A Visit to the Creation Museum

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

Don't I always say that it is the middle-aged guys who are the worst behaved.

I rest my case!

(And it wasn't me this time.)

Golly! I thought the plan was we were supposed to take turns! Right?

ummmmm...

Who's next?

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

Be careful with this, Austin ... I hear this all the time, and it relies on a misunderstanding of the word theory as used in scientific discourse ... gravity is "just a theory" too, but I'm not going to be stepping off any buildings any time soon.

Actually, it's the Law of Gravity, F=(gm1m2)/r^2 where F is the force between two bodies, g is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the complete mass of the two bodies all over and divided by the radius of both masses squared. This equation can be used to prove that two bodies of significant mass will be attracted to each other and move toward each other in the pure vaccum of space.

There is no equation for evolution. My only beef with Evolution being taught in schools is that it should be taught as a Theory, one that has numerous scientific fact backing it (as well as numerous "missing links"), not as the Evolutionary Law. Just as there is the Conspiracy Theory behind the attacks on 9/11, backed by plenty scientific facts as well as numerous missing links. Don't teach it as fact, teach it as theory based in fact.

See what I'm saying?

[BrentRichards]

Yes, I do, but I don't agree entirely. I do agree that it has become sacred dogma for some scientists, which is not acceptable.

I have to take issue with the Evolutionary Theory/Conspiracy Theory comparison ... again, the word theory is used differently in scientific and non-scientific contexts.

Naturally, there is no equation for evolution ... it's not physics. But if we need an equation to call something science, we'll have to chuck biology altogether, which would make me sad. I'm a bio geek.

At the end of the day, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree on this one ... you're still fine with me, Austin. Ditto?

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

At the end of the day, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree on this one ... you're still fine with me, Austin. Ditto?

Agree to disagree? What is that!?! I can't do that, I'm to stubborn. I'll just til you see things my way, capisce?

O... wait... Ok. Agreeing to disagree.

[BrentRichards]

I'll wait. You'll evolve to my way of thinking. [grin]

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I may catch heat for including this link, but it seems they've got the filled out angle covered (pun intended).

http://www.aussiebum.com/en/new/?modelid=482

Me? Give me a sunny day at Black's Beach in San Diego. The sun and sand and nothing else.

~

I laughed my head off Scotty!

Love the aussie Bum! But did you notice that it didn't shrink when it got wet?

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

Actually, it's the Law of Gravity, F=(gm1m2)/r^2 where F is the force between two bodies, g is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the complete mass of the two bodies all over and divided by the radius of both masses squared. This equation can be used to prove that two bodies of significant mass will be attracted to each other and move toward each other in the pure vaccum of space.

There is no equation for evolution. My only beef with Evolution being taught in schools is that it should be taught as a Theory, one that has numerous scientific fact backing it (as well as numerous "missing links"), not as the Evolutionary Law. Just as there is the Conspiracy Theory behind the attacks on 9/11, backed by plenty scientific facts as well as numerous missing links. Don't teach it as fact, teach it as theory based in fact.

See what I'm saying?

One correction first off. “r” represents the distance between the two objects not their radius. Can you provide for me the equation that explains why grass is green? I can give you a scientific explanation for why grass is green, but there’s no equation. What about Cell Theory. No equation there either, but I defy you to find a living organism that is without a cell. So I’m not quite sure what your point here is. Besides gravity between two objects is simple, there are only 2 variables you have to consider. But life?
I like how you presented this argument though, because you probably unintentionally so are making a scientific argument, just as an evolutionist would. Just replace gravity with evolution. You even presented evidence to support you claim for gravity, just as any scientist would. So what if I come along and say, “no this gravity thing is all a bunch of dark magic, what is really going on is that God is responsible for the phenomenon you call gravity. Well you would respond, politely. Okay sir that’s interesting, what’s your evidence?

I hear so many like yourself saying that you want all these additional “theories” taught to our children. Fine, teach them in church, in philosophy class, in religious studies, but if your theory lacks evidence it has no place in a Science classroom.


Vortex

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by revtj

Capitalist society or not, I cannot approve of binding the conscience of young minds to be anti-science and teaching creation with an either/or approach to science and the bible. For me, that is a form of spiritual abuse, and while I respect their right to build the museum and operate peacefully under the law, I feel no differently about this than I do the Moonies: they are involved in a web of deceit that messes with people's minds, creates unnecessary guilt, distorts their ability to live in love and charity with other christians, and typically do not show a respect for nature and creation in terms of stewardship. (Many of them also believe a nuclear war is inevitable according to bible prophecy.)

So I choose to call it what it is: junk science and cult mentality.

From sourcewatch:

One of the pictures in the creation museum article you link to is of Rev Sun Myung Moon and his wife. Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the head of the Unification Church and the founder of the Washington Times.


The caption for that photo reads:

Religious prophets, some even claiming to be messiah, have claimed to hear new messages from God that add to the Bible. But none of their views have won the hearts of the majority of the church.

I find it interesting that they are either unaware of, or intentionally do not mention his media, financial and political ties, and support of everything that the "majority of the [conservative] church" wholeheartedly does adhere to.

[revtj]

I still don't get why being nude wouldn't be a return to biblical creation...it says they made the clothes, not God, and God never said "Keep wearing them or you'll be sinning."

PS Regarding that photo in the display which says "after the flood other nations developed alternative creation myths..." That is just plain ignorant. The oldest creation myth is the story of Tiamat, and there are thousands of religious stories older than the Hebrew Bible. How stupid.

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Oh, why did I click on that link??

I had no intention of checking out the link until I read your post Z. Thanks!



:r ofl:

Yeah, sorta how I feel about the creation museum!

