and Asia (not to mention elsewhere). The builders of Stonehenge (like some New Guinean Highlanders in the 1930s and even today, incidentally) had a more static or cyclical view of time. Recording history for posterity in written form was quite simply inconceivable, because it didn't factor into their views and understanding of the world.

Then you have societies in which there is a concept of history (the Maori concept of whakapapa, for example), but somewhat different to our own, and transmitted orally (in some cases because oral transmission is considered quite sufficient; in others because knowledge may be sacred/restricted, reserved to the initiated, and/or a form of power and status - hence writing things down would have been culturally inappropriate).

And that's just the first things that come to mind. There are heaps of reasons why a society may not wish (or even think) to commit records to writing for posterity.

Our ancestors from the Stonehenge era weren't just "like us but primitive". They had a whole different view on society and the world they lived in.

It doesnt matter. The whole point of this tangent was that these people have spent a massive amount of money on a theme park while at the same time professing to beleive in a book which tells them to take care of the poor and give to charity. Its ridiculous because they are being extremely hypocritical, not just because they built it. The beleifs of the non-religous dont enter into it.

Your criticism is valid only if they have neglected to care for the poor and needy because of the cost of the museum. Otherwise, your criticism is rather inappropriate. They are entitled to do what they like with their money.

Or would you like your beliefs held up in your face and you being criticised for not spending your money exactly according to your beliefs (I suppose that analogy doesn't work for some belief systems, like the belief that all I have to do is live life for myself--although I don't know if I would call that a belief system).

Perhaps because they didn't feel the necessity?

Then why did someone see the necessity only relatively recently, if we humans have had such a long history? It cannot be that basic intelligence has only evolved in the last several thousand years. That would be asking too much of evolutionary theory.


Word of mouth perhaps?
"Hey Joe, look at this big rock thingy I made!"
"Sure is a fine big rock thingy, I think I'll tell the wife. She love big rock thingies"
"Then why'd she marry you "


That level of intelligence doesn't even explain the construction of Stonehenge, let alone the megalithic ancient structures.


Because they didn't see the point. The very concept of history (as something linear, involving "progress"/evolution or at least change) is remarkably recent in the West and Asia (not to mention elsewhere). The builders of Stonehenge (like some New Guinean Highlanders in the 1930s and even today, incidentally) had a more static or cyclical view of time. Recording history for posterity in written form was quite simply inconceivable, because it didn't factor into their views and understanding of the world.

The New Guinean Highlanders are hardly advanced when it comes to building great structures. Bad example. Actually, there is evidence of vast ancient sophisticated irrigation structures in PNG, in the lowlands, I've heard, some covered with jungle. Some people think that it is related to the great stone heads found on Easter Island (I.e, same source of technology).


Then you have societies in which there is a concept of history (the Maori concept of whakapapa, for example), but somewhat different to our own, and transmitted orally (in some cases because oral transmission is considered quite sufficient; in others because knowledge may be sacred/restricted, reserved to the initiated, and/or a form of power and status - hence writing things down would have been culturally inappropriate).

Yes, the cultural factor could be a point. However, you have used examples of cultures that are not known for their technology, and we are trying to explain ancient technology. I doubt the Pyramids could have been build using only word-of-mouth communication.


And that's just the first things that come to mind. There are heaps of reasons why a society may not wish (or even think) to commit records to writing for posterity.


But I suggest that writing was essential for many if not all of those ancient wonders.


Our ancestors from the Stonehenge era weren't just "like us but primitive". They had a whole different view on society and the world they lived in.

I'm not even sure that it is fair of us to call them primitive. Perhaps they would call us the primitive ones. Our quality of life is quite low, if you take the world population into account. It's only we fortunate few Westerners that can call ourselves advanced, and then again, look what our 'advances' are doing to our environment. Look how many people are committing suicide. Look how bad our advanced civilisation is. Sure, there are some good things, but some pretty rotten stuff too.

Then why did someone see the necessity only relatively recently, if we humans have had such a long history? It cannot be that basic intelligence has only evolved in the last several thousand years. That would be asking too much of evolutionary theory.
What does an interest in history have to do with human intelligence. A lack of the former does not indicate a lack of the latter.



That level of intelligence doesn't even explain the construction of Stonehenge, let alone the megalithic ancient structures.

Considering they're speaking english I'd say they'd be considered pretty smart for their time. Or maybe I wasn't being totally serious.


The New Guinean Highlanders are hardly advanced when it comes to building great structures. Bad example. Actually, there is evidence of vast ancient sophisticated irrigation structures in PNG, in the lowlands, I've heard, some covered with jungle. Some people think that it is related to the great stone heads found on Easter Island (I.e, same source of technology).


Yes, the cultural factor could be a point. However, you have used examples of cultures that are not known for their technology, and we are trying to explain ancient technology. I doubt the Pyramids could have been build using only word-of-mouth communication.



But I suggest that writing was essential for many if not all of those ancient wonders.



I'm not even sure that it is fair of us to call them primitive. Perhaps they would call us the primitive ones. Our quality of life is quite low, if you take the world population into account. It's only we fortunate few Westerners that can call ourselves advanced, and then again, look what our 'advances' are doing to our environment. Look how many people are committing suicide. Look how bad our advanced civilisation is. Sure, there are some good things, but some pretty rotten stuff too.
I still don't see why you think that for people to have been intelligent enough to build great structures they must want to record it somehow.

Your criticism is valid only if they have neglected to care for the poor and needy because of the cost of the museum. Otherwise, your criticism is rather inappropriate. They are entitled to do what they like with their money.

Of course they're entitled to do what they want. However if they chose to waste it on this giant monument to stupidity they forfeit any sort of claim to be 'moral' or to claim to follow the bible.


Or would you like your beliefs held up in your face and you being criticised for not spending your money exactly according to your beliefs (I suppose that analogy doesn't work for some belief systems, like the belief that all I have to do is live life for myself--although I don't know if I would call that a belief system).

No, it doesnt work. I live my life like I want. And if I want to give to charity, I do.

That level of intelligence doesn't even explain the construction of Stonehenge, let alone the megalithic ancient structures.....But I suggest that writing was essential for many if not all of those ancient wonders...

Please explain how writing would be necessary for the building of Stonehenge.

What does an interest in history have to do with human intelligence. A lack of the former does not indicate a lack of the latter.

I suppose I'm just questioning how we came about to be interested in history. Did we happen to find this interest approximately 4000 years ago, or earlier? Since many of the megalithic monuments seem even earlier than that, why were we intelligent enough to build them, but not intelligent enough to record history? And you can't tell me that they did build them without writing of some sort. We are talking about complexity that would challenge even modern architects with their computer programs.

Intelligence is not strictly always to be associated with an interest in history, of course. I concede that point. But I still find this notion quite weird that we humans have only recently been interested in history and thus committed it to preserveable script. That, of course, doesn't disprove a long human history, but I'm uncomfortable with just shrugging one's shoulders and simply saying that that is the way it was.





Considering they're speaking english I'd say they'd be considered pretty smart for their time. Or maybe I wasn't being totally serious.

I am familiar with humour. I thought I would just add a bit of my own. Most people think my version too dry and serious. I was subtly teasing you for coming up with some humour that I didn't think was that clever.

(Of course, that isn't to say that you haven't contributed clever humour to NS is the past, so don't think that I think that you aren't capable of clever humour. Clever humour is always appreciated.)



I still don't see why you think that for people to have been intelligent enough to build great structures they must want to record it somehow.

I would if I built those structures. I am human. Isn't that enough?

Then why did someone see the necessity only relatively recently, if we humans have had such a long history? It cannot be that basic intelligence has only evolved in the last several thousand years. That would be asking too much of evolutionary theory.


Tools.
Humans have been painting and drawing and otherwise leaving marks that may or may not have meaning for thousands of years. The oldest man-made markings found in Ireland are over 5000 years old, and Ireland was settled rather recently in history.

However, to convey messages, stone carvings are highly impractical. You need highly specialised craftsmen to make them, and people have to come to the message rather than the message being brought to people. So writing didn't really make much sense, did it?

It only became a useful asset once humans had discovered ways of transporting messages. The discovery of how to produce papyrus, or how to bake clay to harden tablets with messages, or even later parchment.

Civilisation was needed to make writing possible, not the other way around.

Of course they're entitled to do what they want. However if they chose to waste it on this giant monument to stupidity they forfeit any sort of claim to be 'moral' or to claim to follow the bible.

And of course you are entitled to think it a giant stupidity. I suppose they didn't really think that the world was going to fall in love with it.



No, it doesnt work. I live my life like I want. And if I want to give to charity, I do.

See, I could have guessed that. My stupid analogies. OK, but it still works if you use your imagination. Imagine living your life for a cause greater than your own life. Then you will find yourself somewhat closer to the world view of a Christian.

Tools.
Humans have been painting and drawing and otherwise leaving marks that may or may not have meaning for thousands of years. The oldest man-made markings found in Ireland are over 5000 years old, and Ireland was settled rather recently in history.

However, to convey messages, stone carvings are highly impractical. You need highly specialised craftsmen to make them, and people have to come to the message rather than the message being brought to people. So writing didn't really make much sense, did it?

It only became a useful asset once humans had discovered ways of transporting messages. The discovery of how to produce papyrus, or how to bake clay to harden tablets with messages, or even later parchment.

Civilisation was needed to make writing possible, not the other way around.

Are you suggesting that these people capable of building wonderful megalithic monuments couldn't write?

