The Creation Museum: Is it irresponsible? [Archive]

T_L_H

05-29-2007, 12:59 PM

I'm not saying it should be repressed, but they are drifting into the public sector now, which makes it everyone's business if they want to teach it as fact to the public.

I'm for it if they said "This is what WE BELIEVE." But they are saying "THIS IS HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED".

Evolution is taught as "THIS IS HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED!" It is taught in the public sector despite the blaring lack of evidence. I am biased, and I'll say that outright, but I see no problem with a counter theory being presented.

Also, I'm really having a problem with the fact that so many people are calling "creationism" un-scientific. It is no more unscientific than the theories of evolution or the big bang.
Creationism is backed up by a large amount of evidence, on par with, or even more so than evolution.

For those of you interested in the evidence, I'd start by recommending a book called "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe. The book does a great job of showing the "biochemical challenge to evolution", as Behe puts it. It even has chapters on the effects of this evidence, what it means, and what people are left to choose from.

Dr Hooch

05-29-2007, 01:03 PM

Evolution is taught as "THIS IS HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED!" It is taught in the public sector despite the blaring lack of evidence. I am biased, and I'll say that outright, but I see no problem with a counter theory being presented.

Creationism isn't a theory

We're using the scientific definition of the world

creationism isn't a theory just a (pretty funny) idea

Anyway I am all for this museum

I'm pretty sure there's something in your laws about the rights of parody which is clearly what this is

"Notice the sharp teeth T-rex used to eat vegetables and smile nicely at the other animals in the arc"

T_L_H

05-29-2007, 01:11 PM

Creationism isn't a theory

We're using the scientific definition of the world

creationism isn't a theory just a (pretty funny) idea

Anyway I am all for this museum

I'm pretty sure there's something in your laws about the rights of parody which is clearly what this is

"Notice the sharp teeth T-rex used to eat vegetables and smile nicely at the other animals in the arc"

How is it not a theory? As far as I know, the scientific method works as follows:

1. Observation is made (In this case, that we exist, and that animals exist and that they we have many different species, genuses, ect.

2. Hypothesis is made (In this case, that these creatures either evolved from a lower state, or were created by an intelligent force.)

3. Hypothesis is tested by experimentation (In this case, through plaleontology, geology, ect.)

4. Hypothesis either fits the evidence provided by the experimentation (as in the case of creationsim) or does not, and must be adapted or completely abadoned. (in the case of evolution)

5. Hypothesis becomes a theory after rigorous testing

6. After centuries of testing, theory becomes a law.

How is this not science?

Reaganista

05-29-2007, 01:13 PM

2. Hypothesis is made (In this case, that these creatures either evolved from a lower state, or were created by an intelligent force.)
that's not a hypothesis it's a false dichotomy

T_L_H

05-29-2007, 01:14 PM

that's not a hypothesis it's a false dichotomy

Explain...

Oh, and for those of you who call creation, "unsicentific" Take a look at this list of scientistis who verify it's truth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

The_Passenger

05-29-2007, 01:16 PM

4. Hypothesis either fits the evidence provided by the experimentation (as in the case of creationsim) or does not, and must be adapted or completely abadoned. (in the case of evolution)

Please tell me you're kidding

gregulus

05-29-2007, 01:25 PM

Please tell me you're kidding

Yeah, I'd like TLH to post his evidence that fits so well in this thread in his own words.

Pastorius

05-29-2007, 01:27 PM

I don't know how there is any evidence to suggest the Earth is about 6000 years old.

Mr. Ron

05-29-2007, 01:30 PM

Well if the scientific community can call their version of history fact then why shouldn't religious people? Admittedly i think that creationism is stupid but the only people who are going to go there will already believe that nonsense any way.

Science is based in reality and evidence. There is also various tests and experiments that back their facts up. Creationism isn't science.

Mr. Ron

05-29-2007, 01:32 PM

Evolution is taught as "THIS IS HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED!" It is taught in the public sector despite the blaring lack of evidence. I am biased, and I'll say that outright, but I see no problem with a counter theory being presented.

Also, I'm really having a problem with the fact that so many people are calling "creationism" un-scientific. It is no more unscientific than the theories of evolution or the big bang.
Creationism is backed up by a large amount of evidence, on par with, or even more so than evolution.

For those of you interested in the evidence, I'd start by recommending a book called "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe. The book does a great job of showing the "biochemical challenge to evolution", as Behe puts it. It even has chapters on the effects of this evidence, what it means, and what people are left to choose from.
Thats because evolution is both theory and fact. You saying there is lack of evidecne shows that you know close to nothing about evolution.

The boldened part is either a really bad lie put forth by creationists.

This is how creationism and science works works: http://i9.tinypic.com/4mm8jti.png

Reaganista

05-29-2007, 01:35 PM

Explain...

Oh, and for those of you who call creation, "unsicentific" Take a look at this list of scientistis who verify it's truth:
your 'hypothesis' is basically 'if there's no evidence for evolution then god did it'
that's a false dichotomy

a real hypothesis would be something like 'species evolve over time due to the principle of the survival of the fittest' or something like that

if it turns out you can't prove that all that means is you don't know the answer
you can't include 2 conflicting ideas in the same hypothesis

Mr. Ron

05-29-2007, 01:37 PM

gregulus

05-29-2007, 01:42 PM

Thats nice, but its a fact that most respected scientists do not believe in creationism.

And many of the ones who do believe in God (Francis Collins) still firmly believe in evolution.

GreyHam

05-29-2007, 01:51 PM

behold the completely unshakable truth that evolution is fact

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v618/GreyHam/seemonkeydo.jpg

gregulus

05-29-2007, 01:56 PM

I would like TLH to clarify something. Do dismiss the idea of a common ancestor, or do you dismiss the idea that evolution occurs at all.

peeted

05-29-2007, 01:56 PM

Science is based in reality and evidence. There is also various tests and experiments that back their facts up. Creationism isn't science.
Yes but if your a creationist you obviously dont see science as the be all and end all.

Mr. Ron

05-29-2007, 01:57 PM

Yes but if your a creationist you obviously dont see science as the be all and end all.

Well yeah. I think it's pretty dangerous to be that way too, but oh well we let people think what they want.

Dr Hooch

05-29-2007, 02:15 PM

This is how creationism and science works works: http://i9.tinypic.com/4mm8jti.png

:lol: best thing

Explain...

Oh, and for those of you who call creation, "unsicentific" Take a look at this list of scientistis who verify it's truth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Answers in Genesis is not a legitimate source, period.

Anyway

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Akira

05-29-2007, 02:22 PM

TLH is trolling. He has to be. No one could possibly think that the fact that we exist is evidence to support Creationism.

Like most things, this can be well-expressed through Family Guy:
http://www.viren.ca/images/hierarchy_of_retardation_thumb.jpg

TheClap

05-29-2007, 02:48 PM

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thread.php?topic_id=905

Another list. Scientist who support evolution named Steve.

This is what Dr. Hooches link is referring to.

Rosca

05-29-2007, 03:33 PM

I just think it's wrong to teach a kid that we lived with dinosaurs, and have that kid grow up to teach others blatant lies. Sort of a domino effect.

Yeah, I see your point. But, this is a closed area and admission is voluntary. To play devil's advocate, isn't it just like opening an evolution museum (philosophically speaking)? One can go, but what one takes from it is completely up to the person.
As for lies, they are perspective. If creationists trully, and whole-heartidly believe their teachings then it may swim in the waters of dumb, but I personally wouldn't go as far to say blatant lying. Really, this is all they know, by choice or not.
I am a firm believer in personal responsibility. The children that go there don't have to believe it. There is SO much information on different views that they could almost research anything if they are willing to find a way.

Not meaning to be an ***, just trying to give perspective.

TheDarkHorse

05-29-2007, 05:10 PM

http://www.creationmuseum.org/
Now, is teaching blatantly ridiculous personal points of view as fact irresponsible to the general public? Do we have a responsibility as one race to keep things like this in the personal opinion category and teach real facts, or should we just let impressionable minds be effected by this?
you almost sound like a joke.

I dont see how teaching creationism (or evolution for that matter) can cause any real harm to anyone, deeming it irresponsible.

By the way, arent you the same person that argues in favor of freedom of speech?

Hababi

05-29-2007, 07:14 PM

:confused: Who cares? Seriously, why care? Don't like it, don't go to it. I find it far more offensive, on a moral level, that followers of David Duke teach their children that the Holocaust didn't happen, but that's their right to do so, than that some folks are going to open up a museum that goes against the widely held scientific opinion on the genesis of the planet.

Cain

05-29-2007, 07:55 PM

Evolution is taught as "THIS IS HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED!" It is taught in the public sector despite the blaring lack of evidence. I am biased, and I'll say that outright, but I see no problem with a counter theory being presented.

Also, I'm really having a problem with the fact that so many people are calling "creationism" un-scientific. It is no more unscientific than the theories of evolution or the big bang.
Creationism is backed up by a large amount of evidence, on par with, or even more so than evolution.

For those of you interested in the evidence, I'd start by recommending a book called "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe. The book does a great job of showing the "biochemical challenge to evolution", as Behe puts it. It even has chapters on the effects of this evidence, what it means, and what people are left to choose from.

oh god another one.

the number of times Behe has been discredited by people of significant scientific pedegrees, not to mention normal people who paid attention in basic science on this forum, is voluminous. just go away.

Who cares? Seriously, why care? Don't like it, don't go to it. I find it far more offensive, on a moral level, that followers of David Duke teach their children that the Holocaust didn't happen

yeah but there are no museums for that. there's a clear difference between having a biased opinion resulting from general willing ignorance, and attempting to invoke a freedom of speech right in order to present falsehoods as fact. it makes a mockery of the right to invoke it in that way.

Cain

05-29-2007, 07:59 PM

Explain...

Oh, and for those of you who call creation, "unsicentific" Take a look at this list of scientistis who verify it's truth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Posting a list of people who share your opinion is hardly proof that your opinion is the truth.

come on for someone who claims to know about the scientific method you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for people who want to post evidence in favor of their viewpoints

i'm sure there's a reason that creationists can't even come close to defending their viewpoint in a scientific way beyond attempting to poke holes in the opposing theory and then name-dropping a bunch of creationist scientists that have had books and articles published by sympathising, non-peer-reviewed journals and companies on the subject.

Hababi

05-29-2007, 07:59 PM

yeah but there are no museums for that. there's a clear difference between having a biased opinion resulting from general willing ignorance, and attempting to invoke a freedom of speech right in order to present falsehoods as fact. it makes a mockery of the right to invoke it in that way.

I'm pretty sure that some white supremacist had a traveling museum of Holocaust denial some years back.

But what's to say the folks behind the Creation museum are willfully ignorant, and not genuinely convinced? Noam Chomsky used his position of prominence in the academic community to willfully spread falsehoods about the Khmar Rouge; while I think he should've been fired, I don't see any role of government to come in and stifle opinion.