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by tdogg

I had no intention of checking out the link until I read your post Z. Thanks!



:r ofl:

!

Sorry!

Now. 'Scuse me while I go question my sexual orientation again.

[progressive4christ]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

I heard about the opening of this "museum" on NPR.

First off let me say that I believe people have the right to have a "museum" about what they wish. I also think I (and others) have the right to disagree and criticize.

Also just to state my position on evolution/creation: I believe that God created the universe and all the laws by which it operates. Whether it took 6 days or billions of years doesn't matter to me. I believe in the Biblical account, but I do not look at it as a scientific document. I think the creation account may be more figuative than literal; I don't think that being figurative lessens the meaning at all. I believe that God created a mature universe with evolution already in place and all fully formed. I see no conflict with a divine creation and a universe 15 billion years old. God can create anything at any age.

I'm taking a long time to get to my point. There are so many varied ideas as to how God created the world. There is the 4004 BC creation date that some people swear is the only scriptural option. Others say that each day of creation was millions or billions of years; they have Bible verses to prove it. Others say that all formations, extinctions etc. were caused by the flood. Everyone is sure they have the "correct" Biblical explanation.

So if we have a "Creation" museum, whose view of creation do we use for the museum? And what do we do with the scientific facts? What I find offensive is not that people have a museum, but that they select only facts that support an already predetermined idea. To be real science one has to deal with the facts as they are uncovered. This museum masquerades as science. It also emphasizes the divide between creation and evolution. I have heard from a lot of Christians who, like me, have no trouble in accepting both views and see no real conflict between the two.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

Great comment and well thought out.

[sjbouza]

I just have one statement to make, and for those of you that have read some of my other posts you will understand how hard this is for me.

Incest was alright, but I cant marry the man I love? Go figure

Ok, I lied...I have another question. Didnt the Bible say that Cains wife was from a different land? So how were they related???

Someone please...I am sooooo confused.

What about the "pre-Adamite" earth? The first earth in Genesis 1:1? The one that was created and destroyed by God. Read Genesis 1:1-2 carefully...I mean CAREFULLY!!! If you can get hold of a "Dakes Annotated Bible" you will see what I am talking about.

[dewdrop_world]

Related to this topic is Jerry Coyne's review, I mean, utter decimation in The New Republic (June 18 '07) of Michael Behe's latest apologia for intelligent design, a new book called The Edge of Evolution. Choice quotes are too numerous to reproduce, but here's just one:

Originally Posted by Prof. Coyne

So Behe is back now, with a new book and a brand new theory that puts the intelligent designer back into biology. What has Behe now found to resurrect his campaign for ID? It's rather pathetic, really. Basically, he now admits that almost the entire edifice of evolutionary theory is true: evolution, natural selection, common ancestry. His one novel claim that is that the genetic variation that fuels natural selection -- mutation -- is produced not by random changes in DNA, as evolutionists maintain, but by an intelligent designer. That is, he sees God as the Great Mutator.

... whereupon he proceeds to explain exactly how Behe misunderstands (or misrepresents) what is meant in scientific literature by "random mutation." (Behe suggests, incorrectly, that it's a purely random process that could never result, on its own, in complex organisms, where in reality, biology has understood for many decades that mutations happen without regard for whether or not they support complexity, or even environmental adaptation. The mutations are neutral; it's natural selection that enforces the purpose of survival in a given environment.)

Of course, proponents of ID comfort themselves with the thought that hatchet jobs like this one represent nothing more than the insecurity of an academic orthodoxy afraid to consider competing theories. Nonsense -- science always welcomes theories that have explanatory power, even if the theories overturn much of what we thought we knew (as quantum mechanics did). Evolution, like quantum mechanics, has survived in the scientific world because it made testable predictions that have been verified. Where are the comparable hypotheses from ID?

It's intellectual natural selection at work -- lots of new ideas all the time; the strong ones gain support from observation, while the weak ones die for lack of it.

James

[RedneckDyke]

I saw a couple pictures of the dinosaurs at the creation museum. They are helping the people out, Flintstones style. Or Dinotopia. I perfer my dinos mixing with humans in a more dramatic way. Like the raptors at Jurrassic park. Or the T Rex in Land of the Lost. Remember that show? With those lizard people in that crystal cave? Talk about creepy! BRRRRRRRR


Seriously though. That museum is a joke. Why don't they build a museum saying that the pyramids were built by aliens from Mars. Or that Queen Elizabeth I was really a guy in drag. It would be about as accurate as the stuff at the creation museum.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by RedneckDyke

I saw a couple pictures of the dinosaurs at the creation museum. They are helping the people out, Flintstones style. Or Dinotopia. I perfer my dinos mixing with humans in a more dramatic way.

Exactly, they're trying to indoctrinate children into believing that dinosaurs lived with humans. But where's the blood and guts?

It's the perfect opportunity, yet it's perfectly lost on them!

[tdogg]

Oooooohhhhh! Jurassic Park! Nothing like wandering around in the woods, knowing velociraptors are watching you...... LOVE IT!

Yeah, hmmmm, dinosaurs and humans and other mammals and no blood or guts..... A few fossils and some made up statues and pictures don't mean it's real folks (speaking to anyone involved in the creation museum). Any more than the movie Jurassic Park made the T Rex real in the movie...

[BrentRichards]

Yeah, c'mon, we all know dinosaurs were like this:

[paul]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I may catch heat for including this link, but it seems they've got the filled out angle covered (pun intended).

http://www.aussiebum.com/en/new/?modelid=482

Me? Give me a sunny day at Black's Beach in San Diego. The sun and sand and nothing else.

Daniel!!!
omg, I'm supposed to be being good. I guess the water in Australia is really warm. sigh.