The Creation Museum

[Jake]

What kills me is that people think there is a "debate" on creationism at all. What's next, a "debate" on whether thunder is caused by rapidly expanding gases discharged by lightning, or Thor? It makes as much sense.

The "debate" on creationism exists because millions so desperately want it to be true, because they want the bible to be true so they can go to heaven and live forever in paradise. What a happy tale! So they tie themselves in knots - or put dinosaurs with humans - to try to "prove" it. Or, they try to poke holes in scientific theories - while still having nothing to substantiate their own - as though that "proves" creationism by default.

One of my favorite tales is Noah's Ark, which you have to believe if you believe in creationism. And, according to the Creation Museum, you have to believe the Great Flood formed the Grand Canyon. Oh yeah, you also have to ignore a LOT of history:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Vq2hoIfJ4&playnext=1&list=PLDD39BC2D9A7F95C7"]YouTube - A rational look at the Flood myth[/ame]

 

[MaxBuck]

The "debate" on creationism exists because millions so desperately want it to be true, because they want the bible to be true so they can go to heaven and live forever in paradise.

Overly simplistic. My Christian faith leads me to accept the truth of the Bible, while my scientific training, study of sedimentary geology, ecology and astronomy leads me to accept the truth of evolution. Oh, yeah, plus all other credible scientists also accept it.

I've never found evolution and faith to be in conflict, and most educated Christians I know agree. Of course, there are others who see things differently. I don't have a problem with the opposing (Creationist) viewpoint held by some other Christians, but I don't want their viewpoint getting any credence or traction in the science curricula of our public school systems. Because it isn't based on science at all, regardless of what they say. (And yes, I've read all those treatises in AIG; their arguments are based solely on logic, not science. The AIG folks are impressive logicians, but absolutely hopeless scientists.)

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

What kills me is that people think there is a "debate" on creationism at all. What's next, a "debate" on whether thunder is caused by rapidly expanding gases discharged by lightning, or Thor? It makes as much sense.

The "debate" on creationism exists because millions so desperately want it to be true, because they want the bible to be true so they can go to heaven and live forever in paradise. What a happy tale! So they tie themselves in knots - or put dinosaurs with humans - to try to "prove" it. Or, they try to poke holes in scientific theories - while still having nothing to substantiate their own - as though that "proves" creationism by default.

One of my favorite tales is Noah's Ark, which you have to believe if you believe in creationism. And, according to the Creation Museum, you have to believe the Great Flood formed the Grand Canyon. Oh yeah, you also have to ignore a LOT of history:

YouTube - A rational look at the Flood myth

I'm sorry Jake, but what part of F*CK YEAH are you having trouble with?

 

[Muck]

Question: Do you all really think buckeyegrad is crazy?

Since no one wants to step up and answer this seriously...

I seriously question his critical thinking skills.

Just as I would if someone on here believed that the WTC collapse was the result of a controlled detonation, that the Holocaust didn't occur or that the Moon landings were a hoax.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Since no one wants to step up and answer this seriously...

I seriously question his critical thinking skills.

Just as I would if someone on here believed that the WTC collapse was the result of a controlled detonation, that the Holocaust didn't occur or that the Moon landings were a hoax.

I guess I find that odd.

As I read this and the poly board I would question his critical thinking skills far less than most in comparison to the rest of the board.

I would question his sanity before I question that.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I fall firmly on the evolution side of this debate and find "Creationism" to be the most inane assaults on education .... it would be dangerous if it wasn't so stupid (in my opinion).

But...

That said, Jake - Science has arrived, has it not, at the conclusion that everything that exists came from ..... drum roll.... nothing.

Eh? Let me understand this... If I have the absence of things, I should expect it to spontaneously become the infinite inclusion of all things?

Let's test that.... In my hand I have nothing. I shall wait for that nothingness to become something different.... maybe a bag of chips, an airplane, perhaps... maybe I'll get lucky and a universe will create itself....

(And yes, I know "Science has arrived at a conclusion" maybe overstates the point since science is a work in progress)

In any event -
The problem between Evolution and Creationism is that it's a false dilemma.

I've considered the reality that surrounds me pretty carefully over the last 20 25 years and I've yet to find any evidence that G-d is impossible. Evolution... the Big Bang... none of those things kill G-d. For me, the irony is that proving the Bible to be a collection of ridiculous tales does as much to disprove G-d as creationists absurd hole poking into evolution does to disprove natural selection.

