NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

Yes, I drove 5 hours to go see this place at 4 in the morning, after myself and some of my friends saw it on digg.

This place is really cool. Even if you don't believe in god, like me. It is completely worth checking out.

Shit.:headbang: Another one?

Shit.:headbang: Another one?

Thats what I thought, so we went to check out this one..


The one thing that sets it apart from all the rest Ive heard of, is that it actually offers Evolution as a viewpoint. None of the other ones do.

Meh, if they didn't trumpet it as truth, and wouldn't call it a museum (fair/park/ride etc. would be far more appropriate) I would honestly have no problem against them.

http://www.answers.com/museum&r=67

mu·se·um (myū-zē'əm) pronunciation
n.

A building, place, or institution devoted to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and educational interpretation of objects having scientific, historical, or artistic value.

hmmm...sorry but this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/CreationMuseum15.png) is the most retarded thing I have ever seen and the money you was charged for admission will not go towards anything worthwhile at all

http://www.answers.com/museum&r=67



hmmm...sorry but this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/CreationMuseum15.png) is the most retarded thing I have ever seen and the money you was charged for admission will not go towards anything worthwhile at allIt's for the conservation of retarded beliefs, so that's something.;)

Crap like this is why so many people think Christians are irrational idiots... It gives a bad name to all of us Christians who are not Young-Earth Creationists... and even more so to those of us Christians who do not hold to any theological view that holds to specific creation...

It's for the conservation of retarded beliefs, so that's something.;)

'A museum where the only fossils you see are our experts' would be good slogan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

Yes, I drove 5 hours to go see this place at 4 in the morning, after myself and some of my friends saw it on digg.

This place is really cool. Even if you don't believe in god, like me. It is completely worth checking out.

the museum is open at 4 am?

what about it is better than....oh say the iowa corn palace?

this is the most retarded thing I have ever seen and the money you was charged for admission will not go towards anything worthwhile at all

It's like the Holy Roman Empire of the museum world: it's not scientific, it's not historical, and it's not a museum.

the museum is open at 4 am?

what about it is better than....oh say the iowa corn palace?

No, I live in Pittsburgh, we thought it was all a joke but said fuck and started going there. We arrived at 9.

the museum is open at 4 am?

i would totally go to a 24 hour museum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

Yes, I drove 5 hours to go see this place at 4 in the morning, after myself and some of my friends saw it on digg.

This place is really cool. Even if you don't believe in god, like me. It is completely worth checking out.

So, umm, how many brain cells did you lose when you saw the Creation Museum?

It's like the Holy Roman Empire of the museum world: it's not scientific, it's not historical, and it's not a museum.

Though for that analogy to truly fit it should be called the Scientific Creationist Museum.

But that might be pushing it because people would start to wonder why they needed to add scientific to the title...

Though for that analogy to truly fit it should be called the Scientific Creationist Museum.

But that might be pushing it because people would start to wonder why they needed to add scientific to the title...

Because it validates it! At least....they think it does.....

i would totally go to a 24 hour museumIt would have to be a good museum, other wise you wouldn't stay for 24hr's

It would have to be a good museum, other wise you wouldn't stay for 24hr's

or have its own bar...

though to be honest I've been to plenty of "good" museums and they don't compare to the tacky ones :)

or have its own bar...

it would make an excellent late-night expedition on the way back from the bar too. especially if there was snacky food available there too.

So, umm, how many brain cells did you lose when you saw the Creation Museum?

You don't loose them, they just make you check them with your coat. You get them back after someone explains to the clerk how to match tickets.

it would make an excellent late-night expedition on the way back from the bar too. especially if there was snacky food available there too.

Well, yes, a brightly lit environment where you can walk off your intoxication while watching a man ride a dinosaur is a great idea.

You know you're ready to drive when you stop saying "that's so hillarrssh, hinlareeeeesssisis... funny!" And start saying "man! this place is stupid."

Well, yes, a brightly lit environment where you can walk off your intoxication while watching a man ride a dinosaur is a great idea.

You know you're ready to drive when you stop saying "that's so hillarrssh, hinlareeeeesssisis... funny!" And start saying "man! this place is stupid."This is a creation museum, so no dinosaurs. You would have to settle for bulls

It would have to be a good museum, other wise you wouldn't stay for 24hr's

You wouldn't believe how easy it is to kill a day in the British Museum and the Louvre (especially if you have a traditional 2 hour French lunch at the random "joint", for lack of better words, at the corner of the street, behind the garden - or at least that's what I think they call the thing by the Assemblee Generale).

You wouldn't believe how easy it is to kill a day in the British Museum and the Louvre (especially if you have a traditional 2 hour French lunch at the random "joint", for lack of better words, at the corner of the street, behind the garden - or at least that's what I think they call the thing by the Assemblee Generale).I swear it has a hidden bar!

