The Creation Museum

[Jake]

I am more toward where scarletmike stands in the fact that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Creationism is based on the notion that the god of the bible exists. Without that assumption creationism has no basis, whatsoever. Unfortunately, there is as much as evidence to support the god of the bible as there is to support the hundreds of other gods rejected by christians.

Evolution is an imperfect theory with some basis in science. Creationism is based solely on faith in the bible. Until there is evidence to tie them together they are mutually exclusive in fact. Wishing it to be true does not make it so. Evidence makes it so.

 

[jwinslow]

Tell it to winslow.

Tell me what exactly?

That I responded on-topic to your discussion about creation theories?

Or that it triggered another off-topic fire and brimstone sermon from you, imitating the belief shoving disrespect and intrusion you tried to call out tonight and hundreds of other times? You tell BPers what to believe about religion more than any of those bpers practicing said religions, particularly in the realm of why they're idiots to believe differently from you.

As for the topic and my response, it's quite simple. None of them have a scientific origin. None of the starting points can be explained, no matter how much you want to trivialize those you oppose and despise. Whether it was a big bang, God, Barwis or some sort of halvzie, all of them are rooted in belief and not science.

I don't think evolution is a lie nor reject it, but good work going back to the well of insulting stereotypes. I think it is very incomplete however and currently unworthy of the unquestioning certainty attributed to it by many. I think it's quite possible that evolution (or many of the tenants of it) is part of the origin of man, but there are too many holes in its current form to accept it wholeheartedly.

In short, I'm not having this silly debate with you, again.

Please. I asked you to show where any of the origin theories included science and you launched into this. Your words betray you.

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.

When we don't like you telling us what to believe and why, that's our problem.
When you don't like others telling you what to believe and why, that's our problem.

Got it.

 

[jwinslow]

Creationism is based on the notion that the god of the bible exists. Without that assumption creationism has no basis, whatsoever. Unfortunately, there is as much as evidence to support the god of the bible as there is to support the hundreds of other gods rejected by christians.

Evolution is an imperfect theory with some basis in science. Creationism is based solely on faith in the bible. Until there is evidence to tie them together they are mutually exclusive in fact. Wishing it to be true does not make it so. Evidence makes it so.

You can keep wishing that they are mutually exclusive, but that doesn't make it so, unless you're going to start arguing that Creationism is mutually exclusive from every scientific theory in existence, including gravity.

Your ongoing message that God doesn't exist doesn't change that, not even when you include examples of how oppressive others are being about religion.

Evolution might not be true.
God might not be true.
Jake's world view might not be true.

None of those make evolution incompatible or mutually exclusive with the Christian God.

 

[Gatorubet]

Tell it to winslow.

His was on topic. For all of evolution's (to me) clear evidence of truth, from looking at the fossil record of something like the horse - to following corn from the inch long bit is was to the big ole Iowa sweet corn it became in just a few thousand years, there is nothing in evolution that explains the "why" of the start of DNA that is replicable - that we can demonstrably say is the way life started on this planet.

Same for the Big Bang. We can study it, but what caused it? How did the huge amount of material thrown into space in an instant get created in the first place....and why the Bang? So Jwin's comment is not off topic, IMO, in what we are discussing generally - can modern science offer a wrapped up in a bow explanation that is replicable regarding the birth of DNA? I happen to share Scarlet Buckeye's views on the "merger", if you will, of theology and science. I may not be all-in on an Ark and the (pick one) seven or two pair of animals (I am a documentary theory/neo-Wellhausen guy, Biblically), but I cannot reject the possibililty of a higher power being the Prime Mover/Starter of evolution.

 

[jwinslow]

Same for the Big Bang. We can study it, but what caused it? How did the huge amount of material thrown into space in an instant get created in the first place....and why the Bang? So Jwin's comment is not off topic, IMO, in what we are discussing generally - can modern science offer a wrapped up in a bow explanation that is replicable regarding the birth of DNA. I happen to share Scarlet Buckeye's views on the "merger", if you will, of theology and science. I may not be all-in on an Ark and the (pick one) seven or two pair of animals (I am a documentary/neo-Wellhausen guy), but I cannot reject the possibililty of a higher power being the Prime Mover/Starter of evolution.

It's a pretty common viewpoint too, which makes Jake's hardline stance on their mutual exclusivity pretty strange.

Evolution is certainly a polarizing topic because of its religious overtones, and not just for the religious reluctant to reject it but also for many on the opposite side in accepting it.