And are you suggesting that those cultures that cannot write are not civilised? Careful there.

Intelligence is not strictly always to be associated with an interest in history, of course. I concede that point. But I still find this notion quite weird that we humans have only recently been interested in history and thus committed it to preserveable script. That, of course, doesn't disprove a long human history, but I'm uncomfortable with just shrugging one's shoulders and simply saying that that is the way it was.
There are many societies around the world that have not bothered with recording history on paper/stone.

The aborigionals in Australia have an oral history, but do not have a recorded history going back beyond the arrival of Europeans. Does that mean Aborigionals were not in Australia before then?


I would if I built those structures. I am human. Isn't that enough?
It would be if all humans have the same mindset as you.

The other problem is they could have recorded it as an oral history, but the problem with this is that when a new set of beliefs come in and the stories are no longer getting passed down the history is 'erased'.

Looking at my own life - I have recorded really a tiny portion of it. A certificate here, a medal there. Does that mean it did not happen? How much of your life have you recorded?

And of course you are entitled to think it a giant stupidity. I suppose they didn't really think that the world was going to fall in love with it.


That doesnt really answer my point. Which was: the money could very easily be spent on much better and more deserving places which is one of the central tenets of their religion (or at least it is in my understanding) => hypocrites.

I suppose I'm just questioning how we came about to be interested in history. Did we happen to find this interest approximately 4000 years ago, or earlier? Since many of the megalithic monuments seem even earlier than that, why were we intelligent enough to build them, but not intelligent enough to record history? And you can't tell me that they did build them without writing of some sort. We are talking about complexity that would challenge even modern architects with their computer programs.
Or it could be that the people who built them were perfectly capable of recording history, but saw no reason to.

Intelligence is not strictly always to be associated with an interest in history, of course. I concede that point. But I still find this notion quite weird that we humans have only recently been interested in history and thus committed it to preserveable script. That, of course, doesn't disprove a long human history, but I'm uncomfortable with just shrugging one's shoulders and simply saying that that is the way it was.

It is possible that previous records were made and didn't survive to modern times, or we just haven't found them yet. Unfortunately there are thousands of possible explanations, if not millions.




I am familiar with humour. I thought I would just add a bit of my own. Most people think my version too dry and serious. I was subtly teasing you for coming up with some humour that I didn't think was that clever.

(Of course, that isn't to say that you haven't contributed clever humour to NS is the past, so don't think that I think that you aren't capable of clever humour. Clever humour is always appreciated.)
Ah I see, very good :P




I would if I built those structures. I am human. Isn't that enough?
No, not really. Humans can be vastly different from each other.

Are you suggesting that these people capable of building wonderful megalithic monuments couldn't write?

I am able to imagine the entire building process of Stonehenge without referring to the written word once. I would like you to point out how writing was necessary to the building of a megalithic monument.

I suppose I'm just questioning how we came about to be interested in history. Did we happen to find this interest approximately 4000 years ago, or earlier? Since many of the megalithic monuments seem even earlier than that, why were we intelligent enough to build them, but not intelligent enough to record history? And you can't tell me that they did build them without writing of some sort. We are talking about complexity that would challenge even modern architects with their computer programs.

Intelligence is not strictly always to be associated with an interest in history, of course. I concede that point. But I still find this notion quite weird that we humans have only recently been interested in history and thus committed it to preserveable script. That, of course, doesn't disprove a long human history, but I'm uncomfortable with just shrugging one's shoulders and simply saying that that is the way it was.


Acutally, todays infatuation with history isn't much older than 200 years and was largely brought about by the discovery of Egypt's lost history during the Napoleonic wars. Before that, history was something that some scholars engaged in. It was regarded as a bit of a hobby by most, something sovereigns would use to decorate their reign. Not a serious science by a long shot.

So, unless you're claiming that human intelligence only really evolved over the past 200 years, you might want to re-examine your assumed connection between interest in history and intelligence.

http://icr.org/article/1842/

I still don't know why anyone who would have the brains to design and construct monuments like Stonehenge couldn't figure out how to preserve their communications. It does seem sus to me.

Nice article. Now how about one that provides evidence for the "theories" it puts forth? This is from a religious site and makes no scientific arguments against the theories it opposes. The arguments basically boil down to "No, you're wrong! La-la-la-la! I can't hear you!"

Please explain how writing would be necessary for the building of Stonehenge.

Well, you know, the stones are placed perfectly (or were), for starters. Secondly, how do you propose moving the stones? Thirdly, if there were horizontal stone structures, how did they get up there? Do you know anything about shifting rocks that weigh many tons? It was a pretty significant architectural achievement. Can you imagine doing all that by word of mouth?

'No, Charles, I told you to order the men to move it three finger widths to the left, not two. Oh, you are not sure which is your left? Damm you, silly POM. Go and get Richard and Henry. Oh, they died when the rock fell down? Fine, get me George.

I suppose I'm just questioning how we came about to be interested in history. Did we happen to find this interest approximately 4000 years ago, or earlier?Earlier. 1000 years at least. Sumerians had a complete writing system already in 3000 BCE, and pictographic records are even considerably older than that.
Since many of the megalithic monuments seem even earlier than that, why were we intelligent enough to build them, but not intelligent enough to record history?What do you mean? Humans were intelligent enough to record events by painting them on cave walls or wherever, even as far back as the ice age.
.

Acutally, todays infatuation with history isn't much older than 200 years and was largely brought about by the discovery of Egypt's lost history during the Napoleonic wars. Before that, history was something that some scholars engaged in. It was regarded as a bit of a hobby by most, something sovereigns would use to decorate their reign. Not a serious science by a long shot.

So, unless you're claiming that human intelligence only really evolved over the past 200 years, you might want to re-examine your assumed connection between interest in history and intelligence.

Actually, many of the ancient civilisations like the Assyrians, the Egyptian, Babylonians, Persians, etc. all have their historians. The histories of the Babylonians and Egyptians are perhaps best preserved. And let us not forget the Israelites. All funded from the royal treasury.

Are you suggesting that these people capable of building wonderful megalithic monuments couldn't write?

And are you suggesting that those cultures that cannot write are not civilised? Careful there.

I'm suggesting they didn't have a script, yes.

And I said that script is something that needs civilisation to develop, not the other way around.
That doesn't imply in any way that there can't be civilisations without script.

Focusing on one aspect of civilisation to decide who's civilised and who's not is like saying the the invention of the wheel marks civilisation, therby calling all native South American cultures uncivilised, despite their achievements in architecture, town planning, civil engineering and military tactics.

Earlier. 1000 years at least. Sumerians had a complete writing system already in 3000 BCE, and pictographic records are even considerably older than that.

But why not 100 000 years earlier?




What do you mean? Humans were intelligent enough to record events by painting them on cave walls or wherever, even as far back as the ice age.
.

I call that art, not history, or at least not necessarily history. If it was an attempt at history, it didn't outlive the culture. And anyway, we are talking about the context of ancient complex technology, not simple stick figures scratched on the side of a cave wall.

The New Guinean Highlanders are hardly advanced when it comes to building great structures. Bad example. Actually, there is evidence of vast ancient sophisticated irrigation structures in PNG, in the lowlands, I've heard, some covered with jungle. Some people think that it is related to the great stone heads found on Easter Island (I.e, same source of technology).

The Polynesians of Rapa Nui had no writing either when they erected the stone heads. But that's apples and bananas. There's no reason why constructing monuments would make you want to write. I've explained to you why societies may culturally reject (or, more often, not conceive of) writing. It has nothing to do with building monuments at all.


Yes, the cultural factor could be a point. However, you have used examples of cultures that are not known for their technology, and we are trying to explain ancient technology. I doubt the Pyramids could have been build using only word-of-mouth communication.

If you're suggesting the people of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) had writing: They didn't. The European explorers who encountered them attest to that.


I'm not even sure that it is fair of us to call them primitive. Perhaps they would call us the primitive ones. Our quality of life is quite low, if you take the world population into account. It's only we fortunate few Westerners that can call ourselves advanced, and then again, look what our 'advances' are doing to our environment. Look how many people are committing suicide. Look how bad our advanced civilisation is. Sure, there are some good things, but some pretty rotten stuff too.

No argument from me there. Which is why I used quotation marks.


I suppose I'm just questioning how we came about to be interested in history. Did we happen to find this interest approximately 4000 years ago, or earlier?

In Europe? Much later. I'd say an interest in history was almost absent in England before the sixteenth century. Then you had Henry VIII who started to use historical justifications for his religious supremacy and England's independence from Rome. The subsequent rise of Protestantism, access to the Bible in English and the gradual rise in literacy encouraged a boost in literature during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, and of course Shakespeare wrote his history plays. The context of the time played a vital part in that. There's nothing like radical change to make a society (or at least its educated members) start thinking about history. Radical change breaks any static or cyclical conception of time. You then cast back into history to either justify, contest or simply explain the society of the present. (Which has also been true of post-colonial societies in the South Pacific.)

England was rather less advanced than continental Europe in art and literature at that time, though, so for the rest of western Europe you might say the fourteenth century. (I'm not an expert of that time, though.)


Since many of the megalithic monuments seem even earlier than that, why were we intelligent enough to build them, but not intelligent enough to record history?

I've already answered that. It's not a question of intelligence. If you have no conception of a linear, evolving history, then it's not even going to occur to you to record history. It wouldn't make any sense. At all.