Akira

05-29-2007, 08:04 PM

I have to agree with Zero on this one. As much as I don't like the museum, it's their right to have it. Anyone who goes there is already going to be a firm Creationist, so I don't see too much harm in it.

Cain

05-29-2007, 08:05 PM

I'm pretty sure that some white supremacist had a traveling museum of Holocaust denial some years back.

But what's to say the folks behind the Creation museum are willfully ignorant, and not genuinely convinced? Noam Chomsky used his position of prominence in the academic community to willfully spread falsehoods about the Khmar Rouge; while I think he should've been fired, I don't see any role of government to come in and stifle opinion.

Khmer*

I just think it's disgusting that people exploit the benefits and freedoms of democracy to deliberately undermine its culture. They invoke their rights to freedom of speech to claim that falsehood and belief is fact and truth and are responsible for miseducating and misleading anyone who will listen. Thus they are being totally irresponsible citizens. If these people are not to be punished officially they should at least be shunned by the community and the populace at large. Surely you recognize that the justifications that are behind both support for the creationist museum and for holocaust denial literature are on about the same axis of disinformative drivel painted as respectable revisionism or "counter-argument" or "truth." And they are equally dangerous to democracy, and to any claim we have as a nation to be at the forefront of the civilized world.

The difference between truth and falsehood dressed up as truth has been legislated in free societies, with clear distinctions on what they are and what the penalty for propogating one kind of information should be. It is not beyond us to do the same.

Akira

05-29-2007, 08:14 PM

Anxious

05-29-2007, 08:24 PM

I just think it's disgusting that people exploit the benefits and freedoms of democracy to deliberately undermine its culture. They invoke their rights to freedom of speech to claim that falsehood and belief is fact and truth and are responsible for miseducating and misleading anyone who will listen. Thus they are being totally irresponsible citizens. If these people are not to be punished officially they should at least be shunned by the community and the populace at large. Surely you recognize that the justifications that are behind both support for the creationist museum and for holocaust denial literature are on about the same axis of disinformative drivel painted as respectable revisionism or "counter-argument" or "truth." And they are equally dangerous to democracy, and to any claim we have as a nation to be at the forefront of the civilized world.

The difference between truth and falsehood dressed up as truth has been legislated in free societies, with clear distinctions on what they are and what the penalty for propogating one kind of information should be. It is not beyond us to do the same.
So who is going to be the person to who decides who needs to be "punished officially"? By your statement I infer you mean government intervention.

Cain

05-29-2007, 08:33 PM

Your first sentence is really flawed, because these people obviously do not believe that they are undermining the culture, but enhancing it. In there opinion, teaching evolution is just "secular extremists" (to borrow a Jerry Faldwell phrase) trying to undermine culture.

Don't confuse things here. They believe that such theories undermine RELIGIOUS culture and RELIGIOUS tradition. The only reason we have people like the ones that I'm talking about is because the church's history of getting pwned very badly by scientific minds such as Galileo have forced them to play by science's rules (religious scholars hoping to prove their case must now award the "reason"-based arguments far more currency than they might like and pay homage to its very linguistic structure in every current advancement of its message).

Perhaps the people who would go to the Creation Museum won'ty be thinking about the politics of the belief the museum supports. But you'd better bet that the people who are in charge of that movement are VERY aware of power-play relationships in the modern American world, and exploit that environment by adapting their message to conform to it by all outside appearences. They do this by presenting things like "intelligent design" as reasoned scientific counter-argument rather than the diluted creationism it is, and inventing the "Creation Museum" in the form of a natural history museum, but which teaches a non-scientific and non-historical viewpoint in reality.

Do you think Falwell, who you so lovingly quoted, was just a hokey defender-of-the-right-to-believe-and-hold-faith-based-opinions flower person? He presented himself that way but he was a ruthless political manipulator of his message. Things like the creationist museum aren't benign relics of a more traditional way of thinking like Amish homes and Sturbridge Village. They are political tools and weapons designed to advance a cause very concerned with its loss of control over the moral and dialectical currency of the modern world.

So who is going to be the person to who decides who needs to be "punished officially"? By your statement I infer you mean government intervention.

That's the thing that makes me sick at heart. It is impossible for a democracy to have an effective safeguard against this kind of thing while still remaining democratic. The best safeguard we could muster is continued education on an advanced level, and to encourage debate and diversity of thought in areas where there isn't much. Most of these extremely isolated political viewpoints, which have all sorts of false dialectical reasonings behind them, are the products of the existance of a social or economic need the dialecticism fills, combined with ignorance of a wider reality. Diminishing the degree to which people have those kinds of needs while educating them is the best way to combat the potential ability of this disinformation to do damage to democracy. Sadly, with the way our government treats the concurrent issues of poverty and ignorance (as things to be exploited rather than cured) this becomes rather difficult to see happening in my lifetime.

Anxious

05-29-2007, 08:37 PM

Don't confuse things here. They believe that such theories undermine RELIGIOUS culture and RELIGIOUS tradition. The only reason we have people like the ones that I'm talking about is because the church's history of getting pwned very badly by scientific minds such as Galileo have forced them to play by science's rules (religious scholars hoping to prove their case must now award the "reason"-based arguments far more currency than they might like and pay homage to its very linguistic structure in every current advancement of its message).

Perhaps the people who would go to the Creation Museum won'ty be thinking about the politics of the belief the museum supports. But you'd better bet that the people who are in charge of that movement are VERY aware of power-play relationships in the modern American world, and exploit that environment by adapting their message to conform to it by all outside appearences. They do this by presenting things like "intelligent design" as reasoned scientific counter-argument rather than the diluted creationism it is, and inventing the "Creation Museum" in the form of a natural history museum, but which teaches a non-scientific and non-historical viewpoint in reality.

Do you think Falwell, who you so lovingly quoted, was just a hokey defender-of-the-right-to-believe-and-hold-faith-based-opinions flower person? He presented himself that way but he was a ruthless political manipulator of his message. Things like the creationist museum aren't benign relics of a more traditional way of thinking like Amish homes and Sturbridge Village. They are political tools and weapons designed to advance a cause very concerned with its loss of control over the moral and dialectical currency of the modern world.
All of what you said is very true. However, I would never use that as a justification to stifle their free speech. My belief is this: If people are stupid enough to buy into it, its their minds. If enough people buy into it to start influencing government, rational people better take a stand. If they don't, then well the majority of people in this democracy are going to be diluted, but since its a democracy, this is how the state will be run. Its imperfect, but once you start stifling free speech, its will stop being a democracy, and turn to a facist system which nobody wants. What you posted is a rallying point for rational people to speak out, not to stifle free speech.

Cain

05-29-2007, 08:40 PM

See my edit.

Smokey D

05-29-2007, 08:41 PM

The only reason we have people like the ones that I'm talking about is because the church's history of getting pwned very badly by scientific minds such as Galileo have forced them to play by science's rules (religious scholars hoping to prove their case must now award the "reason"-based arguments far more currency than they might like and pay homage to its very linguistic structure in every current advancement of its message).

This isn't really very fair. The church has always had a very strong scholastic tradition and was a major source of scientific contribution for most of its existence. The church has also traditionally emphasised faith and reason, as it draws much of its ideological from classical philosophy.

Occam's razor itself comes from the abbot of Ockham in England.

Anxious

05-29-2007, 08:43 PM

See my edit.]
That's the thing that makes me sick at heart. It is impossible for a democracy to have an effective safeguard against this kind of thing while still remaining democratic. The best safeguard we could muster is continued education on an advanced level, and to encourage debate and diversity of thought in areas where there isn't much. Most of these extremely isolated political viewpoints, which have all sorts of false dialectical reasonings behind them, are the products of the existance of a social or economic need the dialecticism fills, combined with ignorance of a wider reality. Diminishing the degree to which people have those kinds of needs while educating them is the best way to combat the potential ability of this disinformation to do damage to democracy. Sadly, with the way our government treats the concurrent issues of poverty and ignorance (as things to be exploited rather than cured) this becomes rather difficult to see happening in my lifetime.
Agreed.

Akira

05-29-2007, 08:44 PM

Oops Cain, I misread your post.
But don't think that I like Faldwell. He was a slimeball - I was using the term facetiously.

Cain

05-29-2007, 08:51 PM

I meant the political forces within religion (i.e. people) that are more concerned with preserving influence over a body of subjects by removing all threats to the infallibility of a particular dialecticism have dealt very badly with science, because science shows that elements of the dialecticism are untrue (thus diminishing the degree to which that ideology can hold the sort of power, not to mention relevance, it claims to have, whether philosophically or concretely) and yet those forces, desperate to preserve their influence, have created lines of reasoning that require followers to act contrary to reality.

This, of course, has only resulted in the diminishment of that influence ultimately, since people are rational beings and accept what they can obviously see with their own eyes in the end.

I meant that more so than the philosophical benchmarks upon which the religion's belief structure is founded. I'm aware of the Catholic Church's celebration of the marriage between faith and reason. What I also know is that plenty of people who enjoy power will try to control the degree to which a person even has enough information to reason from: this results in propoganda, from a position of dominance smearing opposition with "crackpot lunacy", and from an inferior position as religion now occupies in this part of the world claiming "injurious libel and extremist persecution." And plenty of religious figures have done this and are doing it in the United States.

EDIT: To Smokey.

Mr. Ron

05-29-2007, 10:05 PM

you almost sound like a joke.

I dont see how teaching creationism (or evolution for that matter) can cause any real harm to anyone, deeming it irresponsible.

By the way, arent you the same person that argues in favor of freedom of speech?

I'm not saying they should be put out of business or should be suppressed. I'm simply saying that teaching this stuff as fact is detrimental to actual fact.

Mr. Ron

05-29-2007, 10:09 PM

This isn't really very fair. The church has always had a very strong scholastic tradition and was a major source of scientific contribution for most of its existence. The church has also traditionally emphasised faith and reason, as it draws much of its ideological from classical philosophy.

Occam's razor itself comes from the abbot of Ockham in England.

They also sort of had a policy of either torturing you or forcing you to admit you were "wrong" to not threaten their teachings.

Also lets face it here folks, how here honestly believes in the flood?

YDload

05-29-2007, 10:13 PM

Yeah, I see your point. But, this is a closed area and admission is voluntary. To play devil's advocate, isn't it just like opening an evolution museum (philosophically speaking)? One can go, but what one takes from it is completely up to the person.

They do have evolution museums, they're called "museums."

Also lets face it here folks, who here honestly believes in the flood?

there is evidence of a large-scale flood several thousand years ago. it didnt cover the whole Earth, but it certainly inundated a large portion of what Fertile Crescent civilizations considered the world at the time.

Mr. Ron

05-29-2007, 10:22 PM

They do have evolution museums, they're called "museums."

there is evidence of a large-scale flood several thousand years ago. it didnt cover the whole Earth, but it certainly inundated a large portion of what Fertile Crescent civilizations considered the world at the time.

I know that but the creationists talk about a global flood.

PerpetualBurn

05-29-2007, 10:28 PM

yeah but there are no museums for that.