While I don't like it, I suppose as long as they're not using tax dollars to make it they would have the right to, right? But if they call it science, I think they should be sued for false advertising.

The two viewpoints:

http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/25/evolution-is-now-an-excuse

The second one is entirely serious it's amazing.

While I don't like it, I suppose as long as they're not using tax dollars to make it they would have the right to, right? But if they call it science, I think they should be sued for false advertising.Wow. Back on topic. :confused: I thought I would never see this.

The two viewpoints:

http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/25/evolution-is-now-an-excuse

The second one is entirely serious it's amazing.I think the first one is the best page I've seen all day!:D

This is a creation museum, so no dinosaurs. You would have to settle for bulls

Uh, I'm a creationist, and I believe there were dinosaurs - I just don't believe in the time-frame that evolution set up for the distance between man abd dinosaurs existance.

I think you'll find that young-earth creationists will say that dinosaurs went out with the flood, since according to the Bible, God say two of a kind of animal, so that's two reptiles to go on the ark, meaning that the rest of the dinosaur species could, legitimately be wiped out.

Eek ... don't rip into me, okay ... I've noticed you'll have a really bad habit of doing that!;)

Uh, I'm a creationist, and I believe there were dinosaurs - I just don't believe in the time-frame that evolution set up for the distance between man abd dinosaurs existance.

I think you'll find that young-earth creationists will say that dinosaurs went out with the flood, since according to the Bible, God say two of a kind of animal, so that's two reptiles to go on the ark, meaning that the rest of the dinosaur species could, legitimately be wiped out.

Eek ... don't rip into me, okay ... I've noticed you'll have a really bad habit of doing that!;)

Two reptiles, two mammals, two amphibians, etc?

I have a dog and cat. I've also seen cows, sheep, whales, dolphins, etc. All manner of different mammals. How the hell did that happen if only two of each class were taken onto the Ark?

I think you'll find that young-earth creationists will say that dinosaurs went out with the flood, since according to the Bible, God say two of a kind of animal, so that's two reptiles to go on the ark, meaning that the rest of the dinosaur species could, legitimately be wiped out. Wow. That means Noah only had to bring one pair of mammals, one pair of amphibians, one pair of birds, one pair of arachnids, and one pair of insects along with the reptiles. :rolleyes:

Eek ... don't rip into me, okay ... I've noticed you'll have a really bad habit of doing that!;)You've noticed that we will have a really bad habit of doing that? Are you a prophet? :confused:

I'm not actually sure about the class thing - I think I'm mis-quoting from somewhere. lol

And no, I'm not a prophet, I've just been watching certain topics on this site for a few days and notice that when it comes to christians, they usually get stuck into.

Two reptiles, two mammals, two amphibians, etc?

I have a dog and cat. I've also seen cows, sheep, whales, dolphins, etc. All manner of different mammals. How the hell did that happen if only two of each class were taken onto the Ark?

Theory A: The dinosaurs just didn't fit.

Theory B: The dinosaurs existed only as bones, from which God made oil. Then scientists decided to put them together and declared that they had once actually been big lizards. But there never really were any big lizards, it's just a scientific fabrication, and most dinosaur bones are actually plaster which proves they're fake!

And no, I'm not a prophet, I've just been watching certain topics on this site for a few days and notice that when it comes to christians, they usually get stuck into.Define Christian.

I'm not actually sure about the class thing - I think I'm mis-quoting from somewhere. lol

And no, I'm not a prophet, I've just been watching certain topics on this site for a few days and notice that when it comes to christians, they usually get stuck into.

Although that's only if (A) they say something silly or unscientific, or (B) they're arguing against UB, or Fass, or Bottle, or any of a number of other posters.

To be fair, longtime NSers have had bad experiences with Christians. Most of the ones we get here are prosletyzing extremists who report 'taking God's name in vain' to the moderators and summarily ignore any argument that doesn't fit in with their philosophy. On the other hand, there are people like Smunkeeville and Lunatic Goofballs who have become extremely popular because they display reasonable arguments in debate, respond to counterarguments, and generally act pleasant.

I'm sure all of the stuff is cool to look at, but I'm not gonna go God knows how many hours to see it.

On the other hand, there are people like Smunkeeville and Lunatic Goofballs who have become extremely popular because they display reasonable arguments in debate, respond to counterarguments, and generally act pleasant.LG is a Christian?! I will now have to cancel my subscription to his magazine! :mad:

Wow. That means Noah only had to bring one pair of mammals, one pair of amphibians, one pair of birds, one pair of arachnids, and one pair of insects along with the reptiles. :rolleyes:

yep. also, evolution didn't happen. thus there is only the one kind of bird (the toucan), the one kind of mammal (the naked mole rat), one kind of amphibian (the sadly extinct koolasuchus), etc. in the world today. any other types of animals you may have seen around is just satan trying to trick you.

