The Creation Museum

[kinch]

I look forward to an intellectual discussion.

I may be limited in the intellect dept. though.

Fair enough. I may be limited in the sobriety department. :)

Ack, I wish I didn't have so much work at work right now. Hmm. That sounded odd. . .

Anyway, I agree with Brewtus too, but I would start with speaking the same "language," before we even get into what theories we find convincing and why. Arghh. It's not my place to dictate anything, especially when I can't write what I want until later and want to be very clear and not half-ass what I say. Frustrating! I'll be back!

 

[Bucklion]

 

[Buckeye Maniac]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/fossils


http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/radiometric-dating



http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/apemen-missing-links

Here are plenty of technical, semi-technical, and regular articles on each of these topics.

Link to the ones that you think make the best case. I don't have the time or the wish to look through all that. I've heard the arguments that they make, and unless some of those articles say something different, then I stick by my previous post. There is no evidence for creationism.

 

[scarletmike]

I will simply state my personal views and leave it at that.

While I find evolution on its own a rather unbelievable theory (as well as the Big Bang being an insular event), I do not find "Biblical" 6-Day literal creation correct either. Rather, I am of the more contemporary mindset that the truth lies in a mixture of both. We have no understanding of time as it relates to God (or a higher power if you don't fall directly in line with Protestant/Catholic belief), and it says exactly that in the Bible with the 'a day is 1000 years and 1000 years a day' verse (too lazy to look it up, I'm watching basketball ). I find it perfectly palatable that life in its most basic form was created by a higher power and our theory of evolution is the process by which life was shaped (and continues to be shaped) to its current form. Given this way of thinking, I have become accepting of millions, possibly even billions of years of scientific history. I think a literal interpretation of the 6 day creation is as equally wrong as saying evolution alone is how we came to exist.

But that is just my IMO, and not a very popular mindset. Most people still seem to prefer to polarize the topic and take only the extremes.

 

[sandgk]

Here are some helpful definitions

Evolution - change over time in one or more traits or characteristics.

Natural Selection - the propensity for better adapted biological traits or characteristics to prosper in the face of specific or changing environmental conditions.

Hypothesis (In Scientific Method) - A proposed model or explanation explaining observed fact, data or phenomena.

Test (In Scientific Method) - A proposed means by which one can test the robustness of a hypothetical model or explanation

Evaluation of Hypothesis / Test (In Scientific Method) - Measuring the merit of an hypothesis using the results from a test of the same, or determining the rigor of a test employed to determine the merits of an hypothesis

Refinement (In Scientific Method) - Improving the merits of an hypothesis based on rigorous testing, or defining an improved test with higher merit to test an existing or proposed hypothesis

Law (In Science) - a means to predict behavior or outcome congruent with observed fact.

In Science Laws are neither hypotheses nor tests. They differ from the former in that they will not explain (tell you why) something happens. They are didactic, input provides output algorithms or equations. Laws provide powerful predictive tools for engineers and scientists.

Theories in science are arrived at by testing hypotheses.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So what does all the above mean for Creationism?


Till creationism can submit itself to rigorous scientific testing it cannot claim the mantle of a theory. Frankly, given it's inability to submit to rigorous scientific testing, it cannot even claim the label of hypothesis. It is a belief. This makes it no different from other untestable beliefs, most of which are commonly called religion.


I have absolutely no problem with folks wanting to believe in a 6,000 year old earth (or whatever the current figure might be) none whatsoever. Believe what you want, it is, for now, a free country.

Just do not demand that your belief that creation is the explanation be placed on equal footing with Science in school settings - be part of the curriculum taught alongside Evolution. You want that kind of thing then take your kid to a parochial school, where they teach the original faith-based version, complete with great pictures penned (sometimes) by medieval monks.

 

[Buckeye513]

Muck, I appreciate your post but it is slightly condescending. I would argue that most "scientists" don't have the scientific grounding to understand what is meant by 'theory' when used in this sense.

A scientific theory is not a guess. It needs to be supported by observable facts that make testable predictions. Evolution meets this criteria, creationism does not. "God did it" is not testable.

When I was in school, I was taught the steps to produce a scientific experiment. It started with hypothosis and ended with LAW. That is the process. Since evolution in impossible to prove, these "scientists" have now changed this scientific process. It still starts with hypothosis but LAW is nowhere to be found. Now the final step is quorum. They have bastardized the process for their own purpose.

Evolution has been observed. It's observable in your own species. It's observable in microorganisms (some creationists have managed to cede this). It's observable in fish, birds, etc. There's evidence of common descent. There's a difference between something being impossible to prove (like God) and you rejecting something because it and the person explaining it doesn't agree with your world view.