It's probably hard to find artifacts for something you don't think happened though.

"Here is not a picture of a Nazi death camp. Because there weren't any. And on your left you won't see a mass grave. Because they didn't exist"

Quick tour.

Danger Bird

05-30-2007, 12:09 AM

It's not the museum's fault for teaching crap so much as it is the fault of the public for swallowing it.

Really, I don't see how anybody can deny evolution when we have witnessed it happening in bacteria, which reproduce at an extremely fast rate, over the last few decades.

Smokey D

05-30-2007, 01:06 AM

They also sort of had a policy of either torturing you or forcing you to admit you were "wrong" to not threaten their teachings.

Well, yeah but what does that have to do with anything.

The church is often maligned without taking into consideration its positive aspects.

Iskandar

05-30-2007, 01:16 AM

Occam's razor itself comes from the abbot of Ockham in England.William of Ockham was excommunicated....

Smokey D

05-30-2007, 01:55 AM

Oh snap.

Doesn't change my point that the Church is a broad institution with different approaches to science and, in fact, most things.

Charlie Manson

05-30-2007, 02:20 AM

it's wrong.

it's like if someone made a Santa museum and actually believed he was real and devoted their life to it

infinate_ammo

05-30-2007, 03:09 AM

it's wrong.

it's like if someone made a Santa museum and actually believed he was real and devoted their life to it

Please lets not bring Santa down to the level of creationism.

I'm against this Museum, sure free speech and whatever but things like this are a serious threat to humanity. The amount of Americans that believe in creationism is rediculously high as it is, this museum is only going to produce more idiots. Can you imagine a world where creationism or intelligent design are taught in schools instead of evolution?

Akira

05-30-2007, 05:49 AM

Opening a museum is hardly equitable to teaching it in schools. A museum will help parents indoctrinate their children, but they could have done that anyways.

Pastorius

05-30-2007, 06:06 AM

Aren't some American states starting to teach it anyway?

Dr Hooch

05-30-2007, 06:14 AM

Aren't some American states starting to teach it anyway?

Kansas have been trying very hard.

:amaze:

05-30-2007, 06:39 AM

A fully engaging, sensory experience for guests. Murals and realistic scenery, computer-generated visual effects, over fifty exotic animals, life-sized people and dinosaur animatronics, and a special-effects theater complete with misty sea breezes and rumbling seats.

I dunno ... sounds like it could be fun.

:amaze:

Pastorius

05-30-2007, 06:40 AM

This kind of museum will surely only encourage the teaching of creationism in schools though.

I don't think they should be shut down or whatever, I think the line should be drawn at schools teaching creationism. Other than that, it's fine.

John Paul Harrison

05-30-2007, 06:43 AM

I'm against this Museum, sure free speech and whatever but things like this are a serious threat to humanity. This museum is only going to produce more idiots.
but...
A museum will help parents indoctrinate their children, but they could have done that anyways.

i think that's the basic argument here. i live about 15 minutes from this museum, and tbqh this strikes me as nothing more than preaching to the choir.

as such, i don't think it poses enough of a threat to justify a total disregard for "free speech and whatever".

PerpetualBurn

05-30-2007, 07:09 AM

I'm against this Museum, sure free speech and whatever but things like this are a serious threat to humanity.

Since the overwhelming majority of the scientific community don't believe in creationism, this is the single greatest exaggeration in history.

Science has nothing to fear from creationism. As I said before, if creationism is publicised then it can be publically discredited.

Mr. Ron

05-30-2007, 07:28 AM

Well, yeah but what does that have to do with anything.

The church is often maligned without taking into consideration its positive aspects.

Oh, there's no doubt that the church was a massive importance to keeping a lot of people's together over history. I'm just giving the other side of the coin.

peeted

05-30-2007, 07:48 AM

i think banning museums and other learning establishments just because they put forward a point of view the majority dont agree with is a far worse threat to humanity.

Dr Hooch

05-30-2007, 07:57 AM

i think banning museums and other learning establishments just because they put forward a point of view the majority dont agree with is a far worse threat to humanity.

Yes

just imagine the overwhelming use of "what've you got to hide" from the AiG crowd...

Mr. Ron

05-30-2007, 07:58 AM

Noooo I'm not suggesting we ban anything, since that would violate their 1st amendment rights. I'm suggesting whether or not this kind of thinking is irresponsible for children to learn. Do parents have a responsibility to teach their kids what THEY believe just so that their kids will think the same thing, or do they have the responsibility of teaching them established, tested and proven things?

Dr Hooch

05-30-2007, 08:04 AM

Pastorius

05-30-2007, 08:50 AM

peeted

05-30-2007, 09:29 AM

I think they have the responsibility of letting them make their own minds up.
When you have kids are you doing to teach them that evolution is just a theory and that there are other theories about the world as well which are also acceptable? Or are you going to tell them that evolution is fact?

Reaganista

05-30-2007, 09:33 AM

I'm against this Museum, sure free speech and whatever but things like this are a serious threat to humanity
no
people who say 'sure free speech and whatever' are a serious threat to humanity

Dr Hooch

05-30-2007, 09:54 AM

When you have kids are you doing to teach them that evolution is just a theory and that there are other theories about the world as well which are also acceptable? Or are you going to tell them that evolution is fact?

I would teach mine that evolution is currently the best explanation we have and that it may be improved in the future

but that ID and creationism are "not as good an explanation" because they're incomplete and there evidence supports evolution

Mr. Ron

05-30-2007, 11:03 AM

I think they have the responsibility of letting them make their own minds up.

I agree, it's just that I find it alarming that so many kids will grow up thinking we basically lived like the Flintstones for thousands of years. :^/

Cain

05-30-2007, 11:08 AM

I agree, it's just that I find it alarming that so many kids will grow up thinking we basically lived like the Flintstones for thousands of years. :^/

It'll sure be a shock when the little kids start looking for other books talking about human life with the dinosaurs and the best they'll come up with is "1 Million Years BC" starring scantily-clad Raquel Welch.

Somehow I don't think that would encourage certain other religious-based sensibilities within these families.

So yeah, I see where people are coming from when they say that the overwhelming vast majority of mainstream literature a child could be exposed to says something other than the parents and the one "creation museum" in the country.

Even so, I don't like just writing off a section of the American population as hopelessly muddled in the head. I would like it if we were all truly on a certain level of common education and societal development, so that the people who claim America is a great nation won't be proven wrong by, uh, Americans.

Mr. Ron

05-30-2007, 11:22 AM

I don't write them off, I just consider them uninformed. But, I guess we all are when it comes to certain things.

Anxious

05-30-2007, 11:39 AM

They're more than uniformed, they disregard any type of rational arguement against it for the most part.

Pastorius

05-30-2007, 05:49 PM

When you have kids are you doing to teach them that evolution is just a theory and that there are other theories about the world as well which are also acceptable? Or are you going to tell them that evolution is fact?

I would tell them that evolution is the most likely possibility by far. And I'd tell them about creationism, I'd also point out the various downfalls of creationism, I admit. But only because there is evidence for evolution, and virtually none for creationism.

YDload

05-30-2007, 05:50 PM

a theory is not the same as an idea, shut up creationists.

man did not evolve from monkeys and apes, but all three groups share a common ancestor, then diverged from that line several million years ago. that's why we still have monkeys and apes, shut up creationists.

Pastorius

05-30-2007, 05:51 PM

a theory is not the same as an idea, shut up creationists.

It is if it's in the bible.

:rolleyes: silly scientists

deathscreamingsheep

05-31-2007, 08:04 AM

Aren't some American states starting to teach it anyway?

Whilst it isn't on the curriculum, a lot of British schools teach creationism as well.

Pastorius

05-31-2007, 08:09 AM

Whilst it isn't on the curriculum, a lot of British schools teach creationism as well.

I must say I've never heard of this.

Maybe in a private Catholic School I guess...

Bron-Yr-Aur

05-31-2007, 08:10 AM

It's not irresponsible, let them spend their time and money on whatever museum they want to.

I live like twenty minutes from this place, I may check it out.

The_Passenger

05-31-2007, 08:16 AM

I must say I've never heard of this.

Maybe in a private Catholic School I guess...

I'm in the UK, went to a normal state school and was taught Creationism. It wasn't a problem though, as it was taught in Citizenship as opposed to biology or physics.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case in many UK schools.

peeted

05-31-2007, 08:19 AM

That's not really the same as being "taught" it though, its being taught what some people believe.

The_Passenger

05-31-2007, 08:24 AM

We weren't told "some people believe that God created the world", we were taught how he supposedly went about it. Not very in depth, I'll admit, but I don't see how that's not being taught the basic idea and how it happened.

Pastorius

05-31-2007, 08:45 AM

There is a vast difference between

"The story of creationism goes like this"

and

"Creationism happened, and it happened like this."

Danger Bird

05-31-2007, 09:29 AM

I'm pretty sure the Passenger is saying that your second quote is what happened to him.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 09:44 AM

Even so, I don't like just writing off a section of the American population as hopelessly muddled in the head. I would like it if we were all truly on a certain level of common education and societal development, so that the people who claim America is a great nation won't be proven wrong by, uh, Americans.

Believing or not believing in evolution has little bearing on America's being a great nation. One could believe in literal Creationism and still become a great scientist (obviously not in any evolutionary area :p).

I find it a much more telling of a subgroup of Americans that 33% of Democrats think George W Bush was involved with 9/11.

guitarguy242

05-31-2007, 09:50 AM

Oh, and for those of you who call creation, "unsicentific" Take a look at this list of scientistis who verify it's truth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

The fact that some scientists agree with the idea of intelligent design doesn't make the idea scientific, since there is no evidence to support it.

The_Passenger

05-31-2007, 10:04 AM

There is a vast difference between

"The story of creationism goes like this"

and

"Creationism happened, and it happened like this."

I suppose it wasn't really either with me, although it might admittedly be closer to the former.

We were told without anyone saying either of those - the teacher just got on with the story. The teacher didn't say "This is how it happened" but there was no "This is only what some people believe". It was much the same when we learnt about evolution - it was as if the teachers were trying to avoid a debate that could quite easily get out of control but not sayin either one of those.

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 10:12 AM

Believing or not believing in evolution has little bearing on America's being a great nation. One could believe in literal Creationism and still become a great scientist (obviously not in any evolutionary area :p).

I find it a much more telling of a subgroup of Americans that 33% of Democrats think George W Bush was involved with 9/11.
I would hesitate to take them seriously. I could look past them thinking we lived with dinos, but It would just be a glaring mark against them.

Eliminator

05-31-2007, 10:26 AM

haven't you seen the flinstones?

your whole argument is void!

peeted

05-31-2007, 10:33 AM

I suppose it wasn't really either with me, although it might admittedly be closer to the former.

We were told without anyone saying either of those - the teacher just got on with the story. The teacher didn't say "This is how it happened" but there was no "This is only what some people believe". It was much the same when we learnt about evolution - it was as if the teachers were trying to avoid a debate that could quite easily get out of control but not sayin either one of those.

