# Creation Museum?



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Yesterday, I was proud to be living in Cincy/N Ky after the whole OJ/Jeff Ruby brohaha...

However, today I read the above article, and am reminded again why I have such mixed feelings about this area of the country.

At least it will soon go out of business. $20 a pop to visit and a very bad business plan as described in the following quote:

"Still, the museum hopes to attract more than 70 percent of its visitors from locations more than 250 miles away."

Yep, lots of people will travel more than 250 miles to visit a museum based on fiction...


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

People love their myths, you never know, they might make a go of it.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Next time I'm in Cincy I'll gladly plunk down my $20 for this! I can't wait to see how the dinosuar in the picture fits in with a literal read of genesis.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Next time I'm in Cincy I'll gladly plunk down my $20 for this! I can't wait to see how the dinosuar in the picture fits in with a literal read of genesis.


Don't laugh when you see Adam and Eve walking next to it. Really, I'm not making this up, go to their website - they've got pictures.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Don't laugh when you see Adam and Eve walking next to it. Really, I'm not making this up, go to their website - they've got pictures.


https://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

"Explore the wonders of creation. The imprint of the Creator is all around us. And the Bible's clear-heaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun, birds before lizards.

Other surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all!

God's Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There's no room for compromise."


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Sounds fine to me. But then again somebody sold me the Brooklyn Bridge a few years ago.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

"Don't laugh when you see Adam and Eve walking next to it. Really, I'm not making this up, go to their website - they've got pictures." 

True AAAC aficionados wonder about the cut and style of Adam's fig leaf.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I'd probably try to rip off Eve's.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Tammy Faye was on the TEEVEE again. Seems she has cancer for the third time. Doctors say she is down to 65 lbs. I don't know if that is with, or without makeup.The Bakers had a Christian themepark, now long closed and derelict. Creationism has ben showcased on the TEEVEE, and typiclly like any other argument picks and chooses proofs, distorts and ignores others. But 6 days or 6 millenia, this too shall pass.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Kav said:


> Tammy Faye was on the TEEVEE again. Seems she has cancer for the third time. Doctors say she is down to 65 lbs . . . .


55 without the makeup and fake eyelashes.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jackmccullough,

Way to go! Speaking ill of dead isn't enough for you, now you mock people on their deathbed too!

One wonders if you were appalled about how the execution of Saddam was handled or if you mocked his final moments. But perhaps thats an unfair comparison as I would imagine you took some glee in Tammy Faye's downfall but we know that you supported a course of action that would have left Saddam still in power.

Karl


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

I once saw one of these Creationist clowns on a religious TV channel. He was pointing to a close-up photo of an ancient coin--I don't remember where it was from--that depicted St. George and the Dragon. "See," he says, "what is a dragon if not a dinosaur? This proves beyond a doubt that men and dinosaurs existed at the same time!"

Such idiocy would be a harmless source of hilarity if not for one thing: approximately 50 percent of the US electorate think the Bible is literally true.

At the first Republican candidates' debate a short while ago, Chris Matthews asked the 10 stalwarts who among them did not believe in evolution, and three gentlemen raised their hands.

Fortunately, rationalists are finally finding their voice and saying loud and clear, "What you believe is crap." Books by uncowed nonbelievers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett are finding huge readerships. Maybe there's hope for us yet.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

cufflink44,

Don't make the mistake of equating all believers with Creationists. I am Roman Catholic and we are firm supports of evolution. A few top scientists at the Vatican have even raised skeptical eyebrows about Intelligent Design.

I do, however, find it ironic that Leftists who think that the country should embrace every sort of alternative lifestyle and everything which deviates from the norm (which is fine by me as I am libertarian on 99% of social matters) feel free to attack and ridicule people who have different, more traditional beliefs.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> I am Roman Catholic


Apparently you're not a very good Roman Catholic, e.g.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Perhaps not. And although I know you think you are holier than thou, I will let a higher authority than you make the judgement of whether I am a good Catholic or not.

Karl


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Good Catholics aside, I was raised RC and in the late 60s we were taught evolution as part of our regular science classes. Yes Charles Darwin's evolution was taught as regular old science in grade school.

The thought being that creation in 6 days could have taken place over 6 or 60 million years as who was there to determine what a 'day' was. It wasn't the literal interpretation but the meaning or symbolism that was important. That god created the world was important, not _how_ he created it in so many hours or minutes or seconds.