You've noticed that we will have a really bad habit of doing that? Are you a prophet? :confused:

they misspelled y'all, i think.

This is so weird... in spite of my religious beliefs, I find it strange such a thing to be built. And it's against evolutionism... but, who are the ones who gave money for this to be built?

This is so weird... in spite of my religious beliefs, I find it strange such a thing to be built. And it's against evolutionism... but, who are the ones who gave money for this to be built?What's that?

Wow.

Just...

wow.

People really are getting dumber. I guess that disproves evolution right there.

People really are getting dumber. I guess that disproves evolution right there.Not really. It just shows that reason is not a factor in natural selection.

Wow.

Just...

wow.

People really are getting dumber. I guess that disproves evolution right there.

but, but :(

Really now, evolution doesn't mean people must get smarter. If a religious, dumbed down, hive mind population is more successful then single intelligent individuals then they will prevail.

*hint: this is where someone needs to say "I, for one, welcome our hum-ble bee-uman overlords"*

LG is a Christian?! I will now have to cancel my subscription to his magazine! :mad:He has a magazine?!?! My gosh I am ignorant

Theory A: The dinosaurs just didn't fit.

Theory B: The dinosaurs existed only as bones, from which God made oil. Then scientists decided to put them together and declared that they had once actually been big lizards. But there never really were any big lizards, it's just a scientific fabrication, and most dinosaur bones are actually plaster which proves they're fake!All right. So We have a bunch of bones that don't belong to any thing? I'll think about that
*Thinks*

I think you need another theory

I believe this sums it all up:

and a medieval-themed gift shop.
Explains what time period they're living in...

All right. So We have a bunch of bones that don't belong to any thing? I'll think about that
*Thinks*

I think you need another theory

Theory C: Creationism is a walking ad against drug abuse.

Define Christian.Anyone who believes that Yeshua is the messiah=christos. Hence the name.

Anyone who believes that Yeshua is the messiah=christos. Hence the name.Didn't ask you, though...

Didn't ask you, though...so the purpose of your asking is not the proper answer?

so the purpose of your asking is not the proper answer?Right on the button. I wanted to know if our newbie has a different definition of Christian.

If only it could stay in history museums...

If only it could stay in history museums...You will be constantly disappointed. ;)

This is a creation museum, so no dinosaurs. You would have to settle for bulls

I watched interviews with the guy who founded it, he said that dinosaurs and humans coexisted and that's why so many cultures have dragon myths. He says the only went extinct a few hundred years ago, or perhaps a little over a thousand years.

The two viewpoints:

http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/25/evolution-is-now-an-excuse

The second one is entirely serious it's amazing.

From the Scalzi.com (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2171/1969216237_90fe49c4ba_m.jpg) article.

See Tornar? I told you they had people riding dinosaurs.

I watched interviews with the guy who founded it, he said that dinosaurs and humans coexisted and that's why so many cultures have dragon myths. He says the only went extinct a few hundred years ago, or perhaps a little over a thousand years.Holey macaroni!
Dinosaurs and humans.. *pfffff* What will he say next? Fish walked on land to meet Jesus for lunch?

The one thing that sets it apart from all the rest Ive heard of, is that it actually offers Evolution as a viewpoint. None of the other ones do.

It doesn't offer evolution as a viewpoint. It offers evilution -a deliberately twisted version - as a viewpoint and then mocks it.
Twisting peoples words, reasoning, facts and so on is not a fair way to promote your own beliefs. Very political though - I'll grant Hovind that.

People really are getting dumber. I guess that disproves evolution right there.

Fraid not. It just indicates that intelligence is not necessarily a survival trait.

Fraid not. It just indicates that intelligence is not necessarily a survival trait.Within a society that protects its weak it isn't.

*Wonders if the exhibits come to life after dark...*

That is the true sign of a museum, after all.

heres a third view on how the world was created:
god created the world say creationists
we came from apes say evalutionists
i say god created us to come from apes, huh huh wadda ya think

Wouldn't humans have been entirely buggered if dinosaurs were about, though? I'd like to see someone try to tame a dinosaur, if only so that they were weeded out of the gene pool.

Sounds pretty funny. In an idiotic sort of way, I guess.

heres a third view on how the world was created:
god created the world say creationists
we came from apes say evalutionists
i say god created us to come from apes, huh huh wadda ya thinkwhere's your evidence for god's involvement?

where's your evidence for god's involvement?