I cant comment on your experience but in my experience and the experience of all of my peers it was taken for granted as part of the subjects Citizenship and RE that everything taught was merely subjective opinion and not fact, as opposed to the sciences were a general premise was that what we were taught was fact. As far as I'm aware that is the way the British curriculum is intended, maybe your teacher was just a douche.

Knifeboy

05-31-2007, 10:52 AM

I live in Denmark, and my biology teacher said in the start of one of our classes "apparently I'm supposed to spend a little time talking about creationism..... ... .. .. . Done!"..

gregulus

05-31-2007, 11:01 AM

Believing or not believing in evolution has little bearing on America's being a great nation. One could believe in literal Creationism and still become a great scientist (obviously not in any evolutionary area :p).

I find it a much more telling of a subgroup of Americans that 33% of Democrats think George W Bush was involved with 9/11.

That leaves out any area of biology. The major disagreement regarding evolution between biologists isn't whether or not evolution occurs, but the mechanisms involved (the general idea now is "modern synthesis"). It's basically universally accepted that it occurs. Evolution can be easily proven.

Cain

05-31-2007, 11:47 AM

Believing or not believing in evolution has little bearing on America's being a great nation.

I find it a much more telling of a subgroup of Americans that 33% of Democrats think George W Bush was involved with 9/11.

i would say that it does since it is a scientific paradigm shift that occured almost 200 years ago and if our population believed in creationism on a wide scale means we are adhering to an ideology that has been rendered totally obsolescent and out-of-step with western civilization's current level of technological development and scientific awareness.

thus, yes, it has a direct effect on how socially and intellectually "modern" we are and thus the degree of influence we have over other "modern" nations.

gregulus

05-31-2007, 12:24 PM

i would say that it does since it is a scientific paradigm shift that occured almost 200 years ago and if our population believed in creationism on a wide scale means we are adhering to an ideology that has been rendered totally obsolescent and out-of-step with western civilization's current level of technological development and scientific awareness.

thus, yes, it has a direct effect on how socially and intellectually "modern" we are and thus the degree of influence we have over other "modern" nations.
Not to mention, NIH funding has been increasingly hacked since the Bush administration took office. Facts regarding areas of research, namely embryonic stem cell research, have been misconstrued (the August 2001 speech where Bush claimed there were over 60 viable embryonic stem cell lines in existance ring a bell?), etc.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 12:32 PM

i would say that it does since it is a scientific paradigm shift that occured almost 200 years ago and if our population believed in creationism on a wide scale means we are adhering to an ideology that has been rendered totally obsolescent and out-of-step with western civilization's current level of technological development and scientific awareness.

thus, yes, it has a direct effect on how socially and intellectually "modern" we are and thus the degree of influence we have over other "modern" nations.

In one area of one branch of science. Come on now, don't blow things out of proportion. Evolution is insignificant for the vast majority of Americans, and belief in it or against it matters little.

Contrast that with the number of French people who think the American government was responsible for 9/11
Or the number of Arabs who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate text
Or the number of Japanese who don't accept the horrors that their predecessors brought to mainland China in the 1930's

Etc. I could go on.

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 12:34 PM

In one area of one branch of science. Come on now, don't blow things out of proportion. Evolution is insignificant for the vast majority of Americans, and belief in it or against it matters little.

Contrast that with the number of French people who think the American government was responsible for 9/11
Or the number of Arabs who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate text
Or the number of Japanese who don't accept the horrors that their predecessors brought to mainland China in the 1930's

Etc. I could go on.

Um, Biology is pretty important. So is geology and anthropology which Creationist views also have issues with.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 12:35 PM

Um, Biology is pretty important.

Not to the average every day American. Not believing in a fairly esoteric, non physically demonstratable concept of science is hardly that important for most Americans, any more than if people accepted outdated views of the nature of black holes.

Bron-Yr-Aur

05-31-2007, 12:37 PM

Evolution is insignificant for the vast majority of Americans, and belief in it or against it matters little.

Contrast that with the number of French people who think the American government was responsible for 9/11
Or the number of Arabs who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate text
Or the number of Japanese who don't accept the horrors that their predecessors brought to mainland China in the 1930's

Etc. I could go on.

Well maybe when an occupying force of creationists slaughter a bunch of scientists the issues will be of equal importance.

Until then, we can only bitch about the fact that science and logical reasoning are taking a back seat here.

With that said, it really doesn't matter whether or not a bunch of Kentuckians want to go to a museum that depicts man co-existing with some dinosaurs. Stupidity's not against the law.

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 12:37 PM

Not to the average every day American. Not believing in a fairly esoteric, non physically demonstratable concept of science is hardly that important for most Americans, any more than if people accepted outdated views of the nature of black holes.

I'm not talking about most Americans. If you're a scientist and you reject most of the scientific fields you need to find a new career.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 12:38 PM

I'm not talking about most Americans.

But Cain was.

If you're a scientist and you reject most of the scientific fields you need to find a new career.

This Creation Museum must be pretty darn impressive if it's going to convince a crop of budding scientists that literal Creationism is the truth.

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 12:39 PM

But Cain was.

This Creation Museum must be pretty darn impressive if it's going to convince a crop of budding scientists that literal Creationism is the truth.

Only if they're stupid enough.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 12:40 PM

Only if they're stupid enough.

Oh man you had to phantom edit that :\

So, translation, it ain't gonna happen.

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 12:42 PM

Oh man you had to phantom edit that :\

So, translation, it ain't gonna happen.

It can happen, since not all scientists are logical, and children are very impressionable.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 12:43 PM

It can happen, since not all scientists are logical, and children are very impressionable.

If not all scientists are logical then it matters little whether they believe in evolution or not because they're going to be crappy scientists anyway:amaze:

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 12:44 PM

If not all scientists are logical then it matters little whether they believe in evolution or not because they're going to be crappy scientists anyway:amaze:

So your admitting that creationism is crappy?

Hababi

05-31-2007, 12:46 PM

So your admitting that creationism is crappy?

The theoretical merits of Creationism aren't really the issue here :p
But I'm pretty swayed by the concept of Theistic evolution.

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 12:46 PM

The theoretical merits of Creationism aren't really the issue here :p
But I'm pretty swayed by the concept of Theistic evolution.

Ok then, what about theistic evolution convinces you that its real? Specifically.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 12:48 PM

Ok then, what about theistic evolution convinces you that its real? Specifically.

That Frances Collins believes in it :p

In case you can't tell, the subject of origins interests me little ;)

It's so much more interesting to investigate what will come, and potentially what else is out there in the Universe.

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 12:50 PM

That Frances Collins believes in it :p

In case you can't tell, the subject of origins interests me little ;)

It's so much more interesting to investigate what will come, and potentially what else is out there in the Universe.

Idk, I think where we came from is pretty important to understand who we are. :^/

Hababi

05-31-2007, 12:51 PM

Idk, I think where we came from is pretty important to understand who we are. :^/

I'm not saying that it isn't a significant area of study, I'm just saying it's not that interesting. Genetics tells us who we are, at least in the physical sense.

gregulus

05-31-2007, 12:56 PM

Not to the average every day American. Not believing in a fairly esoteric, non physically demonstratable concept of science is hardly that important for most Americans, any more than if people accepted outdated views of the nature of black holes.

Evolution's actually quite proveable, as I stated in my post above this. Analysis of allele frequency, the fact that certain species no longer recognize certain stop codons of the genetic code, etc. It's a scientifically verifed fact that genetic properties of populations change over time.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 01:04 PM

Evolution's actually quite proveable, as I stated in my post above this. Analysis of allele frequency, the fact that certain species no longer recognize certain stop codons of the genetic code, etc. It's a scientifically verifed fact that genetic properties of populations change over time.

Sure, but that's proving microevolution, and even most Creationists accept that.

Dr Hooch

05-31-2007, 01:04 PM

Believing or not believing in evolution has little bearing on America's being a great nation. One could believe in literal Creationism and still become a great scientist (obviously not in any evolutionary area :p).

No. You could not beleive in evolution and be a good scientist, but creationism is irreconcilable with the scientific method.

Not to the average every day American. Not believing in a fairly esoteric, non physically demonstratable concept of science is hardly that important for most Americans, any more than if people accepted outdated views of the nature of black holes.

BOOM there's your problem

'americans' don't give a sh!t

Hababi

05-31-2007, 01:07 PM

No. You could not beleive in evolution and be a good scientist, but creationism is irreconcilable with the scientific method.

You can still believe in it and conduct perfectly sound and valuable research in various scientific fields.

BOOM there's your problem

'americans' don't give a sh!t

They also don't care about the nature of black holes, or different theories on time travel, etc. So what?

Amit

05-31-2007, 01:10 PM

No. You could not beleive in evolution and be a good scientist, but creationism is irreconcilable with the scientific method.

its okay i dont think steve is going to understand this any time soon

can you blame him he's like an english major or something lawlz

Hababi

05-31-2007, 01:11 PM

its okay i dont think steve is going to understand this any time soon

can you blame him he's like an english major or something lawlz

Linguistics :cool:

And I'm right.

Amit

05-31-2007, 01:12 PM

that isnt helping your case lel

Hababi

05-31-2007, 01:14 PM

that isnt helping your case lel

There are scientists (not that many in the grand scheme of things) that believe in Creationism and have multiple peer reviewed scientific articles...
(not on origins, obviously)

Akira

05-31-2007, 01:16 PM

Sure, but that's proving microevolution, and even most Creationists accept that.

"Microevolution" is such a lame cop-out for Christians who don't want to believe that Creationism is stupid. If microevolution is real, then that lends a lot of credibility to the concept of macroevolution. The only reason people believe the former but cast aside the latter is a desire to be Christian.

Amit

05-31-2007, 01:17 PM

so you're saying there are scientists who believe in creationism but don't do anything meaningful in creationism

this surely marks the downfall of evolution

Hababi

05-31-2007, 01:23 PM

"Microevolution" is such a lame cop-out for Christians who don't want to believe that Creationism is stupid. If microevolution is real, then that lends a lot of credibility to the concept of macroevolution. The only reason people believe the former but cast aside the latter is a desire to be Christian.

Being Christian has little to do with believing or not believing in evolution, and again, the difference for people is the lack of physical proof. If you could present clear, physical proof of the evolution of species, most folks would believe it.

Now compare that to Japanese people who see tons of direct proof of atrocities committed in the 1930's, and dismiss it.

so you're saying there are scientists who believe in creationism but don't do anything meaningful in creationism

this surely marks the downfall of evolution

:confused: Who's talking about the downfall of evolution?

The claim was that you couldn't be a good scientist and believe in evolution, and that claim is false.

Akira

05-31-2007, 01:39 PM

Being Christian has little to do with believing or not believing in evolution, and again, the difference for people is the lack of physical proof. If you could present clear, physical proof of the evolution of species, most folks would believe it.