And you can't tell me that they did build them without writing of some sort. We are talking about complexity that would challenge even modern architects with their computer programs.


Again, that has nothing to do with it.


I would if I built those structures. I am human. Isn't that enough?

You're not just human; you're a product of the society and culture you were brought up in. Had you been alive at the time of Stonehenge, you would never have considered recording anything in writing for posterity, because your perception of the wold you lived in, the context of the era, would not have given you the means to even begin contemplating that idea.

Well, you know, the stones are placed perfectly (or were), for starters. Secondly, how do you propose moving the stones? Thirdly, if there were horizontal stone structures, how did they get up there? Do you know anything about shifting rocks that weigh many tons? It was a pretty significant architectural achievement. Can you imagine doing all that by word of mouth?

'No, Charles, I told you to order the men to move it three finger widths to the left, not two. Oh, you are not sure which is your left? Damm you, silly POM. Go and get Richard and Henry. Oh, they died when the rock fell down? Fine, get me George.

You have not explained how the written word was used. If it was necessary for correct placement of the stones, why?

I imagine the person who designed Stonehenge could have simply drawn the outline of the stone directly on the ground where it needed to be placed.

I would move the stones on round logs. Again, you fail to mention why writing is necessary for this task.

The horizontal cross members were put up there using levers and scaffolding. Again, you fail to mention why writing is necessary for this task.

Yes, I do know a bit about how to build with stone. I do not see literacy as a requirement for masonry, megalithic or otherwise. I can imagine intelligent people organising other people using verbal orders. Again, you fail to mention why writing is necessary for this task.

Actually, many of the ancient civilisations like the Assyrians, the Egyptian, Babylonians, Persians, etc. all have their historians. The histories of the Babylonians and Egyptians are perhaps best preserved. And let us not forget the Israelites. All funded from the royal treasury.

Incorrect.
They didn't have historians, they had people who documented current events. Journalists, if you want to call them that.

Let's do a different post:

I, also a Christian, think this is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. The earth 6000 years old? Skeletons and things of prehistoric people deformed (he sees people like that in NY??)? Bah, one big pile of bullcrap. What the heck do they have against evolution? It's a perfectly sound and proved scientific theory, unlike fantasies like "Intelligent Design":D
You can interpretate Genesis anyway you want. Let's say that those seven days, are more like 'ages' or something. Animals come before humans, don't they? And who wrote Genesis? Apparently Moses did, but where should he know anything about the origins of the earth from? I say use the money for something way more intelligent.

But why not 100 000 years earlier?


Because what need do small, hunter-gatherer groups have for written text?

Why didn't pygmies develop an alphabet, even to this day? Why didn't Australian aborigenes?

Actually, many of the ancient civilisations like the Assyrians, the Egyptian, Babylonians, Persians, etc. all have their historians. The histories of the Babylonians and Egyptians are perhaps best preserved. And let us not forget the Israelites. All funded from the royal treasury.Do not forget the most important of the early civilizations: Sumerians, cf ETCSL (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/).
Israelites came into existence pretty late (around 1700 BCE) and they had a royal treasury no earlier than ~1010 BCE (in king Shaul's reign).
.

I'm suggesting they didn't have a script, yes.


I just don't think you have a real grasp on what are the requirements for constructing complex architecture. Sorry, no offense meant.


And I said that script is something that needs civilisation to develop, not the other way around.
That doesn't imply in any way that there can't be civilisations without script.

OK. When you put it like that, I can agree with you. I also can't imagine script developing in the absence of civilisation.


Focusing on one aspect of civilisation to decide who's civilised and who's not is like saying the the invention of the wheel marks civilisation, therby calling all native South American cultures uncivilised, despite their achievements in architecture, town planning, civil engineering and military tactics.

Again, agreed. 'Civilised' has been a much abused word.

I just don't think you have a real grasp on what are the requirements for constructing complex architecture. Sorry, no offense meant.


I've never done it myself. Maybe you should consult an experimental architect on that.

After all, people crossed the Atlantik and Pacific with no intruments to measure their position and no maps.... it does work, even though it's hard to imagine for us today.

Because what need do small, hunter-gatherer groups have for written text?

Why didn't pygmies develop an alphabet, even to this day? Why didn't Australian aborigenes?

But if they are going to build megalithic monuments, a script would be a basic requirement. That's probably why the original Australians didn't build any (or any that we have discovered anyway). I did find some Aboriginal paintings up the back of my parents farm, though, when I was a boy exploring the bush with my brothers. Some folk from the uni came and investigated them, and took photos, and built a big fence around it. Impressive paintings, but I doubt that they needed a script to draw them.

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Duh, maybe because it FUCKING REVERSES, WHICH YOU'D KNOW IF YOU EVER READ ANYTHING BESIDES THAT BULLSHIT SITE. Jesus. We've discussed that before. You no longer have the excuse of ignorance. You are lying. You are breaking one of the Ten Commandments.

Do not forget the most important of the early civilizations: Sumerians, cf ETCSL (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/).
Israelites came into existence pretty late (around 1700 BCE) and they had a royal treasury no earlier than ~1010 BCE (in king Shaul's reign).
.

Yes, yes, you are right, I omited the Sumerians by mistake. Very impressive civilisation. Nice script too.

I'm suggesting they didn't have a script, yes.


Have we considered the possibility that perhaps they did in fact have a script, which simply has not survived? Maybe they wrote on pieces of bark. From what I understand, aside from Stonehenge itself, we have nothing else.

And I completely agree with Ariddia, you can't just put yourself in their place and say, "Well, if it was me, of course I would have recorded things for posterity." The society those people lived in, and their view of the world, was probably more radically different from our own than anything we might be able to conceive.

Futhermore, I think it's an assumption that the only way to prove an "interest in history" is through the written word. Oral tradition was, and still is, an extremely important part of many cultures. I think we have always been interested in history. Just because we don't leave records or write books about the subject doesn't mean that there wasn't interest, or stories told, or history remembered. What makes our time different is that we have a more comprehensive view of history around the world, and our conceptions of history are more accurate and less sullied with myth and legend.

But if they are going to build megalithic monuments, a script would be a basic requirement. That's probably why the original Australians didn't build any (or any that we have discovered anyway). I did find some Aboriginal paintings up the back of my parents farm, though, when I was a boy exploring the bush with my brothers. Some folk from the uni came and investigated them, and took photos, and built a big fence around it. Impressive paintings, but I doubt that they needed a script to draw them.

You have yet to prove the bolded part, or even show one example of how writing is necessary for megalithic construction.

I just don't think you have a real grasp on what are the requirements for constructing complex architecture. Sorry, no offense meant.

Complex? Anyone with the ability to cut down a tree could make Stonehenge. It's as easy as shit.

But if they are going to build megalithic monuments, a script would be a basic requirement.

Why?

And as I've said before, how do we know they didn't?

Complex? Anyone with the ability to cut down a tree could make Stonehenge. It's as easy as shit.


No. Some hunting skill would also be required to obtain the rendered fat used for preparing the stone for final carving. And rope making ability, for obvious reasons.

No. Some hunting skill would also be required to obtain the rendered fat used for preparing the stone for final carving. And rope making ability, for obvious reasons.

If you can cut down a tree, you can make rope. As for hunting, goats had already been domesticated by that point, I believe.

No. Some hunting skill would also be required to obtain the rendered fat used for preparing the stone for final carving. And rope making ability, for obvious reasons.

Neither of which, might I point out, require writing. Much as you pick away at the technicalities, you've yet to address the real issue.

If you can cut down a tree, you can make rope. As for hunting, goats had already been domesticated by that point, I believe.

Stonecarving would also be a necessary skill.

But I think we both agree that written language, while useful, was not necessary.

Maybe someone should ask AlQuaeda for another plane...
Really. :rolleyes:
.

that's not exactly the smartest thing i've read.


Look at it from the bright side; eventually, once creationism and its followers become extinct, the museum can be used as a creationist museum in an entirely different sense.

rotfl

The Polynesians of Rapa Nui had no writing either when they erected the stone heads. But that's apples and bananas. There's no reason why constructing monuments would make you want to write. I've explained to you why societies may culturally reject (or, more often, not conceive of) writing. It has nothing to do with building monuments at all.

Anything with complex mathematics and great precision (not talking about the stone heads) must require writing, surely.



If you're suggesting the people of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) had writing: They didn't. The European explorers who encountered them attest to that.

The people of Rapa Nui may not have been the original constructors.
The people of Rapa Nui may have lost their technology and writing.



No argument from me there. Which is why I used quotation marks.


Something we might agree on, then.


In Europe? Much later. I'd say an interest in history was almost absent in England before the sixteenth century. Then you had Henry VIII who started to use historical justifications for his religious supremacy and England's independence from Rome. The subsequent rise of Protestantism, access to the Bible in English and the gradual rise in literacy encouraged a boost in literature during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, and of course Shakespeare wrote his history plays. The context of the time played a vital part in that. There's nothing like radical change to make a society (or at least its educated members) start thinking about history. Radical change breaks any static or cyclical conception of time. You then cast back into history to either justify, contest or simply explain the society of the present. (Which has also been true of post-colonial societies in the South Pacific.)

I meant an interest in history, not a fascination. The presence of historical accounts found in ancient cultures like the Sumerans and the Babylonians attests to an earlier interest in history.


England was rather less advanced than continental Europe in art and literature at that time, though, so for the rest of western Europe you might say the fourteenth century. (I'm not an expert of that time, though.)