It could be argued that the development of Consciousness along our evolution from apes is god-given and what sets us above animals. It is quite a stretch, but I am surprised they haven't proposed that yet, considering that the evolution of that consciousness is both what makes us top of the food chain today and the most controversial and hard to explain evolutionary development (because neither has it been observed, nor has it occurred anywhere else). I am not supporting this at all but it would be quite difficult to counter such a claim if it was made.

It could be argued that the development of Consciousness along our evolution from apes is god-given and what sets us above animals. ....Nothing sets us ever *above* animals. And where's the evidence for the development of Consciousness along our evolution from apes being god-given? How could that be argued? Based on what?

Nothing sets us ever *above* animals. And where's the evidence for the development of Consciousness along our evolution from apes being god-given? How could that be argued? Based on what?

1) I agree

2) Nowhere

3) Based on the same rubbish arguments used for religious experience et al.

But we are talking about people in desperate search for answers with an uncanny ability to refuse/dismiss the obviously sensible and rational ones.

Nothing sets us ever *above* animals. And where's the evidence for the development of Consciousness along our evolution from apes being god-given? How could that be argued? Based on what?

CAUZ TEH BOOK SEZ SO!!

I gave up on that after a Baptist "friend" of mine sent me a like to creationism.org. (Visit at your own risk.) I believed in evolution long before that, but I also believe life is too beautiful and wonderful to have arisen entirely by chance.

I gave up on that after a Baptist "friend" of mine sent me a like to creationism.org. (Visit at your own risk.) I believed in evolution long before that, but I also believe life is too beautiful and wonderful to have arisen entirely by chance.

But you believe that something as magnificient as God could arise that way ?

But you believe that something as magnificient as God could arise that way ?

God has special rules so he can, you see? Because god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god ........

God has special rules so he can, you see? Because god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god is god ........

And around and around the wheel of circular logic goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

:D

And around and around the wheel of circular logic goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

:D

Yes. Ask why god needs no cause but the universe does and all you come to is a wall of circular logic. Like a wall of death with dinosaurs and great apes riding quadbikes..

And around and around the wheel of circular logic goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

:D

It doesn't stop... because god is infinite and can go forever;)

It doesn't stop... because god is infinite and can go forever;)no. that god ends at the covers of a bible.

I think you could've just gotten the same sensation by watching Jurassic Park while you were drunk.

I'm just sayin'.

Theory C: Creationism is a walking ad against drug abuse.

Funny, I was thinking this museum would be a good place to visit while tripping...

My name is Jordan. I'm a devout Christian, and I also happen to believe in Young Earth, as opposed to the evolutionist view of Old Earth. It's always been strange to me how people complain of intolerance of others, and yet when someone brings up a view contrary to their religion (Namely, "scientific evolution") they are ridiculed as fools, backwards hillbillies, etc., etc.

I want to point out a few things, and then you can feel free to burn me at the stake.

Firstly, no one can prove or disprove either evolution or creation. In order to prove something scientifically, you must be able to recreate it in a controlled environment, and that recreation must support your theory. Additionally, others must be able to do the same thing. Barring divine intervention or time travel, no one can recreate or observe the creation of the universe, or the thousands (or millions, if you prefer) of years that proceeded. All we can do is observe the world around us and theorize about it, gather evidence, and interpret it. To say, however, that evolution (or creation) is a proven scientific fact and Law, and therefore is not open to debate, is innacurate.

Secondly, I think its worth it to say that all people, aside from the completely blind, believe in evolution to a certain extent. Specifically, they believe in Micro-evolution, or change within a species. This is easily observable every day. Macro-evolution, or change between species, has never been observed and reliably recorded by any human we know of, living or dead. This is the thing that is debated.

Thirdly, here's the theory that I support myself. God, in the beginning, created the universe in six literal, 24-hour days, and then "rested" on the seventh. Why do I believe this? Well, for starters, the Bible says so. Simple enough. Others have faith in the word of their scientists (as do I, to a certain extent.) I have faith in the Word of God. I do not accept that God used evolution to create the world. Not to say he couldn't have, or it isn't a possibility. I simply hold that God is a rational being, and His purpose when it comes to humanity is to show us how to rightly live and follow Him, and everything he does in relation to us is for this purpose, to His glory. By working six days and resting a seventh he showed us the way we ought to live, work 6, rest one, to remain healthy. I see no cause in waiting millions of years to do what He could easily do in 6 days, or 1 minute for that matter. Since God is outside our universe, and time is a thing that is of this universe, time has no impact or affect on Him. Therefore, to use the argument that we don't know what 6 days are for God is illogical. Time has no meaning outside the universe which He created, therefore, any time measurement must take place in this universe.