Are you serious? Believing or not believing in evolution most definitely has to do with religion. After all - evolution is the only secular theory that is widely believed.
Let's say you are a Christian who acknowledges that microevolution is an observable process. You have two choices:

Evolution. Since you believe in microevolution, macroevolution seems pretty logical - the best theory.
Creationism. Despite the fact that you believe in microevolution, it makes more sense that that man was created by an omnipotent higher power described in an ancient book, though no evidence supports the idea.

Now tell me how choosing the second option is not a religious choice, when the first makes much more sense.

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 01:51 PM

Being Christian has little to do with believing or not believing in evolution, and again, the difference for people is the lack of physical proof. If you could present clear, physical proof of the evolution of species, most folks would believe it.

Now compare that to Japanese people who see tons of direct proof of atrocities committed in the 1930's, and dismiss it.

:confused: Who's talking about the downfall of evolution?

The claim was that you couldn't be a good scientist and believe in evolution, and that claim is false.

Steve please read a book on the THOUSANDS of transitional fossils scientists have found over the years.

TheDarkHorse

05-31-2007, 02:02 PM

"Microevolution" is such a lame cop-out for Christians who don't want to believe that Creationism is stupid.
actually, natural adaptation and the theory of natural selection was talked about decades before Darwin visited the island. Edward Blyth, however, came to a different conclusion-one that involved a creator.

The only difference with Darwin is that he saw natural selection as atheistic in nature, which changed the act of creation to a common ancestor.

If microevolution is real, then that lends a lot of credibility to the concept of macroevolution. The only reason people believe the former but cast aside the latter is a desire to be Christian.
science is science. Anyone who irrationally denies something for the sake of believing should consider why they believe in the first place.

Now aside from your gross generalization, people place evolution into two categories for the reason that relatively short-term mutations are observable, which leads us to infer that it occurs on a larger scale (that scale, which is unobservable).

Dr Hooch

05-31-2007, 02:04 PM

You can still believe in it and conduct perfectly sound and valuable research in various scientific fields.

Disregard

for

scientific

method

They also don't care about the nature of black holes, or different theories on time travel, etc. So what?

So that is a bad thing?

its okay i dont think steve is going to understand this any time soon

can you blame him he's like an english major or something lawlz

lawl burnz

Being Christian has little to do with believing or not believing in evolution, and again, the difference for people is the lack of physical proof.

Jesus the bible is the very foundation of creationism

without it you have nothing and it sucks so...

Come on zero we know you're not as stupid as you pretend

Not believing in evolution is about as stupid as not believing in global warming

Even if either isn't as it seems you'd still've been a fool, with the evidence available, to believe otherwise

Akira

05-31-2007, 02:10 PM

actually, natural adaptation and the theory of natural selection was talked about decades before Darwin visited the island. Edward Blyth, however, came to a different conclusion-one that involved a creator.

The only difference with Darwin is that he saw natural selection as atheistic in nature, which changed the act of creation to a common ancestor.

science is science. Anyone who irrationally denies something for the sake of believing should consider why they believe in the first place.

Now aside from your gross generalization, people place evolution into two categories for the reason that relatively short-term mutations are observable, which leads us to infer that it occurs on a larger scale (that scale, which is unobservable).

I'm not sure what side you are taking...

PerpetualBurn

05-31-2007, 02:12 PM

(that scale, which is unobservable)

Well sure, if you ignore an expansive and ever-growing fossil record.

But I'm not sure why any non-moron would.

gregulus

05-31-2007, 02:13 PM

Sure, but that's proving microevolution, and even most Creationists accept that.
The distinction between micro and macro isn't important. Macroevolution is, logically, simply the broad effects of microevolution over time. We're not talking about one or two miraculous mutations that spawned a new species here.

TheDarkHorse

05-31-2007, 02:16 PM

I'm not sure what side you are taking...
i'm glad it always comes down to who's on who's side. :rolleyes:

Well sure, if you ignore an expansive and ever-growing fossil record.

But I'm not sure why any non-moron would.

of course, a piece of "evidence" that can be interpreted by BOTH creationists and evolutionists.

If evolution was observable, im sure we wouldnt have had to make all of those backwards predicitions. You know, changing the information after the fact.

Akira

05-31-2007, 02:18 PM

The distinction between micro and macro isn't important. Macroevolution is, logically, simply the broad effects of microevolution over time. We're not talking about one or two miraculous mutations that spawned a new species here.

Yeah, that's how I feel. There is no inherent difference between the two, just a matter of time.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 02:23 PM

Disregard

for

scientific

method

Published, peer reviewed articles. A good scientist is one who produces good research within his/her area of expertise.

So that is a bad thing?

Just as bad as not believing in evolution.

gregulus

05-31-2007, 02:52 PM

i'm glad it always comes down to who's on who's side. :rolleyes:

of course, a piece of "evidence" that can be interpreted by BOTH creationists and evolutionists.

If evolution was observable, im sure we wouldnt have had to make all of those backwards predicitions. You know, changing the information after the fact.

Evolution is proveable. I've already posted examples of how.

TheDarkHorse

05-31-2007, 03:12 PM

It's basically universally accepted that it occurs. Evolution can be easily proven.
"universally accepted" doesnt mean anything, especially when you consider that Newtonian physics were universally accepted.
the fact that certain species no longer recognize certain stop codons of the genetic code
this is mutation. Mutation is not evolution.

, etc. It's a scientifically verifed fact that genetic properties of populations change over time.
can you define evolution for me?

Are you simply defining it as 'a change in populations over time,' or are we going by Darwin's definition that says 'we all share a common ancestor?'

it seems like you're using two definitions for evolution and proving the definitions with each other.

Berner

05-31-2007, 03:13 PM

Darkhorse, how much training do you have as a biologist?

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 03:15 PM

"universally accepted" doesnt mean anything, especially when you consider that Newtonian physics were universally accepted.

this is mutation. Mutation is not evolution.

can you define evolution for me?

Are you simply defining it as 'a change in populations over time,' or are we going by Darwin's definition that says 'we all share a common ancestor?'

it seems like you're using two definitions for evolution and proving the definitions with each other.

Well thats the great thing about science, we can leave behind what we find to be false and seek truth. Creationism can't do this.

Berner

05-31-2007, 03:16 PM

Well thats the great thing about science, we can leave behind what we find to be false and seek truth. Creationism can't do this.Creationists can only cling onto fantasy and not accept new truths. That's why they still exist.

PerpetualBurn

05-31-2007, 03:17 PM

of course, a piece of "evidence" that can be interpreted by BOTH creationists and evolutionists.

Well yeah, again if you abandon radioactive dating and ignore transitional forms then that's true. I just don't see how this is a non-moron thing to do.

Akira

05-31-2007, 03:28 PM

DarkHorse, why isn't it possible that in the long-term, "mutations" could change animals so drastically that they would be different species?

YDload

05-31-2007, 03:35 PM

the reason people hated the theory of evolution when it came out is because it says black people were the first humans, and white people came from them. you can bet THAT caused some monocles to fly off the faces of 19th century elites!

GreyHam

05-31-2007, 03:37 PM

gregulus

05-31-2007, 03:48 PM

"universally accepted" doesnt mean anything, especially when you consider that Newtonian physics were universally accepted.
Poor choice of wording on my part, I suppose. Evolution is considered an unquestionable fact by biologists. It is only the mechanisms responsible for evolution that remain uncertain.

this is mutation. Mutation is not evolution.
Common error created by creationists. See my definition.
can you define evolution for me?
changes in the properties of a population that are passed down genetically from on generation to another.

Are you simply defining it as 'a change in populations over time,' or are we going by Darwin's definition that says 'we all share a common ancestor?'

it seems like you're using two definitions for evolution and proving the definitions with each other.
Both. As I stated earlier, macroevolution is simply the broad effects of microevolution. It can be quite logically concluded from the analysis of genomes, that a common ancestor existed. The number of genes shared in organisms ranging from the smallest prokaryote to the most complex of all eukaryotes is astounding. In fact, the standard genetic code used to be called the universal genetic code.

Also, I would like to clarify now, for future reference, that Darwin's version of natural selection has been greatly altered. Modern synthesis is now the most commonly accepted idea for the mechanisms influencing evolution.

TheDarkHorse

05-31-2007, 03:50 PM

Darkhorse, how much training do you have as a biologist?
I have been taught natural selection and evolution just like everyone here. Why are you questioning my authority to speak on it just because I have a conflicting viewpoint?
Well thats the great thing about science, we can leave behind what we find to be false and seek truth. Creationism can't do this.
I'm afraid philosophy can do the same thing. Or does, rather.

Well yeah, again if you abandon radioactive dating and ignore transitional forms then that's true. I just don't see how this is a non-moron thing to do.
again, radiometric dating does nothing more than infer and is itself not observable.
Call me all the names you want, but you're point still fails.
DarkHorse, why isn't it possible that in the long-term, "mutations" could change animals so drastically that they would be different species?
why must you set up a question thats not based on anything I said in order to post your pre-formed argument?

Akira

05-31-2007, 03:50 PM

Gregulus, while I get your point, there is no such thing as a scientific "fact". While evolution is by far the prevailing theory, no real scientist would call it unquestionable, as that totally goes against the principles of science.

sweboy

05-31-2007, 03:54 PM

TheDarkHorse

05-31-2007, 03:57 PM

Poor choice of wording on my part, I suppose. Evolution is considered an unquestionable fact by biologists.
doesnt change ****. I hope you get my point. A theory accepted by 90% of scientists does not make it a scientific fact.

changes in the properties of a population that are passed down genetically from on generation to another.
Do you realize that the majority of creationists believe this?

thats not what I have against evolution. The only problem I have is with Darwin's definition, which pretty much says that similarity proves a causal link.

Both.
one is the theory of evolution; one was already established.

Also, I would like to clarify now, for future reference, that Darwin's version of natural selection has been greatly altered.
of course. Who knew the cell could be so complex that the possibility of it arising by chance is nearly 0?

Modern synthesis is now the most commonly accepted idea for the mechanisms influencing evolution.
hm, wasnt fully aware of that. I'll look into that sometime. Any books you recommend?

Berner

05-31-2007, 04:03 PM

I have been taught natural selection and evolution just like everyone here. Why are you questioning my authority to speak on it just because I have a conflicting viewpoint?Because you attempt to discuss it like you have more training than the average person.

(*The Noonward Race*)

05-31-2007, 04:12 PM

I don't believe in creationism simply because some ****s made it up.

gregulus

05-31-2007, 04:17 PM

doesnt change ****. I hope you get my point. A theory accepted by 90% of scientists does not make it a scientific fact.
Evolution is a "fact" in the scientific sense of the word. As I stated earlier, it is the mechanisms that remain disputed.