I would say that you seem to have a handy grasp on history, but you appear to misunderstood me. I was not referring to the 'scientific reconstruction' history that has been around 200 years. Nor the religiously motivated one that you referred to in the fourteenth century. I suspect that an interest in history (even if it isn't necessarily a written one) is somehow very close to humanity itself. I have never heard of a culture that was not interested in history. But please enlighten me if you know otherwise.


I've already answered that. It's not a question of intelligence. If you have no conception of a linear, evolving history, then it's not even going to occur to you to record history. It wouldn't make any sense. At all.


Yes, recording it. That is the issue. Some cultures appear to have inhibitions about recording history. But that doesn't mean that they are not interested in it.
And yet, would we expect every existing ancient culture to have inhibitions about recording history, if they had the means? That would be a long stretch.



You're not just human; you're a product of the society and culture you were brought up in. Had you been alive at the time of Stonehenge, you would never have considered recording anything in writing for posterity, because your perception of the wold you lived in, the context of the era, would not have given you the means to even begin contemplating that idea.

The royal historians of the Babylonian era suggest that the concept of history was pretty much alive and well by that time. Must have been around the time of Stonehenge--perhaps a little later. I don't think your assumptions about 'never have considered recording anything in writing for posterity' is really that sound. It appears that these Babylonian historians were employed for the ultimate purpose of dominating the conquered civilisations with the Babylonian one. These historians were virtually gloating about the successes of the past Babylonian rulers, meaning that Babylonian civilisation was the greatest one, and thus the one that should rightfully be ruling. I guess you would call it a form of racism. But I am not implying that all interest in history comes from racism--heaven forbid!

You have yet to prove the bolded part, or even show one example of how writing is necessary for megalithic construction.

It's called mathematics. Ever constructed something without writing down the measurements? Try it sometime.

I think we've kind of lost track of the thread over this written word debate here, but it's completely absurd to assert that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Unless you believe that there has been an immense, multi-national conspiracy for the past 200 or so years to make the earth appear to be much older than it actually is.

And of course, we're completely ignoring the fact that even ancient scholars didn't necessarily think the earth was all that young. Aristotle, for instance, in his Meterology commented that the earth was "countless eons" old.

It's called mathematics. Ever constructed something without writing down the measurements? Try it sometime.

1.) How do we know they didn't write down measurments?

2.) Have you considered the possibility that they have some kind of abbacus-like device in order to make Stonehenge?

3.) Let's say they did have writing. What's your point?

Nice article. Now how about one that provides evidence for the "theories" it puts forth? This is from a religious site and makes no scientific arguments against the theories it opposes. The arguments basically boil down to "No, you're wrong! La-la-la-la! I can't hear you!"

You'll never get it. All B ever does is present religious concepts w/o presenting any actual evidence or peer reviewed papers. Only these constant false dichotomies of "well science claims A (which is ussually incorrect anyway) so there must be a YE or ID is true or whatever the meme of the day is.

Nice article. Now how about one that provides evidence for the "theories" it puts forth? This is from a religious site and makes no scientific arguments against the theories it opposes. The arguments basically boil down to "No, you're wrong! La-la-la-la! I can't hear you!"

Yes, it is a religious site. If you wanted to find out more about their points, I suggest you dig a little deeper. I certainly do not consider their arguments technically sound, obviously not peer reviewed. But they did provide a nice convenient list of points on the topic, which is why I provided the link to their site.

Yes, it is a religious site. If you wanted to find out more about their points, I suggest you dig a little deeper. I certainly do not consider their arguments technically sound, obviously not peer reviewed. But they did provide a nice convenient list of points on the topic, which is why I provided the link to their site.

Yes, but can you prove any of those assertions? Since it is you making these assertions, why should others have to verify the veracity of your claims?

You'll never get it. All B ever does is present religious concepts w/o presenting any actual evidence or peer reviewed papers. Only these constant false dichotomies of "well science claims A (which is ussually incorrect anyway) so there must be a YE or ID is true or whatever the meme of the day is.

That's called character assassination. If you are going to personally attack me, be kind enough to provide specific cases that we can discuss. Otherwise take your ugly tactics elsewhere.

For that matter, I doubt you can find a reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific journal which even considers the possibility that earth is 6,000 years old. Perhaps there is a reason for that.

Yes, but can you prove any of those assertions? Since it is you making these assertions, why should others have to verify the veracity of your claims?

Actually, I introduced the list of points as food for thought, and not as a bunch of assertions that I believed. CW was interested in why I personally questioned the assumptions of an old earth. I personally cannot prove any of these assertions, nor am I particularly interested in supporting them right here and now on this thread (that would by even more hijacking that has happened already). I don't even know if I could support half of them.

But seriously, why should people get so upset over a list of points? Is their world view seriously threatened? One would think so, by the reactions here? Sheesh. And I haven't even claimed that I supported them.

Yes, it is a religious site. If you wanted to find out more about their points, I suggest you dig a little deeper. I certainly do not consider their arguments technically sound, obviously not peer reviewed. But they did provide a nice convenient list of points on the topic, which is why I provided the link to their site.

Since you like linking to these sites and then claiming they "refute" science, do some reading of your own.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/timescale/timescale.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html

Actually, I introduced the list of points as food for thought, and not as a bunch of assertions that I believed.

Food should be nourishing, yes?


I personally cannot prove any of these assertions, nor am I particularly interested in supporting them right here and now on this thread (that would by even more hijacking that has happened already). I don't even know if I could support half of them.

But seriously, why should people get so upset over a list of points? Is their world view seriously threatened? One would think so, by the reactions here? Sheesh. And I haven't even claimed that I supported them


You seem to have been rather tenaciously defending them, for somebody who does not themselves believe them. It's not at all obvious from the character of your posts that you don't believe them.

That's called character assassination. If you are going to personally attack me, be kind enough to provide specific cases that we can discuss. Otherwise take your ugly tactics elsewhere.

Fine. As in an earlier discussion that you ran from, provide the disprovable hypothesis that makes ID a theory.

For that matter, I doubt you can find a reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific journal which even considers the possibility that earth is 6,000 years old. Perhaps there is a reason for that.

Well, yes, there are several reasons:

In 2000, an entire department at Baylor University, conducting scientific research on design detection in complex natural systems, was shut down because it conflicted with evolutionary theory.

In March 2003, a professor of chemistry at Mississippi University for Women was fired for giving a presentation titled:“Critical Thinking on Evolution,
which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design.
Ed Vitagliano, Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs,” Agape Press, March 11, 2003.

Former syllabus instructions for a required term paper in the course “Age of
Dinosaurs,” taught by Dr. Homer Montgomery at the University of Texas, Dallas, state:
''If the thesis of your paper is anti-evolutionary (akin to arguing against the germ theory of disease or against the atomic theory of matter) you will receive a failing grade. Scientific journals do not publish papers with creationist and ID themes. I will certainly not accept them.''”
The syllabus has since been revised. For the syllabus as of June 23, 2003, see http://www.utdallas.edu/dept/sci_ed/Homer/dinosyllabus.html.

''The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisi-
tion. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the
“papacy or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the
stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our
milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our
trade.''

Donald Gould, former editor of New Scientist, “Letting Poetry Loose in the Laboratory,” New Scientist 135.1836 (August 29, 1992), 51.

Fine. As in an earlier discussion that you ran from, provide the disprovable hypothesis that makes ID a theory.

Firstly, I didn't run away from it, secondly, I did provide several hypotheses about ID, and thirdly, this thread is not the appropriate place.

Anything with complex mathematics and great precision (not talking about the stone heads) must require writing, surely.


Apparently not. Also, humans were sailing all over the Pacific over a thousand years ago (all the way to Hawai'i and South America), without any form of writing. They developed the ability to design and build advanced ships, and mastered navigation over extreme distances, without written mathematics.


The people of Rapa Nui may not have been the original constructors.

They were. Archeological evidence shows there was no-one there before them.


The people of Rapa Nui may have lost their technology and writing.

No. Well, their technological skill, yes, but not their writing. You have to bear in mind that the Easter Islanders were Polynesians, part of a vast cultural/ethnic group which spread throughout the Pacific. When Polynesians settled in Rapa Nui, they brought with them skills, abilities and a culture which was that of other Polynesian peoples, and which did not include writing.


I meant an interest in history, not a fascination. The presence of historical accounts found in ancient cultures like the Sumerans and the Babylonians attests to an earlier interest in history.


True. I was refering only to Europe.


I would say that you seem to have a handy grasp on history, but you appear to misunderstood me. I was not referring to the 'scientific reconstruction' history that has been around 200 years. Nor the religiously motivated one that you referred to in the fourteenth century. I suspect that an interest in history (even if it isn't necessarily a written one) is somehow very close to humanity itself. I have never heard of a culture that was not interested in history. But please enlighten me if you know otherwise.

You're quite right, in a sense. It all depends on your definition of history. But an interest in history, in the sense of origins and ancestry (as in pre-colonial New Zealand, for example) does not imply a conceptualising of history in the sense that we understand it. It's a completely different approach to history, in which the passing of time brings with it a preservation of laws and traditions, not change. Hence the oral preservation of ancestral knowledge is seen as sufficient, and writing is not needed. There is no concept of history as a succession of radical changes and "historical events".