I also believe He created the Earth and the universe as a mature thing. He did not create an infant man and woman. Neither were the animals and plants eggs, babies and seeds. They were created as adults, with the appearance and maturity of age. Likewise, the universe He created, was made appropriate to the creations that would inhabit it.

Lastly, remember that science has said many things over the years. Science once told us that the earth was flat, that it was possible to transmute lead to gold through alchemy, that germs did not exist, and that helicopters were impossible and simply a flight of fancy. Being flawed humans, scientists are constantly learning and adapting what they know. Their truth today may not be their truth tomorrow. I don't put my faith primarily is something as fluid as that. Though I love science as the pursuit of learning the wonders of God's Creation, I put my faith in God Himself.

Thank you for taking the time to read my mini-novel. Let the flames begin.

My name is Jordan. I'm a devout Christian, and I also happen to believe in Young Earth, as opposed to the evolutionist view of Old Earth. It's always been strange to me how people complain of intolerance of others, and yet when someone brings up a view contrary to their religion (Namely, "scientific evolution") they are ridiculed as fools, backwards hillbillies, etc., etc.

I want to point out a few things, and then you can feel free to burn me at the stake. ;)

Firstly, no one can prove or disprove either evolution or creation. In order to prove something scientifically, you must be able to recreate it in a controlled environment, and that recreation must support your theory. Additionally, others must be able to do the same thing. Barring divine intervention or time travel, no one can recreate or observe the creation of the universe, or the thousands (or millions, if you prefer) of years that proceeded. All we can do is observe the world around us and theorize about it, gather evidence, and interpret it. To say, however, that evolution (or creation) is a proven scientific fact and Law, and therefore is not open to debate, is innacurate.

Secondly, I think its worth it to say that all people, aside from the completely blind, believe in evolution to a certain extent. Specifically, they believe in Micro-evolution, or change within a species. This is easily observable every day. Macro-evolution, or change between species, has never been observed and reliably recorded by any human we know of, living or dead. This is the thing that is debated.

Thirdly, here's the theory that I support myself. God, in the beginning, created the universe in six literal, 24-hour days, and then "rested" on the seventh. Why do I believe this? Well, for starters, the Bible says so. Simple enough. Others have faith in the word of their scientists (as do I, to a certain extent.) I have faith in the Word of God. I do not accept that God used evolution to create the world. Not to say he couldn't have, or it isn't a possibility. I simply hold that God is a rational being, and His purpose when it comes to humanity is to show us how to rightly live and follow Him, and everything he does in relation to us is for this purpose, to His glory. By working six days and resting a seventh he showed us the way we ought to live, work 6, rest one, to remain healthy. I see no cause in waiting millions of years to do what He could easily do in 6 days, or 1 minute for that matter. Since God is outside our universe, and time is a thing that is of this universe, time has no impact or affect on Him. Therefore, to use the argument that we don't know what 6 days are for God is illogical. Time has no meaning outside the universe which He created, therefore, any time measurement must take place in this universe.

I also believe He created the Earth and the universe as a mature thing. He did not create an infant man and woman. Neither were the animals and plants eggs, babies and seeds. They were created as adults, with the appearance and maturity of age. Likewise, the universe He created, was made appropriate to the creations that would inhabit it.

Lastly, remember that science has said many things over the years. Science once told us that the earth was flat, that it was possible to transmute lead to gold through alchemy, that germs did not exist, and that helicopters were impossible and simply a flight of fancy. Being flawed humans, scientists are constantly learning and adapting what they know. Their truth today may not be their truth tomorrow. I don't put my faith primarily is something as fluid as that. Though I love science as the pursuit of learning the wonders of God's Creation, I put my faith in God Himself.

Thank you for taking the time to read my mini-novel. Let the flames begin.

Macro-evolution, or change between species, has never been observed and reliably recorded by any human we know of, living or dead. This is the thing that is debated.

Except it has been observed. Constantly. Drosophila alone has speciated in the laboratory dozens of times. The nylon bug is another one. And then there's the infamous HeLa. None so blind as those that refuse to see.

My name is Jordan. I'm a devout Christian, and I also happen to believe in Young Earth, as opposed to the evolutionist view of Old Earth. It's always been strange to me how people complain of intolerance of others, and yet when someone brings up a view contrary to their religion (Namely, "scientific evolution") they are ridiculed as fools, backwards hillbillies, etc., etc.

maybe its because you have a mistaken understanding of religion, tolerance, and reality?

Lorethain, there are people on this forum that actually know and understand science. This 'science says this; science hasn't proven that; science can't explain the other' stuff only works on people who go not know and understand science.

No-one (well, no reasonable person) is going to deny you the right to your faith, but you do your beliefs a great disservice by trying to support them with bad science.

Wouldn't humans have been entirely buggered if dinosaurs were about, though? I'd like to see someone try to tame a dinosaur, if only so that they were weeded out of the gene pool.