Do you realize that the majority of creationists believe this?

thats not what I have against evolution. The only problem I have is with Darwin's definition, which pretty much says that similarity proves a causal link.
It's more than just casual "similarity." It's the astounding resemblance in structure and function, even at the molecular level.
one is the theory of evolution; one was already established.
I'm not sure what this means...

of course. Who knew the cell could be so complex that the possibility of it arising by chance is nearly 0?
It's a commonly held belief that the first organisms to form on earth were EXTREMELY primative. I'm talking as small as 4-6 base pairs in size without any sort of complex mechanisms.
hm, wasnt fully aware of that. I'll look into that sometime. Any books you recommend?
http://students.washington.edu/gw0/modernsynthesis/

Dr Hooch

05-31-2007, 04:23 PM

Published, peer reviewed articles. A good scientist is one who produces good research within his/her area of expertise.

You can't be a good scientist if you cause the world to be more ignorant through your actions.

Just as bad as not believing in evolution.

exactly! that is my point!

PerpetualBurn

05-31-2007, 04:23 PM

again, radiometric dating does nothing more than infer and is itself not observable.
Call me all the names you want, but you're point still fails.

Erm...radioactive decay is observable.

Dr Hooch

05-31-2007, 04:28 PM

God chooses which atoms decay according to His Plan

Berner

05-31-2007, 04:30 PM

of course. Who knew the cell could be so complex that the possibility of it arising by chance is nearly 0?
Say I sit down with 4 friends and deal out 52 cards. Each time I do I keep track of what hands I and my 4 friends get and the order in which I receive the cards. I continue to do this for hundreds of years and guess what. I never receive the same hand in the same manner and neither do any of my friends. The odds of it happening are near zero, yet, I will still be dealt a unique hand. This can be applied to the evolution of a cell as well. The odds of it happening are near zero, yet it still occured.

SHOCK AND AWE! Just because something is really, really, really, really (ad infinitum) unlikely to occur by chance, doesn't mean it can't and necessarly won't.God chooses which atoms decay according to His Plan

No you n00b. Radioactive decay is a trick played on us by the devil.

Hababi

05-31-2007, 04:32 PM

You can't be a good scientist if you cause the world to be more ignorant through your actions.

If you're submitting peer reviewed research in your field, then you're hardly doing this.

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 04:33 PM

Say I sit down with 4 friends and deal out 52 cards. Each time I do I keep track of what hands I and my 4 friends get and the order in which I receive the cards. I continue to do this for hundreds of years and guess what. I never receive the same hand in the same manner and neither do any of my friends. The odds of it happening are near zero, yet, I will still be dealt a unique hand. This can be applied to the evolution of a cell as well. The odds of it happening are near zero, yet it still occured.

SHOCK AND AWE! Just because something is really, really, really, really (ad infinitum) unlikely to occur by chance, doesn't mean it can't and necessarly won't.

No you n00b. Radioactive decay is a trick played on us by the devil.

People believe this. :(

Berner

05-31-2007, 04:38 PM

People believe this. :(

I know. It's sad.

"What's that? You've shown by the decay of U-238 that this fossil is buried in a layer of rock that is 80 million years old? The devil did that. He is causing your instruments to misread it. It's actually only 6000 years old because an old book that has been translated and interpreted almost a dozen times told me so. I don't know how I can make this anymore clear."

Seriously, whatever pot these guys have I would like to buy a few grams so I could be all ****ed up too.

peeted

05-31-2007, 04:45 PM

Every real scientist would say that the fact that evolution has occured is unquestionable.

I would question the rigour of any scientist who says anything is "unquestionable". It is defiantly possible to be a scientist and believe in creationism, its just not likely because you if you were a scientist believing in creationism then you would be pretty much ignoring the single biggest paradigm in biology.

There are plenty of religious scientists though, and plenty of logical arguments for the existence of a god, its only a small(ish) step from believing in a god to believing scripture (though maybe not something as far fetched as creationism) as long as it doesn't conflict with the paradigms of your field of research.

Danger Bird

05-31-2007, 05:25 PM

I don't understand not believing in evolution, how does it not make sense that the organisms with the better adapted traits live to reproduce and pass on those genes? It's not even an origin of life theory, evolution makes no attempt to account for how life was first started, it's just an observable process of how animals become better adapted.

We have also observed the evolution of bacteria to an increased immunity to antibiotics within the last few decades.

YDload

05-31-2007, 10:13 PM

i know that evolution is false because i prayed to God and He came to me in a dream and told me exactly what i wanted to hear. actually, all of my dreams are about God because i cant stop talking or thinking about Him, funny thing :~D

gregulus

05-31-2007, 10:27 PM

Mocking people isn't exactly constructive. DarkHorse is posting his views better than the majority of you all are.

TheDarkHorse

05-31-2007, 10:46 PM

It's more than just casual "similarity."
the word is causal, not to be confused with the degree of similarity. I understand there are similarities, but I don't believe there is a common ancestor.

I'm not sure what this means...
one definition is the actual theory of evolution devised by Darwin. Change in population was known before Darwin.

It's a commonly held belief that the first organisms to form on earth were EXTREMELY primative. I'm talking as small as 4-6 base pairs in size without any sort of complex mechanisms.
darwin believed it was the cell, which at the time was believed to be a simple mechanism.

Thank God for microscopes, right?

http://students.washington.edu/gw0/modernsynthesis/
appreciate it :thumb:

SHOCK AND AWE! Just because something is really, really, really, really (ad infinitum) unlikely to occur by chance, doesn't mean it can't and necessarly won't.

you're whole scenario is rubbish considering the complexity of the cell. If im not mistaken, abiogenesis was removed from the theory when scientists found out just how complex the cell is.
Mocking people isn't exactly constructive. DarkHorse is posting his views better than the majority of you all are.
thank you.
I don't know why they expect serious arguments when they engage in childish taunting.

YDload

05-31-2007, 10:50 PM

hey i'm not even trying to be taken seriously! although you have a much easier time getting laughs because you picked the wrong side.

(*The Noonward Race*)

05-31-2007, 10:52 PM

its ok if you're too scared to argue with me. Just don't be a child and neg me beacuse of your poor debate skillsactually i was testing my account merge that has 38000 reps but okay you win

Mr. Ron

05-31-2007, 10:54 PM

lol

Reaganista

05-31-2007, 11:01 PM

Mocking people isn't exactly constructive.
niether is this post

DarkHorse is posting his views better than the majority of you all are.
he's an idiot though

Eliminator

05-31-2007, 11:02 PM

i didn't come from monkees

Reaganista

05-31-2007, 11:03 PM

no you didnt

gregulus

05-31-2007, 11:06 PM

the word is causal, not to be confused with the degree of similarity. I understand there are similarities, but I don't believe there is a common ancestor.
Care to explain why?

one definition is the actual theory of evolution devised by Darwin. Change in population was known before Darwin.
Darwin presented a mechanism for evolution. This was quite important.
darwin believed it was the cell, which at the time was believed to be a simple mechanism.

Thank God for microscopes, right?
Most of the mechanisms of the cell can't be readily seen even with a microscope, save maybe an electron microscope. For example, when performing mutagenesis on a specific gene, scientists will never see the nucleotides they're changing.

you're whole scenario is rubbish considering the complexity of the cell. If im not mistaken, abiogenesis was removed from the theory when scientists found out just how complex the cell is.
You're still thinking that the original life form was as complex as modern cells are. It's quite possible that the earliest forms of life were extremely small, self-replicating organisms.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9751052&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9778434&dopt=Abstract

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854

Eliminator

05-31-2007, 11:08 PM

um when did god say this gregulus

TheDarkHorse

05-31-2007, 11:18 PM

Care to explain why?
I see efficiency taken into consideration rather than a common ancestor. Why are there such similarities? Its just what works, and whats the most efficient.

Darwin presented a mechanism for evolution. This was quite important.
he actually made a different conclusion from the original theory of natural selection.

Most of the mechanisms of the cell can't be readily seen even with a microscope, save maybe an electron microscope. For example, when performing mutagenesis on a specific gene, scientists will never see the nucleotides they're changing.
we can, however, notice the parts of the cell, such as the nucleus and mithochondria, and realize that one defect in the cell could cause it to stop functioning.
This is by far more complex than anyone in his day even thought.

Sexypastries

05-31-2007, 11:20 PM

yeah gregulus i'm pretty sure god created man on day six, not small self defacating organs.

lol have you not read the BIBLE OR SOMETHING?!

idiot

gregulus

05-31-2007, 11:32 PM

I see efficiency taken into consideration rather than a common ancestor. Why are there such similarities? Its just what works, and whats the most efficient.
How would it be any less efficient if organisms had different genomic structures? Say organisms were all created independently. The genomic structure of one organism would have absolutely no ties to that of another organism. So, why the extensive, almost completely universal, similarties in structure and function?

he actually made a different conclusion from the original theory of natural selection.
He still presented what he thought the mechanism of evolution was...
we can, however, notice the parts of the cell, such as the nucleus and mithochondria, and realize that one defect in the cell could cause it to stop functioning.
This is by far more complex than anyone in his day even thought.
I know this all to well. However, the modern cell is not comparable to the original organisms that inhabited earth.

GreyHam

06-01-2007, 01:31 AM

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed

In biology, evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations and other random changes in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration or horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these differences become more common or rare in a population, either nonrandomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because organisms with these advantageous traits produce more offspring, thus passing more copies of the traits on to the next generation.[1][2][3] Over very long periods of time, adaptations are produced by a combination of the continuous production of small, random changes in traits, followed by natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.[4] In contrast to natural selection, genetic drift causes random changes in the traits of a population and is caused by the fact that there is an element of chance in which organisms in a population successfully reproduce.

come on people, i seriously dont know how this debate has lasted so long...

Akira

06-01-2007, 09:56 AM

Darkhorse, it is pretty accepted scientifically that evolution has occurred even on the cellular level. It wasn't as though the Big Bang created a modern cell - it was probably a very simple version. You mention the nucleus and mitochondria, have you never heard of a prokaryotic cell?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3003946.stm

Berner

06-01-2007, 10:36 AM

you're whole scenario is rubbish considering the complexity of the cell.

No it's not. It's there simply to show you that because something is really unlikely to happen doesn't mean it won't. In fact, as the time for an event to occur increases, the chances of it happening also increase. The example is not meant to be comparable to the complexity of the cell, but to show you how time also plays a factor.

Life has had an almost infinite time scale for it to evolve. If you believe, like any rational person should, that the earth is 4.7 billion years old (I think that's the correct age) and that life started 3 billion years ago, then simple cells, not the complex ones that exist today, had an enormous amount of time to form and evolve.

GreyHam

06-01-2007, 11:05 AM

Anxious

06-01-2007, 11:17 AM

i think the main difficulty with the comprehension of evolution is the timescale involved. When you think how short a time, relatively speaking, that recorded human history has existed (as a guess id say 3000 years, obviously with some things d0cumenting time before then) then thats an absolute nothing.

I don't know what that has to do with the comprehension of evolution, what it says to me is that at 3,000 years ago humans evolved to the point that made civilization possible.