Which led some Europeans to talk of Maori and many others as "people without history". Which is incorrect, of course, but that observation was not solely motivated by racism. While Maori and others maintained oral records of their geneology, of their laws, of sacred knowledge and of the canoe group they descended from, and while things did change during the course of NZ pre-colonial history (see Belich's book on the history of New Zealand, and his theory on significant changes in Maori societies around the 15th century, for example), Maori did not conceive of history in the way Europeans did.

Or take Australian Aboriginals. The Dreamtime is not "historical". Yes, there's the belief that the land was created in the past by mythical beings, but the Dreamtime itself (despite its name) is timeless. It is a continuous state of being, the very antithesis to European conceptions of history. And ancestral laws and customs are preserved and transmitted, not as historical records, but as timeless truths / ways of doing things. Here too, the notion of change, evolution and "historical events" was inconceivable. Due to the way Aboriginals perceived the world they lived in (before Europeans brought radical change and forced them violently into European conceptions of history, so to speak).

There is more than one opinion on this part of Genesis (obviously). You have divided the creation story into two different accounts, and drawn the conclusion that it must have been due to separate authors.

Incorrect. Based on *all* the evidence, the general conclusion is that there were two different authors. And it isn't solely in Genesis.

First of all, I didn't divide the creation story into anything. Anyone with reading comprehension that isn't already fully convinced that Moses had to write every single word of the Torah (despite it detailing his death) can see that there are two different accounts. Even in English translations, the tone and purpose of each account is obviously completely different. Creation occurs in different orders and for different reasons. As I understand it, when you go to the actual Hebrew, the differences are even more pronounced.

This is true throughout the OT. The Priestly and Yahwist authors are not confined to Genesis, not by a long-shot. Most of the stories we all know and love are believed to have been compiled by the Yahwist, and they are believed to have been oral tradition before that. Most of the legalistic portions of the OT are believed to have been written by the Priestly author. This was determined by their focus, tone, language and writing style. It is not as arbitrary as you would like it to be.

However, this is not necessarily a safe conclusion, since there are also places in the OT where the style of writing is to describe the same situation twice.

Actually, this just supports my point. It makes sense that two authors would have, quite often, slightly different accounts of the same story. This is especially true when you consider that most of this was likely passed down by oral tradition for generations before *any* of it was written down.

Consider how the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy contain so much repetition of the division of land, conquest, journeying through the wilderness, etc. Now, this repetition may be due to the contribution of more than one author, but this is unlikely. Why would they repeat themselves unecessarily.

Would you listen to yourself? No one repeated themselves. The accounts are different, with different conclusions to be drawn. Often, they contradict on some details.

Rather, unlike modern writing which would tend to merge the two accounts into one to give a single view of the event, the repetition is included to demonstrate the different aspects of the event--two or more views of the event. Thus it is easily likely that the same author wrote/compiled the two accounts of creation in Genesis. The second account was simply to bring clarity to the first account, by looking at it from another perspective.

Unlikely. It isn't just a matter of two different accounts, but of two entirely different writing styles. It is like looking at Neil Gaiman's version of Snow White vs. the fairy tale version of Snow White. The stories are told from different perspectives, yes, and one person *could* do that. However, the writing styles are obviously completely different as well. The language and syntax used, the focus, the tone, and the story itself is different. You would need some pretty hard evidence not to come to the conclusion that they were written by separate authors.

The second point is that there is not necessarily any contradiction between the two accounts in Genesis. The only contradiction that exists is in the interpretations of the accounts, and as everyone knows, interpretation can be rather subjective. How hard it is to interpret scripture in your own favourite way and then claim contradiction? But it doesn't convince the people who can see your bias, only those who think the same way you do to begin with.

This is incorrect. If I tell you that I first went to the store, then went to the movies, then had dinner, then went home in one story and then tell you that I first had dinner, then went to the movies, then went to the store, and then went home in another story, would you claim that there were no contradictions? Or would that just be a matter of interpretation?

Perhaps the museum won't impress many, I wouldn't know. I personally would reserve my judgement until I see it for myself--something that every one should do if they consider it important to be objective.

Why? I've already seen all the "evidence" they claim to include. And it's all bullshit meant to bolster a weak faith. Recently, I saw one of their top guys arguing that, because the banana fits perfectly into the hand, God must have engineered it just for human hands. Of course, this ignores the fact that the Dole company has been engineering bananas to market them to humans for well over a hundred years to get them to that point, but, who needs evidence when you have weak faith, eh?

Their explanation for the dinosaurs is even worse. "Reptiles never stop growing until they die," is just patently incorrect. Hovind apparently came up with it because iguanas will grow quite large if their habitat allows for it. Of course, since he really, really, really wants scientific evidence for his faith, it's ok to use iguanas as the representative of all reptiles when it is quite clear that many reptiles do stop growing well before death. After all, whatever you have to say to convince the masses is obviously ok.

The fact that you could refer to this "museum" with the word objective is hilarious. It really is.

As for the money issue, I think it jolly well their right to spend their money how the like.

Of course they can. But they aren't following the example of Christ. So they can spend their money however they like, and not say that they are attempting to follow the example of Christ or they can attempt to follow the example of Christ and spend their money accordingly. Anything else is hypocrisy.

And I think it quite ironic that the moment a government spend billions on space programs, some people applaude, but the moment some religious groups spend a fraction of such money money--their money--on a museum, they suddenly get concerned about all the poor and starving in the world. I think it obvious that they are more concerned about criticising the religious rather than caring for the poor.

You're trying to create a red herring here. The government spends a great deal of money on science, yes. But that money was meant for science. The government never said, "We're being good Christians by sending people to the moon," did they?

Sure, the religious are concerned about the poor and starving, as the facts indicate. They certainly give a heck of a lot more than the non-religious.

I've seen no indication of this. In fact, I've met many more church-going people who take the "My money is my own and I will give exactly 10% to the church and no more and never give to any other charity," than I have atheists or less avid churchgoers who will gladly give to charity. I've met many more "religious" folk who will tell a homeless guy to get a job before they'll give him their leftovers from dinner.

But are they not allowed to spend their money according to their convictions, particularly if they genuinely believe that it will help others? Of course you don't think it will help others, this creation museum, and you may or may not be right, but at least allow them room for integrity with their money.

How, precisely, would anyone ever believe that this museum is going to help others?

You don't know that. I have heard of many people becoming Christians when hearing about the young earth arguments--because of it's emphasis on the Gospel (by some proponents). I've actually met several of them.

The Young Earth arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news of Christ, and Christ never said, "Oh, by the way, to follow me you have to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old even though there are documents and civilizations that obviously go back furthe than that."

I don't see why that would bother you that much--that people would be converted away from the young earth arguments.

It doesn't bother me at all. Of course, there are much less expensive ways to appeal to intellect than a joke of a museum.

And I still don't really see why we should expect to find evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together. In the young earth world view, there wouldn't be that much time for the evidence to accumulate. In such a world view, nobody expects to find human and dinosaur fossils buried together, especially considering how rare fossils are.

By the Young Earth worldview, evidence has to accumulate much more quickly than the scientific community has ever fathomed. You are trying to mix paradigms. If the Young Earthers are correct, then fossils form much, much, much more often than scientists surmise. They also lose their original chemistry and become fossils much, much, much more quickly.

Well, yes, there are several reasons:

In 2000, an entire department at Baylor University, conducting scientific research on design detection in complex natural systems, was shut down because it conflicted with evolutionary theory.

In March 2003, a professor of chemistry at Mississippi University for Women was fired for giving a presentation titled:“Critical Thinking on Evolution,
which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design.
Ed Vitagliano, Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs,” Agape Press, March 11, 2003.

Former syllabus instructions for a required term paper in the course “Age of
Dinosaurs,” taught by Dr. Homer Montgomery at the University of Texas, Dallas, state:
''If the thesis of your paper is anti-evolutionary (akin to arguing against the germ theory of disease or against the atomic theory of matter) you will receive a failing grade. Scientific journals do not publish papers with creationist and ID themes. I will certainly not accept them.''”
The syllabus has since been revised. For the syllabus as of June 23, 2003, see http://www.utdallas.edu/dept/sci_ed/Homer/dinosyllabus.html.



Perhaps the reason for all this is because ID is, very simply, bad science. If it does not even have a hypothesis that can be tested empircally, it's not science. It's all very well to point out gaps in the theory of evolution, but pointing out flaws does not consitute a theory itself.

Firstly, I didn't run away from it, secondly, I did provide several hypotheses about ID, and thirdly, this thread is not the appropriate place.

1.Yes you did.
2. You did not provide a disprovable hypothesis.
3. You wanted examples, I gave you one. Dodge all you want.

Well, yes, there are several reasons:

In 2000, an entire department at Baylor University, conducting scientific research on design detection in complex natural systems, was shut down because it conflicted with evolutionary theory.

In March 2003, a professor of chemistry at Mississippi University for Women was fired for giving a presentation titled:“Critical Thinking on Evolution,
which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design.
Ed Vitagliano, Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs,” Agape Press, March 11, 2003.

Former syllabus instructions for a required term paper in the course “Age of
Dinosaurs,” taught by Dr. Homer Montgomery at the University of Texas, Dallas, state:
''If the thesis of your paper is anti-evolutionary (akin to arguing against the germ theory of disease or against the atomic theory of matter) you will receive a failing grade. Scientific journals do not publish papers with creationist and ID themes. I will certainly not accept them.''”
The syllabus has since been revised. For the syllabus as of June 23, 2003, see http://www.utdallas.edu/dept/sci_ed/Homer/dinosyllabus.html.