Oh don't worry about that!

According to one of the display writings at the museum. There were no carnivores until after mankind's sin or whatever. And nature just grew the perfect amount of food for everyone! O_o

Firstly, no one can prove or disprove either evolution or creation.

Define "disprove" in this context; since every test we could devise showed the earth is much older than a few thousand years and that the sun is older than the earth.
Even worse: the answers provided by those independent tests are all of similar magnitude and therefor seem to verify eachother - and to contradict young earth creationism.

What kind of evidence would you accept ?

My name is Jordan.

Hi Jordan :)

I'm a devout Christian, and I also happen to believe in Young Earth, as opposed to the evolutionist view of Old Earth. It's always been strange to me how people complain of intolerance of others, and yet when someone brings up a view contrary to their religion (Namely, "scientific evolution") they are ridiculed as fools, backwards hillbillies, etc., etc.

Evolution is not an evolution. When you see scientists meeting in laboratories every Thursday to read from The Origin of Species and sacrifice the least fit on the Altar of Natural Selection then you might have a point.

Firstly, no one can prove or disprove either evolution or creation. In order to prove something scientifically, you must be able to recreate it in a controlled environment, and that recreation must support your theory. Additionally, others must be able to do the same thing. Barring divine intervention or time travel, no one can recreate or observe the creation of the universe, or the thousands (or millions, if you prefer) of years that proceeded. All we can do is observe the world around us and theorize about it, gather evidence, and interpret it. To say, however, that evolution (or creation) is a proven scientific fact and Law, and therefore is not open to debate, is innacurate.

There are a lot of misconceptions in here.

Science does not do 'proof', that is the domain of Mathematics. Science constructs hypothesises and then throw evidence at them. To give just one example, not even one fossil has ever been found which contradicts the theory of evolution, while the entire fossil record thumbs it's collective nose at Creationism. Even die-hard Creationists like Kurt Wise admit that the fossil record fits with evolutionary predictions and that Creationism has failed to explain this.

The Theory of Evolution is as 'proven' as any scientific theory can be, and it is a good deal better supported than our current Theory of Gravity.

Secondly, I think its worth it to say that all people, aside from the completely blind, believe in evolution to a certain extent. Specifically, they believe in Micro-evolution, or change within a species. This is easily observable every day. Macro-evolution, or change between species, has never been observed and reliably recorded by any human we know of, living or dead. This is the thing that is debated.

Creationists have never explained what the exact limits of a 'kind' are; when challenged they merely hand-wave the objection away or mutter about turning dinosaurs into parsnips. Tell us the limits of a 'kind' and what limit prevents change outside of it. Species change has been observed on numerous occasions in the lab.

Thirdly, here's the theory that I support myself. God, in the beginning, created the universe in six literal, 24-hour days, and then "rested" on the seventh.

That isn't a theory. A scientific theory isn't just conjecture, it's a collection of models and evidence which could theoretically be disproved by a single piece of evidence (this is called falsification). In the case of evolution, a fossilised homo sapien in pre-cambrian strata would sink the entire theory.

Creationism is simply not falsifiable so it doesn't even rank as a hypothesis.

Why do I believe this? Well, for starters, the Bible says so. Simple enough. Others have faith in the word of their scientists (as do I, to a certain extent.)

You're equivocating 'faith'. I have confidence in most scientists being honest and competent, and I have confidence that dishonesty and incompetence will be exposed by better scientists. To equivocate this with blind faith in the Bible is absurd.

I have faith in the Word of God.

And how do you know it's the word of God?

I also believe He created the Earth and the universe as a mature thing. He did not create an infant man and woman. Neither were the animals and plants eggs, babies and seeds. They were created as adults, with the appearance and maturity of age. Likewise, the universe He created, was made appropriate to the creations that would inhabit it.

You see, this is why Creationism is NOT scientific: it's unfalsifiable. I might as well say "the world was created last Thursday but designed to look older" and it would be just as valid as your view.

Lastly, remember that science has said many things over the years. Science once told us that the earth was flat,

Actually science discovered that the Earth was round more than two millenia ago; the resurgence in flat-earth thinking was largely driven by Christians burning 'pagan' texts and books such as Topographia Christiani which, like you, ignored science and argued for a flat earth based on scripture...

that it was possible to transmute lead to gold through alchemy,

Actually alchemy was never science.

that germs did not exist,

I wonder which group was more likely to claim that disease was caused by demons rather than germs: Christians or scientists...

Being flawed humans, scientists are constantly learning and adapting what they know. Their truth today may not be their truth tomorrow. I don't put my faith primarily is something as fluid as that. Though I love science as the pursuit of learning the wonders of God's Creation, I put my faith in God Himself.