Knifeboy

06-01-2007, 11:30 AM

I don't know what that has to do with the comprehension of evolution

To comprehend evolution, you must understand just how long it takes.. And 3 billion years is a pretty damned long time

Anxious

06-01-2007, 11:36 AM

I guess I took comprehension to mean plausibility.

Cain

06-01-2007, 12:46 PM

But Cain was.

no i was actually talking about our country's intellectual centers, which, if your posts are any indication, are clearly not primarily concentrated in the population of "ordinary americans"

Hababi

06-01-2007, 12:54 PM

no i was actually talking about our country's intellectual centers, which, if your posts are any indication, *are* clearly not primarily concentrated in the population of "ordinary americans"

:confused: If I follow your post correctly (and I think "intelletcual centers" and "concentrated in the population of ordinary Americans" are more than a bit vague), then you're following my point; if you have to fear for the future of American intellectuals as a result of a 'creation museum', though, then you must have a rather low opinion about intellectuals to begin with.

Cain

06-01-2007, 01:00 PM

and here's the big thing i don't get. this view of the creationists, as illustrated handily by sam brownback in an essay in yesterday's New York Times op-ed, that people who "believe in" evolution view humanity's place in the world as a historical accident and thus view humanity as "nothing all that special," by claiming that evolution is "deterministic" and therefore godless.

how this can be so staggers me because last time i checked, believing in the concept of evolution as a series of gradual adaptations to a changing environment and a changing world, and allowing for the concept of different species arising from others as that world diversifies, is truly THE miracle of life itself (that once created it is so strong that it continues onward and onward and provides endless shape, versatility and diversity even in the face of global catastrophe and upheaval). natural selection is a code written into the fabric of life itself to ensure its survival, in any and all forms it can take. how is this not miraculous, even if one day we understand exactly what conditions made it possible? what if we never discover those conditions? the eternal mystery of certain aspects of existance always leaves a place for god, and i doubt many scientists take issue with the fact of the mystery but rather take issue with human institutions' strict adherence to obsolete belief structures (these are structures that, through their strictness, are no longer expanding man's understanding of himself and his place in the universe but restricting it). i can't understand that the creationists believe that evolution scientists view human beings as terribly insignificant is possible considering humans, who pretty much are beyond adapting themselves to the environment and are at adapting the environment to themselves, are arguably nothing other than evolution's greatest success on earth up till now.

why there is no place for divinity in the concept of evolution to creationists boggles my mind: to me it's the same arguments that were used against galileo's discoveries (even though, mind, he saw no contradiction between science and belief in god), which were essentially bible-based and not spiritually based. These kinds of arguments showcase the spiritual impoverishment of such christians even as they argue against spirituality's supposed lack in the scientific community.

american right-wing christians in the public eye talk all the time about how everybody lacks spirituality but it doesn't often seem like they experience much wonder or spiritual growth about the amazing things our scientific understandings tell us. and this is an old old complaint about the church, or any organized body that prizes adherence to core ideology even at the expense of common sense.

Cain

06-01-2007, 01:27 PM

hmmm such a quick response from serenity to my last post. and now nothing.

you know, i'm actually curious to know your reaction on a personal level to my post, zero.

TheDarkHorse

06-01-2007, 02:06 PM

So, why the extensive, almost completely universal, similarties in structure and function?

what I'm saying is that the design was done with efficiency in mind, as noted before Darwin. I think its quite a jump for Darwin to say that we all share a common ancestor.

Its really not that complicated. I don't believe it for that reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with my philosophical beliefs (creation) at that level.

No it's not. It's there simply to show you that because something is really unlikely to happen doesn't mean it won't.
using a 52 card deck is not anywhere near complex

Berner

06-01-2007, 02:15 PM

using a 52 card deck is not anywhere near complexI'm done arguing with you because you just pull little parts of my responses out and refuse to adress the rest.

gregulus

06-01-2007, 02:30 PM

what I'm saying is that the design was done with efficiency in mind, as noted before Darwin. I think its quite a jump for Darwin to say that we all share a common ancestor.
Since Darwin's theory of Natural Selection has been verified as not entirely true, citing an idea that's not verified and that came out before his probably isn't the best argument...

If all species were created independently, why would genomic construct have to be the same for it to be effecient? Couldn't the same codon code for a certain amino acid in organism A but code for something completely different in organisms B and C without any sort of evolution?

Its really not that complicated. I don't believe it for that reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with my philosophical beliefs (creation) at that level.

Wait, so the idea of a common ancestor went from "life is too complex" to "it's really not that complicated?"

Smokey D

06-01-2007, 07:26 PM

.

using a 52 card deck is not anywhere near complex

The sequence of number plates that I have seen in my life time is unimaginably complex, but nonetheless is true.

Hababi

06-01-2007, 07:30 PM

how this can be so staggers me because last time i checked, believing in the concept of evolution as a series of gradual adaptations to a changing environment and a changing world, and allowing for the concept of different species arising from others as that world diversifies, is truly THE miracle of life itself (that once created it is so strong that it continues onward and onward and provides endless shape, versatility and diversity even in the face of global catastrophe and upheaval). natural selection is a code written into the fabric of life itself to ensure its survival, in any and all forms it can take. how is this not miraculous, even if one day we understand exactly what conditions made it possible? what if we never discover those conditions? the eternal mystery of certain aspects of existance always leaves a place for god, and i doubt many scientists take issue with the fact of the mystery but rather take issue with human institutions' strict adherence to obsolete belief structures (these are structures that, through their strictness, are no longer expanding man's understanding of himself and his place in the universe but restricting it). i can't understand that the creationists believe that evolution scientists view human beings as terribly insignificant is possible considering humans, who pretty much are beyond adapting themselves to the environment and are at adapting the environment to themselves, are arguably nothing other than evolution's greatest success on earth up till now.

But there is your answer. Too often, people use evolution in place of God in terms of giving credit or sole cause. The typical language doesn't include the concept of evolution as God's mechanism of creation. Also, it didn't help that evolution has been traditionally promulgated loudest and most thoroughly by atheistic, and sometimes blatantly anti-Christian voices (Dawkins). If those advocates for evolution had been less intent on providing an answer to religion instead of for it, then there wouldn't be the backlash and recalcitrance.

On a deeper level, however, if you remove God from the equation of evolution, then in its early stages, it is very much random and without purpose. The Big Bang. The Primortial (sic) soup. Happenstance. Long before all the wonderufl and orderly diversity happens, what you have, without God, is ugly happenstance.

why there is no place for divinity in the concept of evolution to creationists boggles my mind: to me it's the same arguments that were used against galileo's discoveries (even though, mind, he saw no contradiction between science and belief in god),

Same with Newton, though I don't think he faced the same hostility.

american right-wing christians in the public eye talk all the time about how everybody lacks spirituality but it doesn't often seem like they experience much wonder or spiritual growth about the amazing things our scientific understandings tell us. and this is an old old complaint about the church, or any organized body that prizes adherence to core ideology even at the expense of common sense.

I don't think that evolution has entered into the realm of common sense yet.

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 07:37 PM

But there is your answer. Too often, people use evolution in place of God in terms of giving credit or sole cause. The typical language doesn't include the concept of evolution as God's mechanism of creation. Also, it didn't help that evolution has been traditionally promulgated loudest and most thoroughly by atheistic, and sometimes blatantly anti-Christian voices (Dawkins). If those advocates for evolution had been less intent on providing an answer to religion instead of for it, then there wouldn't be the backlash and recalcitrance.

On a deeper level, however, if you remove God from the equation of evolution, then in its early stages, it is very much random and without purpose. The Big Bang. The Primortial (sic) soup. Happenstance. Long before all the wonderufl and orderly diversity happens, what you have, without God, is ugly happenstance.

Same with Newton, though I don't think he faced the same hostility.

I don't think that evolution has entered into the realm of common sense yet.

Um, so what if it was like that? Why do you want to be some special little animal?

Dawkins is far from anti-Christian

How does evolution not make common sense?

Akira

06-01-2007, 07:38 PM

If evolution was God's mechanism for creation, then why is Genesis described as it is? Surely it makes more sense to tell your people the truth, so that they don't have to argue about what happened?

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 07:42 PM

Steve do you believe in the ark?

Hababi

06-01-2007, 07:43 PM

If evolution was God's mechanism for creation, then why is Genesis described as it is? Surely it makes more sense to tell your people the truth, so that they don't have to argue about what happened?

It would've been impossible for the folks at that time to understand complex biology (or even simple biology, for that matter), so metaphor was needed. Same reason The Bible talks about the "sun standing still" and Jesus neglects to talk about microorganisms when discussing farm life.

Steve do you believe in the ark?

I don't really have a strong belief on whether it's metaphor or fact, though it's probably intended as the former.

As for Dawkins not being anti-Christian, :lol: Yeah, sure.

And, complex biology ~=common sense anymore than analytical geometry does.

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 07:46 PM

It would've been impossible for the folks at that time to understand complex biology (or even simple biology, for that matter), so metaphor was needed. Same reason The Bible talks about the "sun standing still" and Jesus neglects to talk about microorganisms when discussing farm life.

I don't really have a strong belief on whether it's metaphor or fact, though it's probably intended as the former.
So how do you know Jesus wasn't a metaphor?

I have never seen a Dawkin's quote where he threatens Christians in the least.

Hababi

06-01-2007, 07:48 PM

So how do you know Jesus wasn't a metaphor?

Because He was a real person.

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 07:49 PM

Because He was a real person.

To play devil's advocate....there really isn't any real proof of him.

Hababi

06-01-2007, 07:49 PM

To play devil's advocate....there really isn't any real proof of him.

Yes there is.

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 07:51 PM

Yes there is.

...ok mind providing it?

Hababi

06-01-2007, 07:54 PM

...ok mind providing it?

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

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 07:56 PM

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

There's just as much evidence for Hercules being a real person as jesus if you use the same logic that article does. :^/

Hababi

06-01-2007, 07:57 PM

There's just as much evidence for Hercules being a real person as jesus if you use the same logic that article does. :^/

I don't think so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 07:58 PM

I don't think so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules

Ancients wrote of Hercules like he was a real person, Jesus is in the same boat. Plus, how many people back then were named jesus? A ton, it was a common name.

Hababi

06-01-2007, 08:00 PM

Ancients wrote of Hercules like he was a real person, Jesus is in the same boat. Plus, how many people back then were named jesus? A ton, it was a common name.

I think that if you look back at it you'll see a huge difference between the way people wrote about Hercules and the ways that Jesus was covered. And again, remember that the vast majority of scholars accept, at the very least, that Jesus was a real person.

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 08:03 PM

I think that if you look back at it you'll see a huge difference between the way people wrote about Hercules and the ways that Jesus was covered. And again, remember that the vast majority of scholars accept, at the very least, that Jesus was a real person.

I think he was a real person (Like I said I was playing devil's advocate) but the evidence is pretty shaky.

Some interesting points: http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

Hababi

06-01-2007, 08:07 PM

I think he was a real person (Like I said I was playing devil's advocate) but the evidence is pretty shaky.