If G-d is, he is to be found by looking around at the reality that surrounds us, is he not? However the universe works.... is that a rejection of the very thing which allegedly made it? Of course not. I suppose the problem, as I see it, is that some people put too much stock in worshiping the Bible and not the G-d it purports to be discussing. Discrediting the stories in the Bible - Noah's Ark, for example, do little to destroy G-d is all I'm saying. It simple establishes that the Bible can't be taken seriously as a literal text.

 

[kinch]

That said, Jake - Science has arrived, has it not, at the conclusion that everything that exists came from ..... drum roll.... nothing.

No.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

No.

It hasn't?

Do we agree that there was once no universe?
Do we agree that there is a universe now?

The matter which is in this universe.... where did it all come from?

 

[kinch]

Why should there ever have been nothing?

You are starting with your conclusion. It may be difficult to imagine, but the universe is a difficult place.

(Edit: If you want me to bust out all my theoretical physics studies I will, but it really is as simple as I just said.)

(Edit 2: And while scientifically this can be explained, how would one, teleologically, explain God or anything else, which would also require existence from nothingness. How can this be a fault when we can scientifically explain so much, and EVERY origin needs nothingness as a precursor in so many religious views. Why is their "origin" any less understandable? And no: there was never nothingness. It is weird to imagine, but also realize you (probably) accept that light travels at the same speed from any perspective and bends space. Realize things flash in and out of existence along a wave function. The universe is not tight and happy with human understanding, overall. If you want the functions I'll give them to you. It's a dangerous place, our world, and it isn't easily understood. :) )

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why should there ever have been nothing?

You are starting with your conclusion. It may be difficult to imagine, but the universe is a difficult place.

I must not be expressing myself well then. Why should there have ever been nothing - Well, because we see that the universe is expanding, right? Wind the tape back..... What do you find? A point in time where there wasn't a universe.

The Law of conservation of mass counsels that in a closed system (Say, the universe) the mass of that system cannot change as a result of processes acting within that system.

So, if that's true, don't we have to believe that our universe - as big as it is - has always had a mass of X? That X was contained in a singularity before it spontaneously exploded? Why is this a satisfying result? If it's always been mass X, and it existed prior to the big bang, where is the cause for it to have big banged in the first instance? That is to say - if it was Mass X for some period of time and it did not explode, then there is no reason to think it would ever explode without something external being added to it - to put it over the edge, so to speak.

(Edit: If you want me to bust out all my theoretical physics studies I will, but it really is as simple as I just said.)

Not necessary. I'm not unaware of Hawking's discussions on the matter, for example.

(Edit 2: And while scientifically this can be explained, how would one, teleologically, explain God or anything else, which would also require existence from nothingness. How can this be a fault when we can scientifically explain so much, and EVERY origin needs nothingness as a precursor in so many religious views. Why is their "origin" any less understandable? And no: there was never nothingness. It is weird to imagine, but also realize you (probably) accept that light travels at the same speed from any perspective and bends space. Realize things flash in and out of existence along a wave function. The universe is not tight and happy with human understanding, overall. If you want the functions I'll give them to you. It's a dangerous place, our world, and it isn't easily understood. :) )

The bold part is sorta the point, Kinch. Both Science and Religion arrive at the same conclusion - all that is comes from a position of having never been in the first place. Both are equally as impossible - and yet, here we are, nonetheless.

There never was nothingness? What was there? I've limited this post to discussion about our own universe as being "everything" but I actually believe in multiple universe theory, M-theory, etc.. but, even that can be reduced down to a point of origin.

Don't misunderstand, the G-d I'm talking about doesn't live on the pages of the Bible. I don't find religion's explanation satisfying and the god described therein seems to me, personally, to be rather silly. The G-d I am discussing has nothing to do with the Bible.

I look at it like this - everything is an iteration of itself. I can learn something about how life on this planet works by watching how life works in a petrie dish. In all my experience I have never once found a thing come into being out of nothing. Never. It never happens in our universe. It seems stupid, then, to arrive at the conclusion it happened in the Big Bang.

Again - we can talk about multiple universes and M-theory and all that, but reducing that down, we are left in the same place as contemplating only this universe.

 

[muffler dragon]

No.

This depends on what you consider to "be" just before the impetus of what became our universe, correct? As I understand it right now, there is no theory for the time period just before the Big Bang; thus, it's simply unknown and not within the realm of science.