It doesn't have to be that way but is pretty impossible to avoid. It is a scientific theory which needs a lot more work but unfortunately will always be mired in the debate over the origin of all things, evolutionary or otherwise.

 

[1997Buckeye]

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.

Let me know what type of article you prefer. I'll reread the articles and find the best one to meet your needs.

P.S. If you want to insult me for my well studied beliefs, please feel free to post on the message baord. I take no offense and pray for strength for you.

 

[Gatorubet]

It's a pretty common viewpoint too, which makes Jake's hardline stance on their mutual exclusivity pretty strange.

Evolution is certainly a polarizing topic because of its religious overtones, and not just for the religious reluctant to reject it but also for many on the opposite side in accepting it.

It doesn't have to be that way but is pretty impossible to avoid. It is a scientific theory which needs a lot more work but unfortunately will always be mired in the debate over the origin of all things, evolutionary or otherwise.

Having said that, I don't think God and Baby Jesus stuck the oil deposits in all of the places that the petroleum geologists surmise would hold oil under the traditional view of history, paleontology, geology, chemistry, physics, et al. I mean, I guess God could, but he would have to have a sense of humor like Charlie Sheen - "LOL Shell and Chevron...Winning!!"

 

[kinch]

Science doesn't give answers immediately. And while you are largely correct, the mystery is not so great as is often implied regarding the beginnings of life and the big bang.

His was on topic. For all of evolution's (to me) clear evidence of truth, from looking at the fossil record of something like the horse - to following corn from the inch long bit is was to the big ole Iowa sweet corn it became in just a few thousand years, there is nothing in evolution that explains the "why" of the start of DNA that is replicable - that we can demonstrably say is the way life started on this planet.

Same for the Big Bang. We can study it, but what caused it? How did the huge amount of material thrown into space in an instant get created in the first place....and why the Bang? So Jwin's comment is not off topic, IMO, in what we are discussing generally - can modern science offer a wrapped up in a bow explanation that is replicable regarding the birth of DNA? I happen to share Scarlet Buckeye's views on the "merger", if you will, of theology and science. I may not be all-in on an Ark and the (pick one) seven or two pair of animals (I am a documentary theory/neo-Wellhausen guy, Biblically), but I cannot reject the possibililty of a higher power being the Prime Mover/Starter of evolution.

We don't have any well accepted theory (ah we must discuss this word better later) regarding the origins of life, but there are things we do know. Until we know more, there will be no working theory. For instance: we know that amino acids are a bit of a "step one" in the process. We know that when created in a lab, amino acids tend to be 50% left or right. This is to say that all amino acids can corkscrew in one of two directions: it may be useful to think of this as being clockwise or counter-clockwise as opposed to the nomenclature of left and right. Ours all turn one way. This is a big deal. . . Certain stars will affect the creation of these molecules to only turn one way-- but not ours. Is this significant? Yes. Does this explain the origin of life? Not at all. It is one seemingly random and insignificant piece to a larger puzzle.

We have many mathematically beautiful explanations for the big bang. People enjoy thinking of the big bang as "the start of it all" and then point to it arising from nothingness. This is not remotely the prevailing thought. At the moment, the likeliest explanation is when two branes (membranes, think of them as sheets wafting in the wind) "touched," they produced the big bang, and a universe, one of an infinite number. The simplified "I took 5th grade science" version is what is attacked-- not the actual theory as it stands in physics today.

This is all a bit here nor there for the conversation at hand, and unfortunately it is a very difficult subject matter to address until the more basic concepts are understood by everyone, as neither subject applies to evolution or creationism, but I just had to comment quickly. I'll get back to the main matter soon. :)

 

[kinch]

I am going to sound like a pompous ass here, but due to media, bad education, and religion, people think that various scientific theories are way more flawed then reality, and see flaws where scientists see holes, which they continually fill.

How about the theory of heliocentricity? This was widely derided, and scientists were incarcerated for it. Is that so different? Does anyone now say that the Earth orbiting the sun is "just a theory?" The religious always attack science and, more often, scientists (the sign of a weak mind in an argument), when it makes the Bible look silly. This has happened repeatedly throughout history. Electromagnetism doesn't get attacked: it doesn't directly contradict the Bible. But why don't they apply their same "reasoning" against so many scientific theories? The Bible. They attack what they find threatening, even though it has been "proven" time and again and our entire technology and advancement is based upon that which they decry.