''The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisi-
tion. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the
“papacy or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the
stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our
milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our
trade.''

Donald Gould, former editor of New Scientist, “Letting Poetry Loose in the Laboratory,” New Scientist 135.1836 (August 29, 1992), 51.

And since all of those concepts involve adding the supernatural into science and using untestable beliefs, it is correct that they should be allowed in a science department.

Unlikely. It isn't just a matter of two different accounts, but of two entirely different writing styles. It is like looking at Neil Gaiman's version of Snow White vs. the fairy tale version of Snow White. The stories are told from different perspectives, yes, and one person *could* do that. However, the writing styles are obviously completely different as well. The language and syntax used, the focus, the tone, and the story itself is different. You would need some pretty hard evidence not to come to the conclusion that they were written by separate authors.
.

The description of Neil Gaiman vs traditional fairy tale is maybe a little strong, but I agree with the basic argument. Again, however, it is possible to say that the Bible can be viewed as a consistant, whole document, but in order for this to be so it necessarily requires one to abandon a literal interpretation.

It's called mathematics. Ever constructed something without writing down the measurements? Try it sometime.

I do it all the time with woodworking. It requires an understanding of practical applied geometry, but does not require using numbers or letters.

One example is bisecting an angle using only a compass and a straight edge. No measurements need to be written.
http://www.mathopenref.com/constbisectangle.html

It's a bit like doubting that dinosaurs existed, because today we can only observe crocodiles and lizards and no T-Rexes....

...which is why I still don't understand why they didn't go with the same explanation for dinosaur fossils that they do for pre-human fossils. Why can't they just say that they are deformed crocodiles and lizards or that they are fossils of some other creature? Could it be that dinosaurs are popular, and they could dream of indoctrinating little children into believing that there were no dinosaurs?


No, I don't assume anything here, but I do QUESTION the conclusions of popular theory, unlike a lot of people here, it seems.

Apparently, in your little world, "question" means "come to the conclusion that it is wrong," since you love to suggest anyone who doesn't think that prevailing theory is completely wrong must not have questioned it.

Food should be nourishing, yes?

But the healthiest food doesn't always taste that good.



You seem to have been rather tenaciously defending them, for somebody who does not themselves believe them. It's not at all obvious from the character of your posts that you don't believe them.

Tenaciously? Really? I was just accused of running away. At any rate, I don't know if I will ever get used to the intense resistance and antagonism people have towards criticism of the notion of an old earth or of evolutionary theory. It just isn't explainable in terms of disliking someone else's point of view.

I never said that I believe that those points I listed were false. I simply said that I never said that I believe that they were true. In science, one really shouldn't use the 'belief' word, except for several basic assumptions that science depends upon, such as there being a cause for every observable effect. When it comes to evolutionary theory, or an old earth, or a young earth for that matter, anyone who chooses to *believe* their favourite theory and attack anyone else who criticises it simply isn't being scientific. (Rather, the critics should be welcomed, if their criticism is fair.) They have become a believer, regardless of which side of the fence they are on. Thus, if I was among a group of creationists, I would probably criticise some of their beliefs (I have done that before). I'm not a fence sitter. I am a Christian and do have my beliefs. But when it comes to science, I would rather live with unanswered questions than embrace hastily made conclusions. That, indeed, is the nature of science. And that is why I question much that many believe as truth.

Apparently, in your little world, "question" means "come to the conclusion that it is wrong," since you love to suggest anyone who doesn't think that prevailing theory is completely wrong must not have questioned it.

Now, I think that is unfair.

But the healthiest food doesn't always taste that good.




Tenaciously? Really? I was just accused of running away. At any rate, I don't know if I will ever get used to the intense resistance and antagonism people have towards criticism of the notion of an old earth or of evolutionary theory. It just isn't explainable in terms of disliking someone else's point of view.

I never said that I believe that those points I listed were false. I simply said that I never said that I believe that they were true. In science, one really shouldn't use the 'belief' word, except for several basic assumptions that science depends upon, such as there being a cause for every observable effect. When it comes to evolutionary theory, or an old earth, or a young earth for that matter, anyone who chooses to *believe* their favourite theory and attack anyone else who criticises it simply isn't being scientific. (Rather, the critics should be welcomed, if their criticism is fair.) They have become a believer, regardless of which side of the fence they are on. Thus, if I was among a group of creationists, I would probably criticise some of their beliefs (I have done that before). I'm not a fence sitter. I am a Christian and do have my beliefs. But when it comes to science, I would rather live with unanswered questions than embrace hastily made conclusions. That, indeed, is the nature of science. And that is why I question much that many believe as truth.

Critisize it all you want, you just have to present evidence that is infact incorrect and not just "I don't like it so I'll question it".

Of course the fact that all of your "evidence" has been disputed and that you are now making "character assasinations" is ignored.

Now, I think that is unfair.

So you deny making this statement?

No, I don't assume anything here, but I do QUESTION the conclusions of popular theory, unlike a lot of people here, it seems.

But the healthiest food doesn't always taste that good.

No, but it stimulates the metabolism in a way that is conducive to digestion, not indigestion.




Tenaciously? Really? I was just accused of running away.

Not by me. Running away from reasonable discourse, perhaps, but not the pseudo-science you raised.


At any rate, I don't know if I will ever get used to the intense resistance and antagonism people have towards criticism of the notion of an old earth or of evolutionary theory. It just isn't explainable in terms of disliking someone else's point of view.

No, it's not explainable in terms of disliking someone else's point of view. It is explainable because it represents how people feel towards those who blindly cling to a ridiculous argument that flies in the face of empricial evidence and valid scientific theories. In short, it comes from the fact that such theories are absurd, yet demand to be taken seriously.


When it comes to evolutionary theory, or an old earth, or a young earth for that matter, anyone who chooses to *believe* their favourite theory and attack anyone else who criticises it simply isn't being scientific. (Rather, the critics should be welcomed, if their criticism is fair.)


Exactly. Creationists believe a young earth argument, and attack anyone else who criticizes it as irrational. Their criticism is unfair, as there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the traditional scientific theories, and none in their favor. In fact, their assertions do not even constitue a "theory" since the most they manage to do is to cast doubt on the notion that the earth is billions of years old. They do not, in any way, prove that God created the earth or that the account in Genesis is somehow more accurate.

In a young earth scenario, there isn't much time for the accumulation of fossils, so one would not be surprised if they were not there to be found.

In an old age scenario, there is plenty of time to see the fossils, even if they are very rare. We are talking about a difference of millions of years.

It pays to pay attention to the details.

You're arguing with yourself here. You point out that you most likely wouldn't see fossils in a young earth scenario, because they wouldn't have time to form and accumulate. Then, you say this:


It all depends on how long it takes to make a fossil. Some people have claimed millions of years. But that is what they say about coal. Now we know that we can make coal, real coal, in about 24 hours with the right conditions. Perhaps the same is true for fossils.

Now, do make up your mind before you try to argue something.

I think one ought to question pretty much everything.

Indeed. One should especially question that for which one has no evidence but a couple of stories that contradict each other in some places, at least one of which was likely passed down for generations by oral tradition, then written down, copied an innumerable number of times, then translated several times.

I also think that it is important to think about alternative explanations.

And yet you always more strongly question the prevailing explanations than you ever do the "alternative explanations". It would seem that you intentionally give the underdog an incredible amount of leeway, not even expecting scientific rigor, while subjecting the prevailing scientific explanations to rigor that no method of observation could ever yield.

Now, I think that is unfair.

Then stop doing it. Every time someone points out problems with your "alternative" explanations, your response is to say, "Well, you don't ever question the prevailing explanations, neener, neener, neener!" as if you have some reason to say that.

I'm not sure what the point of a $25 million dollar museum to prove Creationism is. If I were a Christian, and I had $25 million dollars to spend, with which to do good works, or show the world what was great about my religion, I don't think I'd choose to try and prove that the world was created in seven days and that fossils aren't real.

I think I'd spend the money on doing something that helps people, or convinces them that values like compassion, honesty, and doing good works are worthwhile.

I'm not sure that the core message of Christianity is supposed to be "The Big Bang is a lie, and scientists are tools of the devil, and faith consists of believing in things without proof."

Faith isn't there because proof is dumb, or thinking is bad. The purpose of faith isn't to replace intelligence or reason. The purpose of faith isn't to grant you sureness, or to get you to believe something that can't be proven.

Faith is when you choose to believe in something where there are no guideposts, or when the guideposts might be wrong. Faith is there to help you deal with _uncertainty_, not to challenge what is real or obvious.

_My_ faith tells me that if there were dinosaurs, and the earth is actually billions of years old, that the Creator wanted it that way, and did it that way for a reason, and that there's little point in arguing with the Creator because someone who _didn't_ have a good way of knowing one way or the other how old the earth was made a story about it thousands of years ago.

For me, I use faith when I face a question that there _isn't_ necessarily a clear-cut answer for, and where I choose to believe and hold true to a world that is the way I believe must be right.

For instance, I choose to have faith that there is a Creator. I choose to have faith that this Creator is benevolent and loves us, and that the creation was an act of love.

I don't know that for sure. I can't _prove_ it. Hell... I don't _need_ to prove it, because I have _faith_ in it. My faith can't be shaken because fossils are real. To me, that just makes the world more interesting, not more frightening. I don't need the earth to be 5000 or 100,000,000 or 5 billion years old to have this faith. I have it because I choose to have it, and because my heart and other faculties say that this is how I should believe.

