The Creation Museum

[t_BuckeyeScott]

(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.

I hate to speak for BGrad and hope he corrects any mistake. But I actually think he's not talking so metaphyisically.

Example: Geology. We all have the same strata. Creationists don't deny that there are rock formations. Instead of slow build up over time creationists see it as a result of a worldwide flood.

Natural Selection/Genetics/Mutation: Creationists don't deny the existence of these verifialbe phenomena. They are testable and repeatable. What Creationists see them as though is specialization and speciesiation with in a kind. They argue that nearly all mutation and specialization is a loss of information and adaptability. What might be evidence of or a theory that may extolled from this belief is more genetic maladies or mistakes or malformations than before.

The point of that wasn't to really argue anything. I'm not sure if I'm even up to it. It was just to give an example of what I think BGrad was talking about. Those are really just simplified versions of what a Creationist believes and aren't meant to be full fleshed out discriptions.

What we are arguing about is the interpretation of the repeatable and testable events.

We all have the same evidence.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Psssst. Use a different example.

Well, I couldn't use me.

 

[kinch]

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?

I came here to say that I believe that we can have a valid debate regarding both the science of things (if creationists and scientists both want to believe that they are correct scientifically, this should be a straight forward discussion) and the greater question of whether science can explain things (not so straight forward and more philosophical). We have all been here a long time at this point, and we all know that everyone is pretty damn smart. We may disagree, but we understand that nobody is necessarily "right," I think. I bet we can do this.

However, I was distracted by your question of "Do you all really think buckeyegrad is crazy?"

Yes. He is. He is certifiable.

I am too.

It's happy here trust me. Oh wait! OMG my the voices are telling me to get sushi and they are always right! Gotta go!

 

[kinch]

I hate to speak for BGrad and hope he corrects any mistake. But I actually think he's not talking so metaphyisically.

Example: Geology. We all have the same strata. Creationists don't deny that there are rock formations. Instead of slow build up over time creationists see it as a result of a worldwide flood.

Natural Selection/Genetics/Mutation: Creationists don't deny the existence of these verifialbe phenomena. They are testable and repeatable. What Creationists see them as though is specialization and speciesiation with in a kind. They argue that nearly all mutation and specialization is a loss of information and adaptability. What might be evidence of or a theory that may extolled from this belief is more genetic maladies or mistakes or malformations than before.

The point of that wasn't to really argue anything. I'm not sure if I'm even up to it. It was just to give an example of what I think BGrad was talking about. Those are really just simplified versions of what a Creationist believes and aren't meant to be full fleshed out discriptions.

What we are arguing about is the interpretation of the repeatable and testable events.

We all have the same evidence.

I think that buckeyegrad is going a different direction than you think. I'll let him answer though of course.

And you're right: we shouldn't argue, we should discuss.

 

[Gatorubet]

And you're right: we shouldn't argue, we should discuss.

Fuck you. You hate Thor.

 

[Jake]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ8BEbQMrCI"]YouTube - Paul McDermott on the Creation Museum[/ame]

 

[Buckeye513]

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.

The "why" will never be explained by religion either. Religion has no explanation for God.

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?

Sometimes smart people believe crazy things.

 

[kinch]

Sometimes crazy people believe smart things.

REPRESENT!!

 

[Gatorubet]

The "why" will never be explained by religion either. Religion has no explanation for God.

And this is true too. Good luck, though, keeping mankind from asking the question. Like they say, other animals have opposable thumbs, but only Man asks "who am I"?

Now, the dolphins ask taht too, but [censored] them, we speak English in America.

 

[kinch]

And this is true too. Good luck, though, keeping mankind from asking the question. Like they say, other animals have opposable thumbs, but only Man asks "who am I"?

Now, the dolphins ask taht too, but [censored] them, we speak English in America.

Way off topic but:

Encephilization (sp?) is how we typically determine intelligence in animals. It is the ratio of brain size to body size. As I recall from years ago, we are a "7" while a chimp, the next closest on land, is a "5" and a dog is a "1" and the median. (I may be wrong about what number the median is.)

Anyway, dolphins have the same Encephilization as us. Hmm.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Sometimes smart people believe crazy things.

I think this is a copout. A common one, but a copout none the less. When something someone believes is crazy, it usually means that the belief lacks rationality or logic. I'm not saying BGrad doesn't hold to any irrational beliefs. But I think and most others I think would agree that he is very rational and logical about this.

 

[kinch]

I think this is a copout. A common one, but a copout none the less. When something someone believes is crazy, it usually means that the belief lacks rationality or logic. I'm not saying BGrad doesn't hold to any irrational beliefs. But I think and most others I think would agree that he is very rational and logical about this.

I hope neither you nor anybody else took my comment as believing he is crazy.

He's not.

He is obviously a victim of implanted memories. This doesn't make him crazy. He is a victim.

Okay, that wasn't even funny. I couldn't think of anything better. . . crap.

In all honesty, I would say he is the only person on BP that makes me have to think before I respond as an arrogant ass (a trait that has come and gone, and is hopefully gone now. ). He is very far from crazy-- though some of his views are very difficult to understand. This is not due to craziness, it is due to his education and/or intelligence and a lot of time thinking. In all honesty I probably respect his views, due to their origination and thought, more than anybody else on this board save Thump, who in himself is a prophet to me. Oh and Buckyle.

 

[kinch]

FYI to all: I proposed to stop hijacking this thread and start two more on evolution: one more about science and what the evidence shows, and another about, and I am flawed in my understanding so I won't say this well, but let's just say "why is science an answer?" The second to be started by bgrad should he accept as he is sort of the scholar on this, and I will do the first.

I bet we all change our minds somewhat if we do this.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I hope neither you nor anybody else took my comment as believing he is crazy.

He's not.

He is obviously a victim of implanted memories. This doesn't make him crazy. He is a victim.

Okay, that wasn't even funny. I couldn't think of anything better. . . crap.

In all honesty, I would say he is the only person on BP that makes me have to think before I respond as an arrogant ass (a trait that has come and gone, and is hopefully gone now. ). He is very far from crazy-- though some of his views are very difficult to understand. This is not due to craziness, it is due to his education and/or intelligence and a lot of time thinking. In all honesty I probably respect his views, due to their origination and thought, more than anybody else on this board save Thump, who in himself is a prophet to me. Oh and Buckyle.

I caught that you were joking.

Edit: Also, my posts assume that buckeyegrad doesn't reject (at least the term) fundamentalism. I'm sorry, BGrad if you do, and I've offended you. However, I do assume fairly comfortably that BGrad's belief about creationism align closely with what one would describe a fundamentalist. So the analogy still stands.

 

[kinch]

I will again speak for bgrad as it entertains me, and yes I will start the thread soon but want to do so intelligently. . .

1) He is not easily offended. If ANYONE could have offended him over the years it would be me. He responded kindly. Damn Christian and all that.

2) I think his beliefs are a bit more philosophical and, and I don't mean this in a bad way necessarily, "developed," then what most of us would consider fundamentalist. We shall see soon. Bwahaha.