Sometimes I think the fundamentalists next arguement will be how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, sorry...been there, over it.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Good Catholics aside, I was raised RC and in the late 60s we were taught evolution as part of our regular science classes. Yes Charles Darwin's evolution was taught as regular old science in grade school.
> 
> The thought being that creation in 6 days could have taken place over 6 or 60 million years as who was there to determine what a 'day' was. It wasn't the literal interpretation but the meaning or symbolism that was important. That god created the world was important, not _how_ he created it in so many hours or minutes or seconds.
> 
> Sometimes I think the fundamentalists next arguement will be how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, sorry...been there, over it.


+1...


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

Traditional Christian believes, including a literal faith in the description of creation, as mentioned in Genesis, has become favorite objects of attacks and ridicule. Very few mind the establishment of evolutionary-themed museums and parks. 

I for one would support and go to the museum described from the OP.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Are the angels dancing the freak, the waltz or the watusi? Differing numbers would fit on the head of a pin in each case.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Hey, Karl.

Thanks for attacking me but not Kav for making the same joke. Maybe I should just send all my posts to you for review before I put them up. Wouldn't want to offend your delicate sensibilities, after all.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

I will scold Kav later in this post. Sorry, as Francis had me a bit riled this morning. As someone pointed out to me, you certainly are more reasonable than he is.

So perhaps you will show some of the grace I lacked and forgive my comment.

And Kav, don't make fun of Tammy Faye on her deathbed!

Karl


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Awwww, you guys are the best! :icon_hailthee:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I was at a conference all week so happened to catch some late night TV. I saw on Nightline they had a "debate" between Kirk Cameron, the former child actor, and his cohort with two rather disreputable looking Goth type people, on the topic of the existence of god. It was pretty funny from all sides IMO, however I rather got a chuckle out of the "God exists as with a painting, there is a painter, so therefore with creation exists a Creator who is God." Of course, the question of, "Who created God then?" comes into play. Good old Occam, the boy deserved to get excommunicated.

Hey, if they want a Creation attraction and can make it work financially, more power to them. Yes, I am probably going to mock the idea of T-Rex chasing Adam and Eve but I am going to Hell so I guess the Fundies win :devil:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Sartre said Hell is other people. You do know FrankDC, don't you?

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> Sartre said Hell is other people. You do know FrankDC, don't you?
> 
> Karl


LOL Karl. Yes, very familiar with that quote. When I read it in my teens, I was sure it was in reference to my mother.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> It was pretty funny from all sides IMO, however I rather got a chuckle out of the "God exists as with a painting, there is a painter, so therefore with creation exists a Creator who is God." Of course, the question of, "Who created God then?" comes into play. Good old Occam, the boy deserved to get excommunicated.


My favorite: "But god _loves_ you, how could you be so rude as to not believe in him."

If there is a hell, it's going to be very crowded. Move over, a little elbow room please, if you don't mind.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> My favorite: "But god _loves_ you, how could you be so rude as to not believe in him."
> 
> If there is a hell, it's going to be very crowded. Move over, a little elbow room please, if you don't mind.


I am still trying to talk my wife into picking Valhalla with me. The problem is she rather abhors physical altercations and is not sure if she is willing to spend eternity with such a group of men. I am trying to convince her the girls stay home during the day and take it easy and by the time I get to her each night, I will be healed and just looking to have a few beers and some chit chat. It is not looking good but we both agree Heaven does not seem to fit our personalities.

Any suggestions that might fit the two of us? I am not stuck on the fighting, it is just that I do not want to end up in a boring place for all of eternity and Valhalla seems to be the only exciting place.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

mpcsb,

Is madras appropriate for Hell?

Karl


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> mpcsb,
> 
> Is madras appropriate for Hell?
> 
> Karl


Absolutely, the hotter it is the better it looks - :icon_smile_big: I'll look maaaaarvelous.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Valhalla, what better place for a tribal warlord! I'm looking for a place with lots of goddesses in togas.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer -----> :icon_viking:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Wayfarer -----> :icon_viking:


LOL! I love it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Mea Culpa, I apologise to Tammy Faye, Karl, and Jack for my unchristian, ungentlemanly remarks. I am forever curious how evolution was both hijacked by assorted secular forces and created as enemy by creationists. Charles Darwin came from a family of Freethinkers. Yet Darwin joined the Anglican church at a young age. It was later in his fifties that personal grief, the death of a beloved daughter turned him into an agnostic. Darwin's wife and children continued to attend anglican services, Charles continued financial contributions to his local parish and spent Sundays on long, quiet walks of introspection. Madeleine Murray O'Hare he was not, just a man facing the hurts of life we all face in some measure. Now, if you want a REAL theological debate, tell this Bulgarian Priest I know there is no kitty heaven as he pets his beloved dog.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

KenR said:


> I'd probably try to rip off Eve's.