So because science is self-correcting and acknowledges its mistakes you choose to trust the ramblings of bronze-age goat herders?

What kind of evidence would you accept ?That which does not contradict him.

My name is Jordan.Edwardis?

Seriously... WHAT! THE! FUCK!

Anyone with 1/16 a brain could see that this is utter bullshit. And to think that this museum cost more than 20 million dollars! Burn it! BURN IT TO THE GROUND!



I learned creationism was bullshit in class...in 6TH GRADE! Creationists just ignore science and put their fingers their ears, screaming "I CAN'T HERE YOU! I CAN'T HERE YOU! I CAN'T HERE YOU! GODS WORD IS INFALLIBLE! PRAISE JEBUS!"

Lastly, remember that science has said many things over the years. Science once told us that the earth was flat, that it was possible to transmute lead to gold through alchemy, that germs did not exist, and that helicopters were impossible and simply a flight of fancy. Being flawed humans, scientists are constantly learning and adapting what they know. Their truth today may not be their truth tomorrow. I don't put my faith primarily is something as fluid as that. Though I love science as the pursuit of learning the wonders of God's Creation, I put my faith in God Himself.

Thank you for taking the time to read my mini-novel. Let the flames begin.

Are you a moron!? Why do you continue to spread this lie!? For sure the anchient fucking greeks believed the world was flat but so did the fucking christians and the did so for a further fucking 200 years after the greeks decided it was a sphere! Eratosthenes deduced the circumference 240 years before your fucking saviour was born so what have you got to say to that jesus boy!?

Other than that believe what you want to believe, you're free to do so..

Seriously... WHAT! THE! FUCK!

Anyone with 1/16 a brain could see that this is utter bullshit. And to think that this museum cost more than 20 million dollars! Burn it! BURN IT TO THE GROUND!What do you expect? Some folks don't have 1/16 a brain. That's why they place faith over facts, as their brains lack the capacity to contain facts.

For sure the anchient fucking greeks believed the world was flat ..No, they did not. Eratosthenes measured the earth's circumference 200 years before Yeshua. He would not have done that if he or his contemporaries had thought the earth to be flat.

What do you expect? Some folks don't have 1/16 a brain. That's why they place faith over facts, as their brains lack the capacity to contain facts.

I gave up on humanity when it was revealed 80% of people believe in angels.

What do you expect? Some folks don't have 1/16 a brain. That's why they place faith over facts, as their brains lack the capacity to contain facts.

I doubt they have the capacity to hold faith either, there is a 1/32 fraction of brain requirement. These people take creationism because it is simple and requires no facts or faith the ability to say 'Nuh uh!'. 1/64 fraction of a brain is what they have.

No, they did not.

According to wiki according to Aristotle some pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus and Democritus believed the world was flat. So maybe not all of them but my point is still vaguely there...

Jordan, most of these arguments of yours have beenrefuted (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) before. Again and again and again and again. Does it bother you that these pseudoscientific conmen can't come up with new arguments? Does it bother you that they have a political agenda and not interested in the truth? Have you even considered that the scientists are only trying to find out the truth, and are not involved in some giant conspiracy to discredit the Bible?

I gave up on humanity when it was revealed 80% of people believe in angels.Well, I do, too...

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1053756,00.jpg

Actually alchemy was never science.
Although you can turn lead into gold. It's just ridiculously expensive and time-consuming.

Although you can turn lead into gold. It's just ridiculously expensive and time-consuming.

Hasn't it been done already, just to prove the point ;) ?

Hasn't it been done already, just to prove the point ;) ?For some reason, yes.

Lorethain, there are people on this forum that actually know and understand science. This 'science says this; science hasn't proven that; science can't explain the other' stuff only works on people who go not know and understand science.

No-one (well, no reasonable person) is going to deny you the right to your faith, but you do your beliefs a great disservice by trying to support them with bad science.

I think if you check his post what he's trying to do is support bad science. That's what that whole bit about intolerance is.

The bad science is when they say things like "carbon dating doesn't show that the world is over 25,000 years old even though it's accurate going back 25,000 years because there are things that can contaminate the measurement. Like how when they carbon dated the Shroud of Turin and showed that it was only 1,000 years but didn't account for the possible presence of bacteria whose carbon dates would have created a smaller average date, so a 25,000 year old sample according to carbon dating could really be 50.... No! Wait! Just remember that carbon dating is fallible. Yes, not how it's fallible, just that it is and the world is 6,000 years old. 'Cos the Bible says so.

I think if you check his post what he's trying to do is support bad science. That's what that whole bit about intolerance is.