Attacking those dirty secularists for having biases and leading their results in one direction...and then posting articles from AiG, a ministry that I'm sure is completely committed to objective science and doesn't have any incentive to prove creationism, isn't going to convince anyone. Mainstream scientists don't acknowledge AiG because what they do is not science. The fact that you think "the truth" has to come from a source with a biblical perspective and you accusing people of bastardizing the scientific process for money is more condescending than anything Muck said to you.

Honestly, your definition of what science is is fucking warped beyond comprehension.

 

[muffler dragon]

WTF??!?!? Yeah, teaching evolution leads to porn and abortion. That's totally beleivable. Wow.

It's a logic chain (if you want to call it that), and it's based more on Christian dogma than it is the scientific nature of evolution. It's the philosophical considerations of what being in "God's image" means and some other things. So, FWIW, there is a reason more than just throwing it out there for fun.

I don't believe it nor adhere to it. However, in the past, I did.

I have read many scientific journals and been in groups at OSU that have discussed their merits. these processes deal mainly with Dogma and not science.

1997:

I've been in your shoes, and I would like to remind you that you thoughts are just as dogmatic and unscientific. Keep that in mind.

If you approach any scientific question with an outside interpratation of how life began that is not evolution, you will NOT be published. No matter how solid the evidence is.

Point of clarification: evolution doesn't take into account abiogenesis (at least, the last time I spoke with some people in the know regarding this). Evolution and evolutionary study is from the life on. Presuming this is the still the case, then you're arguing a red herring.

There is no harm in looking at data with a different perspective.

Absolutely. Any and all of us can be myopic during scientific inquiry.

Science is supposed to be the search for the TRUTH. It is not and has not been for a long time. It is now about control of $$$$$$$.

Another point of clarification: science is not the search for TRUTH. Science is a means to understanding and gaining knowledge. I realize this sounds like it's semantics, but it's a better perspective. Invoking TRUTH removes objectivity (or at least what objectivity can actually be involved).

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Love to join this little bouhaha, but I popped my intellectual money shot with the tattoo.

 

[buxfan4life]

I am more toward where scarletmike stands in the fact that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I believe that they are very much related, and one is just a simplified view of the other based on when that theory was hatched.

My earlier comment was born from my disdain of religious piety that tries to denounce anything it disagrees with by comparing it to what is widely regarded as social ills.

Also, I have read a few of the excerpts that 1997 has posted, and those articles do nothing to change my mind since many (at least of the ones I read) do not really do anything but say that "evolution theory does not fully support this due to what we believe, therefore the only way to explain it is through creationism" without really detailing how creationism is the only way to explain it.

Again, I think that they can go hand in hand if you do not take the scripture at face value, but take it as a simplified explanation of a complex subject.

Anyway, that's my two cents, FWIW.



PS Since no one has brought it up yet, what disproves that we got here from another world from outside of our solar system?

http://www.ufobc.ca/Reports/aliensreligion.htm (See, I can link to "facts" as well.)





Yes, that PS is to be TIC

 

[Jake]

If you take time and read some of the scientific articels and read them with an open mind, they do a great job of disrediting most of the "science" used today that is not observational science.

Show me the "science" behind the bible, please.

People who attack a message with anger and ridicule, with no supporting evidence, are usually wrong. If you don't have facts on your side: Attack, Attack, Attack.

Or attempt to get "Intelligent Design" injected into curriculums while trying to pretend it isn't just a ruse for christianity.

 

[jwinslow]

Show me the "science" behind the bible, please.

show me the science behind any of the starting points.

 

[Jake]

Science is big business and for a long time it has not been the search for truth. It has been about half truths and out-right lies. Whatever get them more $$$$$$. People need to be skeptical of all scientists. The lies and distortion of facts by climatologists should prove this out.

While the climatologists are rightly viewed with skeptici$m, the same is true for religion. It too is "big business" and for 2000 years has not been in search of truth. They sell their dogma to the masses and rake in the dough.

 

[Jake]

show me the science behind any of the starting points.

As soon as you show me how the god of the bible created the world in six days, Noah put all the species on the planet on a boat, and why anyone should worship a god who kills babies, condemns homosexuals and adulterers to death, and tells us how to treat our slaves (and how to sell our daughters into slavery).

While you're at it, enlighten me on the history of the "word of god", compiled by the Romans hundreds of years after Jesus' death as a tool to control the masses, translated often, and sold in several versions depending upon which "word of god" substantiates your blind faith.

In short, I'm not having this silly debate with you, again. Go visit the creation museum and practice your mythology to your heart's content. If you don't like my views on your precious religion that's your problem.

 

[Gatorubet]

:topic:

 

[Jake]

:topic:

Tell it to winslow.