I apologize for any poor choice of words in attempting to bring my thought to light.

 

[cincibuck]

I fall firmly on the evolution side of this debate and find "Creationism" to be the most inane assaults on education .... it would be dangerous if it wasn't so stupid (in my opinion).

Tell that to the folks from Texas who control the content in text books used in most public schools.

In any event -
The problem between Evolution and Creationism is that it's a false dilemma.

I've considered the reality that surrounds me pretty carefully over the last 20 25 years and I've yet to find any evidence that G-d is impossible. Evolution... the Big Bang... none of those things kill G-d. For me, the irony is that proving the Bible to be a collection of ridiculous tales does as much to disprove G-d as creationists absurd hole poking into evolution does to disprove natural selection.

If G-d is, he is to be found by looking around at the reality that surrounds us, is he not? However the universe works.... is that a rejection of the very thing which allegedly made it? Of course not. I suppose the problem, as I see it, is that some people put too much stock in worshiping the Bible and not the G-d it purports to be discussing. Discrediting the stories in the Bible - Noah's Ark, for example, do little to destroy G-d is all I'm saying. It simple establishes that the Bible can't be taken seriously as a literal text.

And there's the rub in my opinion. Defining who/what G-d is. The use of gender specific terms, the theological arguments that follow human logic/experience/capacity to understand seem to lead to a conclusion that G-d is some form of super human. Not only is that thinking narcissistic, but it makes it difficult to consider that G-d may be something far more complex than man -- or far simpler --

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

And there's the rub in my opinion. Defining who/what G-d is. The use of gender specific terms, the theological arguments that follow human logic/experience/capacity to understand seem to lead to a conclusion that G-d is some form of super human. Not only is that thinking narcissistic, but it makes it difficult to consider that G-d may be something far more complex than man -- or far simpler --

Agree. "Super-man" god is really, in my opinion, nothing more than worshiping Zeus or Thor.

 

[Brewtus]

Discrediting the stories in the Bible - Noah's Ark, for example, do little to destroy G-d is all I'm saying. It simple establishes that the Bible can't be taken seriously as a literal text.

If certain parts of the Bible aren't true because we have discovered evidence over time to the contrary, then how do you know what parts are true and which ones aren't? Doesn't that raise some serious credibility issues with the Bible?

But I'll get back on topic again:

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 debate has everything to do with the evidence. The Theory of Evolution was derived to explain the evidence - how the diversity of life and distribution of species on the planet came to be, why species have similarities in their DNA, the distribution and existence of fossils, etc. So let's explore a small piece of the evidence. Below are images of a modern human skull and a Chimpanzee skull (our closest living relative):

Now let's look at some evidence - fossils of skulls from other species that are no longer living today. From left to right these species have been given the names: Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus.

Keep in mind that multiple fossils/individuals have been found for each of these species so they can't be explained as an anomaly and must have been part of a large population. Clearly these fossils are not human and are not Champanzee, but have characteristics of both modern species. How does the Bible or Creationism explain this evidence?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If certain parts of the Bible aren't true because we have discovered evidence over time to the contrary, then how do you know what parts are true and which ones aren't? Doesn't that raise some serious credibility issues with the Bible?

Absolutely. Relying on the Bible as if it were a scientific text seems fairly foolish, in my view.

But - that said - that doesn't mean the whole text should be discarded out of hand. For example - I have no doubt the Exodus is describing a real historical event. Setting aside the "magic" of it (Parting of the sea, for example).

In other words - I wouldn't suggest to you that you read the Harry Potter series to gain an understanding of English history. But, that doesn't mean the Harry Potter series is devoid of any practical value whatever.

But I'll get back on topic again:

The debate has everything to do with the evidence. The Theory of Evolution was derived to explain the evidence - how the diversity of life and distribution of species on the planet came to be, why species have similarities in their DNA, the distribution and existence of fossils, etc. So let's explore a small piece of the evidence. Below are images of a modern human skull and a Chimpanzee skull (our closest living relative):

Now let's look at some evidence - fossils of skulls from other species that are no longer living today. From left to right these species have been given the names: Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus.

Keep in mind that multiple fossils/individuals have been found for each of these species so they can't be explained as an anomaly and must have been part of a large population. Clearly these fossils are not human and are not Champanzee, but have characteristics of both modern species. How does the Bible or Creationism explain this evidence?

It is silent, of course.