The bad science is when they say things like "carbon dating doesn't show that the world is over 25,000 years old even though it's accurate going back 25,000 years because there are things that can contaminate the measurement. Like how when they carbon dated the Shroud of Turin and showed that it was only 1,000 years but didn't account for the possible presence of bacteria whose carbon dates would have created a smaller average date, so a 25,000 year old sample according to carbon dating could really be 50.... No! Wait! Just remember that carbon dating is fallible. Yes, not how it's fallible, just that it is and the world is 6,000 years old. 'Cos the Bible says so.Could you re-write that in English, please??

I think if you check his post what he's trying to do is support bad science. That's what that whole bit about intolerance is.


I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Like, maybe just for once, a creationist would sign off with: 'Well, I still have my faith, but now I'm wondering if maybe there's less scientific backing for it than my Sunday school teacher chose to admit.' Rather than turning all hellfire and damnation on us. A slender hope, but I'm an optimist.

Could you re-write that in English, please??
I can!

HURR

He has a magazine?!?! My gosh I am ignorant
LG exists!?! :p

I think we all need to quit inhaling the mud fumes before we all have even more delusions about his existance.

I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Like, maybe just for once, a creationist would sign off with: 'Well, I still have my faith, but now I'm wondering if maybe there's less scientific backing for it than my Sunday school teacher chose to admit.' Rather than turning all hellfire and damnation on us. A slender hope, but I'm an optimist.When that happens we will be a lucky bunch of people!

Although you can turn lead into gold. It's just ridiculously expensive and time-consuming.

Now all that we need to do is turn hydrogen into gold!

Now all that we need to do is turn hydrogen into gold!

But hydrogen is so much more useful :p !

But hydrogen is so much more useful :p !Imagine the power of a gold bomb! ;)

But hydrogen is so much more useful :p !

Lies!

We need gold to produce crappy looking models that look like the south american City of Gold that, for some reason, lies in northern U.S.A!

We can always use the remainder to hire Nicholas Cage, he needs some more cash to finish his hair loss treatments XD.

Now all that we need to do is turn hydrogen into gold!

A supernova can pull that off.

A supernova can pull that off.I want to see you conduct a supernova in a lab! :rolleyes:

All stars over the 1.4 solar mass limit are on a diet, so I don't think we can rely on their help anytime soon...

All stars over the 1.4 solar mass limit are on a diet, so I don't think we can rely on their help anytime soon...Put them on "Jenny Craig"!:p Then they can eat what they want when they want!;)

Put them on "Jenny Craig"!:p Then they can eat what they want when they want!;)

The black holes and neutron stars are on that, though unfortunately the white dwarves seem to bullemic. They keep on eating hydrogen then they just blow it all away in a nova.

It is so sad that they have been allowed to get this way...

The black holes and neutron stars are on that, though unfortunately the white dwarves seem to bullemic. They keep on eating hydrogen then they just blow it all away in a nova.

It is so sad that they have been allowed to get this way...The sad state of the inter-galactic government these days.....

The sad state of the inter-galactic government these days.....

There seems to be an obesity epedemic in the central black holes and quasars.

Ever since the other galaxies left everything has gone downhill. I blame the addiction of the 'expanding universe'. We must halt this 'expansion' and bring everyone together again!

But you believe that something as magnificient as God could arise that way ?

All due respect, at this point I'm not discussing what I believe about anything. I'm not sure what I believe anymore.

All due respect, at this point I'm not discussing what I believe about anything. I'm not sure what I believe anymore.

There's plenty of ideas here that can help you focus, if you like. :p

All due respect, at this point I'm not discussing what I believe about anything. I'm not sure what I believe anymore.Why don't you just drop the concept of belief entirely?

Could you re-write that in English, please??

Sure.

When you complain about "arrogant secularists preaching evolution," you are trying to take a position on a scientific issue (evolution) and placing it in the forum of a theological debate where ideas must be valued for what they mean to those who believe them. This constitutes using faith to defend bad science. If you can't provide evidence of a creator, then simply complain about those who ask you to.

When you try to argue that there are problems with the theory of evolution based on things like "evolution is only a theory," or "there is too much of a margin of error in the fossil record to prove that the world is over 6,000 years old," then you are using bad science to defend your faith.

The example I picked was one that was linked on this forum recently in which someone tries to discredit carbon dating because samples can be contaminated and the presence of carbon 14 relative to carbon 12 varies from time to time. But this makes no sense when arguing that the world is 6,000 years old because contaminants make things appear younger than they are, meaning the sample might be older than initially believed, and scientists know how to account for the variances in the carbon record.

When creationists try to argue the science, it's always based on very poor understanding of the science used to defend their faith. When they see that their audience is too savvy to fall for bad science, then they use their faith to raise their bad science above scientific scrutiny, then argue their faith based on their sanctified bad science.