It is very difficult to discuss any science with people who don't even understand what it is or what it means. The VERY same arguments used against evolution would destroy things we also create from these theories and use every day in our life. But those against science don't even know the terms. It is like arguing the meaning of Shakespeare, upon only reading, with people who don't know the alphabet. It is exhausting mentally to even try to engage your average joe on anything scientific, we have so many that are so woefully uneducated and misinformed in the USA. And yes, it's pretty much just here and in many Muslim countries. Religion.

So we must start at the beginning, and work our way up from there.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Over the years I've entered this debate on here too many times to care anymore. However, one point of contention I have with those demanding evidence on either side of the question: the debate is not about evidence! This debate, on these boards, or wherever they occur, fails to evolve because most people engaged in it don't understand this reality of what is actually being argued.

The evidence is the same for both evolution and creationism in that they both are limited by the facts presented to them (i.e. fossils, geological formations, etc.). The difference is in how one interprets the facts or creates a myth (i.e. a story to convey truth) that explains the evidence. What is really being debated here is not the evidence, but the degree to which we find the story explaining the evidence believable and compelling. Thus, it is a question of competing paradigms, and you can't argue effectively against one paradigm from the exclusive advantage of another.

(Kinch, how is that for trying to turn this intellectual.)

 

[jwinslow]

Gator, I was thinking about the comedy of God using a punchline like that, but then I realized I had to save my wish for a parallel world where Jesus did ride dinosaurs and over threw Rome with them.

We don't have any well accepted theory (ah we must discuss this word better later) regarding the origins of life, but there are things we do know. Until we know more, there will be no working theory. For instance: we know that amino acids are a bit of a "step one" in the process. We know that when created in a lab, amino acids tend to be 50% left or right. This is to say that all amino acids can corkscrew in one of two directions: it may be useful to think of this as being clockwise or counter-clockwise as opposed to the nomenclature of left and right. Ours all turn one way. This is a big deal. . . Certain stars will affect the creation of these molecules to only turn one way-- but not ours. Is this significant? Yes. Does this explain the origin of life? Not at all. It is one seemingly random and insignificant piece to a larger puzzle.

We have many mathematically beautiful explanations for the big bang. People enjoy thinking of the big bang as "the start of it all" and then point to it arising from nothingness. This is not remotely the prevailing thought. At the moment, the likeliest explanation is when two branes (membranes, think of them as sheets wafting in the wind) "touched," they produced the big bang, and a universe, one of an infinite number. The simplified "I took 5th grade science" version is what is attacked-- not the actual theory as it stands in physics today.

the first paragraph is what is referenced as arising from nothingness. The big bang is not nothing, it is arising from nothing in terms of what put things there in the first.

How about the theory of heliocentricity? This was widely derided, and scientists were incarcerated for it. Is that so different? Does anyone now say that the Earth orbiting the sun is "just a theory?" The religious always attack science and, more often, scientists (the sign of a weak mind in an argument), when it makes the Bible look silly. This has happened repeatedly throughout history. Electromagnetism doesn't get attacked: it doesn't directly contradict the Bible. But why don't they apply their same "reasoning" against so many scientific theories? The Bible. They attack what they find threatening, even though it has been "proven" time and again and our entire technology and advancement is based upon that which they decry.

Sure, but it cuts both ways. There is also the other side where many attribute more certainty and acceptance to evolution and aren't concerned with those significant holes because of the threat and rebuttal it provides for religion. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[kinch]

Over the years I've entered this debate on here too many times to care anymore. However, one point of contention I have with those demanding evidence on either side of the question: the debate is not about evidence! This debate, on these boards, or wherever they occur, fails to evolve because most people engaged in it don't understand this reality of what is actually being argued.

The evidence is the same for both evolution and creationism in that they both are limited by the facts presented to them (i.e. fossils, geological formations, etc.). The difference is in how one interprets the facts or creates a myth (i.e. a story to convey truth) that explains the evidence. What is really being debated here is not the evidence, but the degree to which we find the story explaining the evidence believable and compelling. Thus, it is a question of competing paradigms, and you can't argue effectively against one paradigm from the exclusive advantage of another.

(Kinch, how is that for trying to turn this intellectual.)

(First real quick to Winslow: I should not have used the term "holes." The theory of evolution, if you accept science, is by far one of the most completely mapped out theories that exists. Again, this is all terminology until it is agreed upon and we must first have a common "language" for all of us until this can be discussed well.)

buckeyegrad: What you will, I assume (:)) discuss is of a different nature than what I think we may be going for here so far, meaning that I am hoping to start a discussion of looking at different theories scientifically, as opposed to discussing the entire paradigm of science as secular humanist ethos as opposed to metaphysical understanding or philosophical understandings of any other "ways of seeing." That is, by far, the best argument against evolution, though I see it as a canard that is able to confuse enough people as to make it seem relevant when such disparate views of the nature of things are unnecessary to science as it (may or may not :) ) exist outside such considerations.