Sometimes, it's important to have faith even when you're _wrong_ about what you believe in, or have evidence against it. The point isn't to show how strong your faith is by ignoring evidence, or to say "I'm so faithful, I will drown rather than admit that angels won't whisk me to safety in this flood."

The point, to me, is to have faith in something worth believing in. For instance, I choose to have faith that humanity might finally, as a whole, choose to become something finer, something greater, something more beautiful, strong, and compassionate, and will eventually learn not to be guided by the worst aspects of them.

I don't see a lot of _evidence_ that this will happen. But I believe it's possible, and partly because I believe that _if_ we were created, it wasn't by something or someone stupid or petty... I have to believe that we have a chance to grow beyond what we are now.

I don't need to have faith that despite all evidence to the contrary, fossils are fake, there's no such thing as evolution, or that the earth was created in seven days. Why? Because who _cares_ about something like that? Who really gives a hoot how long it took?

In fact, the main reason I can think of to adhere to the idea that there's no such thing as evolution is because maybe some people are afraid that they might actually have to grow up someday and evolve, and it might be work, and they might not be someone's special children who get to achieve paradise just by wishing really hard and thinking other people are going to a worse place.

To me, faith has never been based on fear, or insecurity, or hopelessness, or meanness. It hasn't even been about wanting to believe things are true because they're better than what _are_ true. It's been about believing what I think is right and good to believe, and believing that there's a reason to believe it, even if I can't always see it.

I don't have faith in something because I fear believing the alternative. I choose to have faith because I'm running toward something, not away.

Maybe that's just me.

It's funny. A lot of people who meet me think I'm an atheist, or a secular humanist or something. I'm actually clergy. The kind who actually has faith, too. ; )

I see a lot of people, all the time, especially Christians, trying to make their faith bigger, and more consuming, and somehow _larger_. Often, they think that by having faith despite sensible evidence, that this makes their faith somehow bigger or more valuable.

But the same book they read that tells them faith is a virtue also tells you that you only need a little bit of it. You don't need lots. You just need enough for what you're doing.

Faith isn't a virtue to me, so much as a tool. It's something I can rely on when all the other faculties that I'd normally use are not up to the task. It's something that can give me direction in the darkness, and hope when all is despair, and a belief that it's still worth it to fight even when I think I will lose.

It's not about showing that I'm better than anyone else, or that I can be so full of faith that the whole universe will work differently just to suit me.

If I need the universe to work differently just for me, or to erase the past or hide from the truth just to be happy, then how much faith can I really have? That's not faith. That's just fear. Fear of knowing.

There's that old saying, something like 2/3 of all the prayers ever prayed are for two plus two to not equal four.

If there's a god, and he didn't want dinosaurs, or for the earth to be billions of years old, or for humans, animals, plants and other living things to evolve, then he wouldn't have made things that way, would he?

; )

Coyote

don't know if you noticed or not.....but I wasn't talking to you.

So? was there something about the poster you were talking to that is more qualified then me to answer?

I'm sorry. My computer went haywire last night so I wasn't even sure whether that last one had posted.

Thanks for posting that up. I'll actually have to look into that...

Okay so I've read the first two chapters of Genesis, and I really can't see what you're on about. The first section as you put it (Gen 1:1-2:3) deals with the creation of the earth in 6 days and God resting on the 7th. It goes through the whole first week. Now, the second section, rather than being contradictory, seems to back track a few days to when God hadn't yet put plants on the earth and it tells about God forming Adam out of the dust, creating the garden of Eden to the east and putting Adam in there.

And you don't see the contradiction here? In the 6 days Creation story, plants are created days before human beings. Animals are created before human beings. This occurs on entirely different days.

In the second Creation story, we start with no plants (for there is no one to tend them) and no animals. Then Adam is made before, rather than after, these things. Adam gets put in Eden, and then God says, "Hey, you need a companion," and starts making all the animals, each of which is brought before Adam and given a name. None of them are found to be suitable companions, so then God creates Eve. The order here is quite different from that given in the first story.

Also there is no mention of God walking in the garden in chapter 2; it can be assumed, just like many assume that the 'fruit' was in fact an apple. Nor is it said that when God was creating the world that he didn't descend upon the world to oversee his work. We just know that it happened. So I don't see what is really so contradictory. He does walk in the garden in Chapter 3, but how does that contradict the first chapter.

It is the tone that is contradictory here and the description of God, not specific details. In the first account, God is separate from the world. God need not interact with anything, but just needs to say, "Let it happen," and it happens. The God described here is all-powerful, and separated from God's creation.

In the second account (which does continue in story fashion through several chapters), God is discussed much more anthropomorphically. God is not separate from Creation, but walks within it. God does not create from an aloof position, but molds things much as a human would.

Also; what 'mistakes' does God make? He knew that Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit; but rather than acting all condascending and accusatory of them he extracts confessions from the two. I don't see it as making mistakes, but, rather, as letting things happen.

An all-knowing God would not need to go through every species of animal to figure out that none of them were going to be proper companions for Adam. But the God described in Genesis 2 does just that. God says that Adam needs a companion and goes through every single animal, rejecting each one, before coming up with the idea to make Eve.

The Yahwist author often portrays God anthropomorphically and with the ability to make mistakes. It probably has a great deal to do with the fact that YHWH was most likely considered a god among many gods to Abraham and the ancient Hebrews. Throughout the OT, God regrets things, is mistaken about things, etc. At one point, a human being wins an argument with God.

The Priestly author, on the other hand, presents God as absolute. God brings the law and gives orders, and none of it is to be questioned in the least. God is separate from Creation, although God can interact with it. And so on...

Actually, many of the ancient civilisations like the Assyrians, the Egyptian, Babylonians, Persians, etc. all have their historians. The histories of the Babylonians and Egyptians are perhaps best preserved. And let us not forget the Israelites. All funded from the royal treasury.

The Israelites aren't the best example here. Evidence suggests that, as long as the Israelites remained nomadic, they didn't write their histories down. They were passed down by oral tradition. It was only after interactions with more agrarian, settled societies that they seem to have moved to record things in writing.

The description of Neil Gaiman vs traditional fairy tale is maybe a little strong, but I agree with the basic argument. Again, however, it is possible to say that the Bible can be viewed as a consistant, whole document, but in order for this to be so it necessarily requires one to abandon a literal interpretation.

Yeah, the POV difference is much greater between Gaiman and the traditional tale. However, the differences in writing styles are probably even less pronounced than those between the Yahwist and Priestly authors, so it all comes out in the wash.

(In truth, I've got Gaiman on the brain, so it was the first example to come to mind)

I have no problem with looking at a great deal of the Bible as metaphor. The OT, to a large extent, seems to me to be an ancient people looking for its place in the world, and trying to explain humanity's relationship with the divine as best it could. Of course, I'm not one of those who expects the Bible to be technically perfect.

At any rate, I don't know if I will ever get used to the intense resistance and antagonism people have towards criticism of the notion of an old earth or of evolutionary theory. It just isn't explainable in terms of disliking someone else's point of view.

Maybe this is because there is no such thing to get used to? Nobody I have ever seen has an "intense resistence and antagonism towards criticism" of either. What they do expect is intelligent and rational questioning, rather than, "My holy book sometimes says something that might mean this, so it must be right and scientists are just mean!" or "X theory doesn't answer all my questions aboslutely and 100% of the time, so that helps prove idea Y that has no evidence other than, 'But X sucks!'" However, this seems to be the only kinds of criticism you find on an internet forum.

(Rather, the critics should be welcomed, if their criticism is fair.)

And therein lies the problem. As soon as fundamentalist religious groups bring fair, accurate, and scientific criticisms, they will be welcomed.


Exactly. Creationists believe a young earth argument, and attack anyone else who criticizes it as irrational. Their criticism is unfair, as there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the traditional scientific theories, and none in their favor. In fact, their assertions do not even constitue a "theory" since the most they manage to do is to cast doubt on the notion that the earth is billions of years old. They do not, in any way, prove that God created the earth or that the account in Genesis is somehow more accurate.

This is what so many people fail to realize. Disproving one theory doesn't provide evidence for whatever your pet theory is. We could completely and utterly disprove evolutionary theory, and doing so wouldn't provide a single shred of evidence for ID. We could disprove the currently accepted age of the Earth, and it wouldn't provide Creationists with anything to bolster their weak faith. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. If I disprove your idea that apples grow on trees, I can't then say, "So that means God puts apples on the ground!!!" and consider it scientifically demonstrated

It's called mathematics. Ever constructed something without writing down the measurements? Try it sometime.

Done... And i know many sculptors that do pretty interesting things without calculations, measurements are taken by the eye.
It is called experience and feeling for proportion.

About this theme park (let's call it what it is), it's been done, but I say, do it again! Whee!

[JESUS]WORLD

Tagline: [Jesus]world ...where robot men and women are programmed to serve you for ...Romance ...Violence ...Anything [that's in the Bible] (more)

Plot Outline: A futuristic amusement park becomes a deathtrap when the androids and computer systems used in it begin to murderously run amok. (more) (view trailer)

User Comments: and what a chilling little world it is... (more)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070909/

Whatever. It's their money. Let them waste it anyway they like. There are only two ways it can play out.

1) Within three years, it'll go bankrupt, and the investors will set aside their faithful devotion and sue the shit out of the designers for their $25 million, and this theme park be a forgotten roadside oddity, just like all the other vanity projects that every American nutball has ever launched.