In the end, keep in mind that the number of scholars who reject that Jesus existed is roughly the size of the number of scientists who reject that global warming is caused by human activity ;)

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 08:12 PM

In the end, keep in mind that the number of scholars who reject that Jesus existed is roughly the size of the number of scientists who reject that global warming is caused by human activity ;)

And, In the end I simply think he was a social revolutionary, and thats it. No son of god. Sort of like Apollonius of Tyana, who was very similar to Jesus.

Hababi

06-01-2007, 08:13 PM

And, In the end I simply think he was a social revolutionary, and thats it. No son of god. Sort of like Apollonius of Tyana, who was very similar to Jesus.

Discussing the Divineness of Jesus is a lot easier when both people come to the table accepting that Jesus was indeed a real person :cool:

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 08:19 PM

Discussing the Divineness of Jesus is a lot easier when both people come to the table accepting that Jesus was indeed a real person :cool:

Well, I do think he was a real teacher, just not divine.

Hababi

06-01-2007, 08:24 PM

Well, I do think he was a real teacher, just not divine.

The basis of His teaching was His divinity. How can someone deluded about their existence be a viable teacher? If He wasn't divine, then He was either insane (who thinks they're God???) or intentionally misleading people...not very good for a person to do, now is it?

AA-12

06-01-2007, 08:25 PM

If there was a real Jesus like they say, he was insane and not worth listening to, to be honest.

Mr. Ron

06-01-2007, 08:26 PM

The basis of His teaching was His divinity. How can someone deluded about their existence be a viable teacher? If He wasn't divine, then He was either insane (who thinks they're God???) or intentionally misleading people...not very good for a person to do, now is it?

It's not that hard to imagine a person who says they are someone who they really aren't to get attention for their cause whether they believe they are divine or not.

Cain

06-01-2007, 08:27 PM

But there is your answer. Too often, people use evolution in place of God in terms of giving credit or sole cause.

That's because God, who is a metaphysical being, is by definition an unscientific concept and so it would be foolish for evolutionary biologists to make mention of him in how he works with evolution as they can't possibly know. This is also common sense, if you know anything about science and its whole rules of operation.

The typical language doesn't include the concept of evolution as God's mechanism of creation.

You mean the biblical language. Well, it was a useful tool for understanding how the world may have worked given what was known at the time. It no longer stands so strongly on its own two feet today on the descriptive front, as science has taken care of most of our literacies. I do agree that science doesn't begin to explain the concept of morality or love or emotion in general, frankly, in the sense that it accurately tells us why feelings "feel." For that we all need a little spirituality.

Also, it didn't help that evolution has been traditionally promulgated loudest and most thoroughly by atheistic, and sometimes blatantly anti-Christian voices (Dawkins). If those advocates for evolution had been less intent on providing an answer to religion instead of for it, then there wouldn't be the backlash and recalcitrance.

Yeah but this is like blaming a whole religion for the occaisional stupidity of its worshippers, or rejecting a music group on account of its unruly fans. You don't judge the worth of concept when you judge the people who have appropriated it to make their own petty points. The same is true of organized religion time and time again--people are fallible and will do loads of stuff that isn't right to achieve their ends, and even hide behind a noble concept and use it to justify any end. Sound familiar? The key is to be better than that and not stoop to those levels.

On a deeper level, however, if you remove God from the equation of evolution, then in its early stages, it is very much random and without purpose. The Big Bang. The Primortial (sic) soup.

The only reason the Big Bang appears random is because science hasn't yet found a way to answer the question of what initiated it. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it's a miracle. Hell it was triggered by something. Our physical laws tell us that it's pretty friggin hard to get something from nothing. Why not God?

And do you know what it's like to create something? It all begins as soup. With cooking, you start with simple ingredients. Drawings with a line on a page. Music one note at a time. And before you argue that God is so great that he can transmute will into matter just like that, I would argue that if the basis for religion, which is to understand ourselves through aspiring to a higher level of wisdom and guidence, is true to God's will, then if God's experience of existance is altogether different from our own, it not only would make no sense to say we were created in his image, but it would make no sense to presume that we could ever live up to his supposed wishes. If his object is to teach, man must grow, as God may neccesarily have grown. You don't get something from nothing. Not even if something has gone on forever, it never is static.

I don't think that evolution has entered into the realm of common sense yet.

No, what I meant by that was that the degree to which a religious doctrine fails is predicated on the degree to which it is inflexible in the face of social and spiritual change. Predicated as religions are on basically simple, universal values and concepts, one would think that they would adapt very easily (the common sense I was talking about), for if they are to last and remain relevant they must grow along with the rest of the enterprise they exist to assist. It is the refusal to grow and explore the limits of acceptable expression of belief on the part of organized religion (and its consequent attempts to consolidate its waning power with repressive doctrinal measures) that disillusions men with its ability to hold any relevance for them, which is not God's fault, mind you, but man's all over again.

So, either the institution continues servicing man by adapting to the changing world or it is abandoned. Natural selection. Everywhere throughout human history, the history of a people you say was predetermined exactly as he is. Evolution is even a part of life in the moment it's occuring, so why not on a large scale too? If this weren't so, nobody would learn any lessons, and nobody would care. Isn't that the point, to learn and grow as a people? That's ALL evolution at heart. Adaption, change, and ultimately, longevity, diversity, and millions of years of development and additional enlightenment as we build on what we've built. Even a single life evolves from an immature, simple state into complexity. Men are not born knowing everything they need to know, experience borne into them from the outset. What would be the point of life if it was that way? What would be special about men then?

Don't tell me you would turn a blind eye to all those truths, and all those things that science and all organized religion including christianity have in common, just because the Bible says Genesis is the way it happened.

GreyHam

06-01-2007, 08:30 PM

I guess I took comprehension to mean plausibility.

yea, i was just trying to explain why simple people decide to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being creating the world in accordance to a master plan instead of accepting the equally simple idea of probablity

italic zero

06-01-2007, 08:30 PM

Surtr

06-01-2007, 09:47 PM

I would, but they're headed straight for my vegetable garden and they tread heavy.

Ahahaha.

I think it's just very stupid all together. Sure you shouldn't close it down, it's free speech. But hell, someone should at the very least burn it down or something?

WhoDidTheElf

06-01-2007, 10:09 PM

So much for being a good citizen.

They have a right to, you may not like it, but it's their right.

TheDarkHorse

06-02-2007, 12:48 AM

I'm done arguing with you because you just pull little parts of my responses out and refuse to adress the rest.

yeah, i kinda thought you lost too

Wait, so the idea of a common ancestor went from "life is too complex" to "it's really not that complicated?"
I was referring to my belief when I said it wasnt complicated. I don't think you really understood my post.

To play devil's advocate....there really isn't any real proof of him.
only an uneducated person would make such a statement.

asking me to verify his existence would be like verifying any historical figure you dont have a problem believing.

Smokey D

06-02-2007, 12:53 AM

The basis of His teaching was His divinity. How can someone deluded about their existence be a viable teacher? If He wasn't divine, then He was either insane (who thinks they're God???) or intentionally misleading people...not very good for a person to do, now is it?

That's such an appalling argument. That a person is insane has no bearing on the validity of what they taught (being crazy in someways doesn't make you crazy in all ways), nor does lying about one aspect of your message invalidate the rest of it.

Amit

06-02-2007, 12:55 AM

using a 52 card deck is not anywhere near complex

This does not in anyway invalidate his argument.

Argh.

Mr. Ron

06-02-2007, 01:00 AM

yeah, i kinda thought you lost too

I was referring to my belief when I said it wasnt complicated. I don't think you really understood my post.

only an uneducated person would make such a statement.

asking me to verify his existence would be like verifying any historical figure you dont have a problem believing.

Maybe you didn't see the part where I said I WAS PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, and my post later on that said I do think Christ was real.

Cain

06-02-2007, 10:30 AM

Maybe you didn't see the part where I said I WAS PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, and my post later on that said I do think Christ was real.

Ron, I pos-repped you yesterday, right? I never saw the window come up and then when I tried again it said I had to spread it around. But I don't think I negged you.

sexymuffin

06-02-2007, 11:50 AM

idk cain but you should probably pos rep me

just to be safe

Mr. Ron

06-02-2007, 12:06 PM

Ron, I pos-repped you yesterday, right? I never saw the window come up and then when I tried again it said I had to spread it around. But I don't think I negged you.

I didn't get anything from you.

gregulus

06-02-2007, 12:12 PM

I was referring to my belief when I said it wasnt complicated. I don't think you really understood my post.

Then you believe something because the concept isn't that hard to grasp?

Iskandar

06-02-2007, 01:56 PM

TheClap

06-02-2007, 02:19 PM

Or Jesus was deified after his death ...

Why are you acting like nobody has ever claimed to be a deity before?

People mislead others all the time because they think they themselves are right.

And to actually respond to this post, what? He wasn't divine before his death, did he have superpowers then?

Iskandar

06-02-2007, 02:34 PM

Why are you acting like nobody has ever claimed to be a deity before?

People mislead others all the time because they think they themselves are right.

And to actually respond to this post, what? He wasn't divine before his death, did he have superpowers then?I'm just stating a possibility, that the early Christians deified Jesus. I have no idea what you're getting at to be honest.

VomitStainedCretin

06-02-2007, 03:51 PM

Not_bajs

06-02-2007, 04:07 PM

in sweden we say "only in america" and shakes our heads silently. My parents are both ministers in the church and i they think the creationist thing is absolutly horrible.

Berner

06-02-2007, 04:22 PM

yeah, i kinda thought you lost too
Oh nice try. Because you refuse to adress parts of what I say, I lose an argument? Man you are so diluted I don't even know why I bothered in the first place.

Mr. Ron

06-02-2007, 04:28 PM

Berner your mind is simply clouded by science.

Cain

06-02-2007, 04:44 PM

Creationism=since the Theory of Evolution has a few 'gaps' in it, e.g. the fossil record is not complete, then it must be wrong and instead we postulate that a metaphysical being of infinte qualities beyong human comprehension and understanding is the cause of our existence. What an incredibly logical step in our reasoning...

Classic riposte to Teleological Argument: in order to say that the world is ordered, which theists argue suggest therefore insinuates design and a designer, we must first experience a world without order. Even if it can be proven that the world is designed, it does not necessarily point to the Deity of Classsic Theology - i.e. an omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent God - as the Designer as, since the world is imperfect, it could be the discarded work of a junior God who went on to create superior universes or an imperfect God. It could also, in the same way thast a house is designed and built by a team of architects and constructors, have been designed and built by a team of Gods.

See your thought patterns are rather similar to mine.

Rather, I'm inclined towards this view: if man is the inferior and God the superior, and God's aim in creating man flawed is to inspire him to grow beyond his limitations, then perhaps the relationship is truly that of a teacher and student: both mutually grow, and though God be the overall wiser, he still learns based on the unique ways his students interpret his teachings, adjusts, and the whole thing is mutually beneficial.

Perhaps evolution as a mechanism is even God's way of reproducing himself.