I am unclear and typing a mile a minute and on the run. In my mind we should have two threads regarding all of this-- one about science, one about the philosophy (or theist) look at what is knowledge anyway? Etc.

Okay. .. eh. . . I'll fix this later. These should maybe be two threads by the way. . .

Last thing: what is important is that all of us are able to discuss such disparate views with open minds or, at the least, with LISTENING to other views. I think we have finally reached that point on this board.

For now there is no right or wrong, after all.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Over the years I've entered this debate on here too many times to care anymore. However, one point of contention I have with those demanding evidence on either side of the question: the debate is not about evidence! This debate, on these boards, or wherever they occur, fails to evolve because most people engaged in it don't understand this reality of what is actually being argued.

The evidence is the same for both evolution and creationism in that they both are limited by the facts presented to them (i.e. fossils, geological formations, etc.). The difference is in how one interprets the facts or creates a myth (i.e. a story to convey truth) that explains the evidence. What is really being debated here is not the evidence, but the degree to which we find the story explaining the evidence believable and compelling. Thus, it is a question of competing paradigms, and you can't argue effectively against one paradigm from the exclusive advantage of another.

(Kinch, how is that for trying to turn this intellectual.)

Mostly this. I too get tired of this. I think a lot of it stems from it not being friendly discussion. There's no reason for discussion when people just think you're a crazy fundamentalist. I would have no reason to discuss this or really any theological issue with some members here. Others I enjoy immensely. On an open message board it's hard to choose. I'm not offended but just weary of it.

Most of us are here because we love the Buckeyes. Outside this board we are virtual friends who can have friendly disagreements on other subjects. But once we come here (and the poly board) we treat everyone like bitter enemies.

Question: Do you all really think buckeyegrad is crazy?
Do you realize that when you say crazy fundamentalist that's essentially what you're saying?

 

[Gatorubet]

Question: Do you all really think buckeyegrad is crazy?
Do you realize that when you say crazy fundamentalist that's essentially what you're saying?

Psssst. Use a different example.

 

[Gatorubet]

Science doesn't give answers immediately. And while you are largely correct, the mystery is not so great as is often implied regarding the beginnings of life and the big bang.



We don't have any well accepted theory (ah we must discuss this word better later) regarding the origins of life, but there are things we do know. Until we know more, there will be no working theory. For instance: we know that amino acids are a bit of a "step one" in the process. We know that when created in a lab, amino acids tend to be 50% left or right. This is to say that all amino acids can corkscrew in one of two directions: it may be useful to think of this as being clockwise or counter-clockwise as opposed to the nomenclature of left and right. Ours all turn one way. This is a big deal. . . Certain stars will affect the creation of these molecules to only turn one way-- but not ours. Is this significant? Yes. Does this explain the origin of life? Not at all. It is one seemingly random and insignificant piece to a larger puzzle.

We have many mathematically beautiful explanations for the big bang. People enjoy thinking of the big bang as "the start of it all" and then point to it arising from nothingness. This is not remotely the prevailing thought. At the moment, the likeliest explanation is when two branes (membranes, think of them as sheets wafting in the wind) "touched," they produced the big bang, and a universe, one of an infinite number. The simplified "I took 5th grade science" version is what is attacked-- not the actual theory as it stands in physics today.

This is all a bit here nor there for the conversation at hand, and unfortunately it is a very difficult subject matter to address until the more basic concepts are understood by everyone, as neither subject applies to evolution or creationism, but I just had to comment quickly. I'll get back to the main matter soon. :)

But every answer you come up with involves the same question. So instead of what caused the Big Bang, Who made the two branes?

Eventually there has to be a start of all things. The "why" that happened will never be explained by science. Science is great at the "why stuff works" question, but fails totally to explain the "Why is there stuff?" - or "Who made the stuff?" or "What caused the stuff to Be?"

These later question to me are the Genesis of religion. The fact that man did not know how thunder worked, and assigned it to Thor, does not explain why there is a universe to begin with once we know meteorology. And at every level of scientific knowledge we arrive at, that question remains unexplained by science.

Sticking with Thor, however, in the face of replicable and verifiable meteorological data, makes that an unpopular view as well. Somewhere in the middle is the current disagreement.