Or

2) Like the annual Mormon "Hill Cumorah Pageant: America's Witness for Christ", it will become hugely popular, but only among the already converted. Of course, its fans and organizers will claim that it produces new converts, but objective observations will bely those claims. No matter how it well it does, this creationist theme park will not convert anyone to anything. It will succeed or fail only on how much the faithful feel like driving for 6 hours to look at a model of a man squatting behind a sheep.

If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on option 1. $25 million doesn't really go all that far these days. The Mormons have a lot more money to put into their shindig, and they only run it one month out of the year. Knowing what it takes to run such facilities permanently, this creationist amusement is very likely to run out of money before its first round of loans are paid off.

Bruarong it might be worth reading up on the history of writing. Maybe look up the Vinca scripts or the Tartaria tablets. Both are OVER 6 thousand years old.
So how can language pre-date the earth?
Oh and regarding numerals the best evidence at the moment placing their creation in Sumeria between 8000BC & 3500bc. Either case still older that 6000 years.

A

It's called mathematics. Ever constructed something without writing down the measurements? Try it sometime.

Yes. It went quite well, actually. I think it's even still intact, seven or eight years later.

It's called mathematics. Ever constructed something without writing down the measurements? Try it sometime.A brain (and maybe some experience) is sufficient for that. And really the things built before the invention of writing weren't exactly complex.
.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

Disprove DNA, please.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

Disprove DNA, please.

It doesn't matter. In Bruarong's world, there could be a 1000 pieces of evidence for A, but a single peice of misstated evidence against A then "proves" it should be "questioned" in favor of B which has no evidence to support it.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

Disprove DNA, please.

Funny. Most folks do not even grasp what the significance of mitochondrial dna is... :headbang:
.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short (i.e., why would ancient man build megalithic monuments but fail to record history?)

1) Galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away and whose light couldn't possibly reach us in a mere 12,000 years?

2) As the vast concentration of stars(and therefore supernovae) would be inside the galactic core, it stands to reason that they would be considerably hard to detect over background noise. Also, as supernovae in our own galaxy wouldn't even be detectable until hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of years after they happened, there are many supernovae whose explosions haven't reached us yet.

3) The whole basis of this point derives from the warrantless disbelief in the Oort Cloud despite all evidence to the contrary.

4)Ice Ages. The amount of weathering on Earth has not remained constant. Neither has plate tectonics or volcanic activity.

5)See above.

6)Earth's magnetic field is caused by the movement of Earth's iron core. Unless it stops, Earth will have a magnetic field. It may wax and wane, or reverse polarity, but it certainly isn't degrading on a scale measurable over the course of a few decades.

7) Complete nonsense. I'm no geologist, but strata cracks plenty. It gets compressed unevenly due to vulcanism and erosion as well as folded by tectonic stresses.

8) They don't define 'natural environments'. The conditions under which DNA sources could possibly be preserved longer aren't even touched upon.

9) Radiohalos are hardly conclusive. It's an extremely new observation first made by Robert V. Gentry(a notable young earth creationist) who use it as evidence that the Earth was formed in minutes. As has been pointed out, there is no way of positively identifying those radiohalos as having been produced by Polonium 210. and not by radon elsewhere in the strata.

10) Dr. Russel Humphreys' measurements of helium loss are highly questionable.

11) I can find no other reference to this other than the article in the footnotes titled: "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model" written by John Baumgardner. Also of interest is that the other three names on the artile are: Andrew Snelling, Stephen Austin and the previously mentioned Russel Humphreys(all members of the ICR). I've been unable to find any other source describing the carbon anomalies they claim to have identified. Lots of fun. :)

12) Complete speculation. There's no reason to believe that ancient man buried their dead as a rule, even assuming that there were many situations where such an option existed. There's no reason to believe that the majority or artifacts hadn't been used and reused by subsequent generations, were destroyed in various ways, were plentiful to begin with and/or ere made primarily of materials that would survive the passage of time. Ice ages scoured a sizeable portion of the Earth clean.

13) Complete speculation.

14) Also complete speculation.

In the opinion of this christian, the "Evidence for a Young World" article by Dr. Russel Humphreys is complete http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/bs.gif

:D

*snip*

That was a wonderful post.

6)Earth's magnetic field is caused by the movement of Earth's iron core. Unless it stops, Earth will have a magnetic field. It may wax and wane, or reverse polarity, but it certainly isn't degrading on a scale measurable over the course of a few decades.

I always love these types of "evidence." I remember a lecture at church once where they used the decaying magnetic field and the changes it can make on gravitational pull, the current movement of the moon and Earth relative to one another, and the current rate of shrinkage of the sun to claim that, on an old Earth, we'd have insane levels of gravity, the moon would be touching the ground, and the sun would be so close that all water would be constantly boiling.

Of course, to do this, they had to ignore quite a bit of geological and astronomical (is that the right word for astronomy-based?) evidence to demonstrate that we would absolutely not expect these things to be constant throughout history. Stars expand and contract. Magnetic fields change over time, and sometimes reverse polarity.

Meanwhile, when faced with radioactive decay, an phenomenon we have no evidence for changing rates (the half-life seems pretty much to always hold up for a given material), they say, "Oh, how dare they assume that the decay rates would be the same throughout history?"

LOL for inconsistency.

That was a wonderful post.



I always love these types of "evidence." I remember a lecture at church once where they used the decaying magnetic field and the changes it can make on gravitational pull, the current movement of the moon and Earth relative to one another, and the current rate of shrinkage of the sun to claim that, on an old Earth, we'd have insane levels of gravity, the moon would be touching the ground, and the sun would be so close that all water would be constantly boiling.

Of course, to do this, they had to ignore quite a bit of geological and astronomical (is that the right word for astronomy-based?) evidence to demonstrate that we would absolutely not expect these things to be constant throughout history. Stars expand and contract. Magnetic fields change over time, and sometimes reverse polarity.

Meanwhile, when faced with radioactive decay, an phenomenon we have no evidence for changing rates (the half-life seems pretty much to always hold up for a given material), they say, "Oh, how dare they assume that the decay rates would be the same throughout history?"

LOL for inconsistency.


It's the sort of pseudoscience that occurs when one begins with a conclusion and is willing to ignore all results but those that support that conclusion. *nod*

It's called mathematics. Ever constructed something without writing down the measurements? Try it sometime.
Oh, for crying out loud, you have got to be kidding us.

Just because YOU can't do math in your head, you think nobody can?

Just because YOU can't imagine carrying out a team project without written instructions, you think it can't be done?

Just because YOU like to talk about history, you think an interest in history is the yardstick of civilization?

Just because YOU haven't seen old documents, you think they never existed?

Just because YOU can't read the records of the past, you think there are no records?

Please. You are not the measure or standard of all things human, Bruarong.

Your entire argument is based on and invalidated by your own ignorance of the history you are so interested in. You claim that ancient peoples didn't write down mathematical calculations. How do you know what other people didn't do? Care to try to prove that negative?

FACT: The vast majority of written records are not preserved and were never meant to be preserved. Every day, millions of written notes, records, calculations, drawings and designs are thrown away because people are finished using them.

FACT: Ancient peoples were no different than people today. They didn't save all their notes either. Archeologists get excited and start publishing articles every time they find another ancient garbage heap full of written notes, usually scribbled on shards of broken pottery or bits of stone -- the ancient equivalent of the post-it note. These scribbled shards are how we know how ancient peoples got their laundry done and made shopping trips to markets. It's how we know how the workers who built the great temples and tombs got hired, assigned, and paid. It's how we know what classes they took in school and, yes, even how they learned to do math in their heads.

FACT: Before the advent of cheap paper production, the making of permanent records was laborious, long, and expensive. Therefore, in the past even more than today, people did not think in terms of preserving records of what they were doing on a daily basis. As a result, temporary writing methods were very common. In particular, it was a common practice all over the ancient world to write quick diagrams and calculations in sand, which would then be swept (erased) for the next bit of work. Trays of sand were used in by accountants in the same way as modern calculators, by teachers in the same way as modern chalkboards, and by engineers and architects in the planning of their projects and by foremen in giving instructions to work teams. We know this because some permanent records that do survive talk about these temporary methods, and Archimedes even memorialized them in his seminal mathematical treatise, The Sand Reckoner, in which the title is a pun.

http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/archmede/sandreck.htm

FACT: Things change over time. Materials degrade. Just because an object does not exist now, that in no way proves that it never existed, and to claim otherwise is just nonsensical.

FACT: There are many different ways of making a record of something. Just because you don't understand the record, that doesn't mean that what you are looking at isn't a record of something.

So where are all the ancient records about Stonehenge? STONEHENGE IS THE RECORD. The buildings, the artwork -- all those things that seem to us to be just functional objects or decorations ARE, in fact, the records of what the ancients thought was important. The artworks are observational records of what was around them (such as Ice Age cave art), or they are coded messages (such as the symbolic decorations of non-literate, post-Ice Age cultures, and the massive propaganda art of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians). The buildings themselves are commemorations of people and/or events, expressions of specific religions or philosophies, and they are designed specifically to walk people through a direct experience of whatever story or idea they are about.

So your argument is invalid on the grounds that:

A) You are using yourself as the standard for other people to conform to without any proof that you represent any such standard;

B) Your definition of what constitutes a "record" is too limited; and

C) You have no proof that ancient people did not write things down.