Tangentially, Saul Bellow once observed, he had never seen a fig leaf that didn't have a price tag on the back of it.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> "God exists as with a painting, there is a painter, so therefore with creation exists a Creator who is God."


I've always been amused at this particular analogy which, if carefully examined, actually supports the idea of evolution. Any painting begins with a single brush stroke and is then built, or evolves, if you will, stroke by stroke, color by color over time into a somewhat finished painting. I say somewhat because very few artists would, if granted unlimited time and resources, ever really call a painting finished.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

rip said:


> I've always been amused at this particular analogy which, if carefully examined, actually supports the idea of evolution. Any painting begins with a single brush stroke and is then built, or evolves, if you will, stroke by stroke, color by color over time into a somewhat finished painting. I say somewhat because very few artists would, if granted unlimited time and resources, ever really call a painting finished.


Your not a painter are you? Very few paintings evolve. You can ruin a painting if you don't stop.

Before I quit painting, when I used to paint, sometimes I had nearly every dab figured out and what color and what tubes those colors were going to come from before I bought the canvase.

As far as hoax's evolution is the biggest I have ever seen. While the church has done many scandals they don't even come close to what the evolutionist have done. The biggest scandal of all is to disarm people from even thinking there might be a scandal involved. There are a number of top scientist who come from athism and evolution that walked away from these to a belief in God's six days 24 hour creation. Sounds like God reviews Himself in nature, and what do scientist study? Nature.

While some of you blindly believe some scoundrels who come in the name of science with evolution, but smart enough not to believe every body who comes in the name of christian, but you accuse christians of being gullible and don't see that your just as gullible. Scoundrels in both science and christianity have done damage- you need to blame both that do damage. And you evolutionist still have one problem- the hot air it is built on, since there are no facts from among science that even suggest evolution exist.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> As far as hoax's evolution is the biggest I have ever seen. While the church has done many scandals they don't even come close to what the evolutionist have done. The biggest scandal of all is to disarm people from even thinking there might be a scandal involved. There are a number of top scientist who come from athism and evolution that walked away from these to a belief in God's six days 24 hour creation. Sounds like God reviews Himself in nature, and what do scientist study? Nature.
> 
> While some of you blindly believe some scoundrels who come in the name of science with evolution, but smart enough not to believe every body who comes in the name of christian, but you accuse christians of being gullible and don't see that your just as gullible. Scoundrels in both science and christianity have done damage- you need to blame both that do damage. And you evolutionist still have one problem- the hot air it is built on, since there are no facts from among science that even suggest evolution exist.


To the contrary, by now the idea that evolution and creationism are somehow mutually exclusive is almost entirely in the realm of religious "fundamentalists" and other fanatics.

If you take any religious text literally, you're missing the point. E.g. the Bible entails acceptance of slavery, the beating of slaves, putting gay people and 20 other classes of human beings to death, and 100 other things that in today's world are rightfully considered barbaric and immoral.


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

artificial selection
biogeography
taxonamy
fossil record
comparitive biochemistry
comparitive anatomy
comparitive embryology

all scientific evidence of evolution

I was taught HS biology by a creationist. One day he said while he didn't believe in evolution, he did beleive in natural selection.Interesting.
I am not an athiest, but I believe in evolution. This is based on the overwhelming evidence, not blind faith.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, There is no hoax of evolution. Scientists do not have a PROTOCOLS OF ZION agenda to promote Freemasonry, secular humanism or increasing left handedness in the populace. Science is based on empirical data. Religion is based on faith. To argue ascendency for one or the other is comparing apples and pomegranates or figs; the more likely forbiden fruits of Eden. Science is my tool for understanding the HOW. Religion is my tool for embracing the mystery of the why. Sometimes I throw in a little greek philosophy ( lamb) Buddhism ( escargo ) Judaism ( the whole damned delhi ) though after the tainted organic spinach episode I'm off veganism and deep ecology. Like my Auntie Mame used to say, " life is a banquet and most dumb SOBs are starving to death."


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

> www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/probabilities.asp


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

WA said:


> Your not a painter are you?


Please note that the contraction of "you are" is "you're", not "your", which is the possessive form of "you".


> Very few paintings evolve.


The dictionary defines "evolve" as _to develop gradually over time._ I take it you have invented an instant painting system that has done away with the linearity of time.



> Before I quit painting, when I used to paint, sometimes I had nearly every dab figured out and what color and what tubes those colors were going to come from before I bought the canvase.


Whether or not you had "nearly every dab figured out", the painting begins with but a single "dab" and "evolves", stroke by stroke, into a painting, which then goes through a drying process and then an ageing process during which time it changes, perceptibly or not. You may be able to turn loose of the process after you have applied the last dab; if so, you are a rarity, if not unique, among the many artists I know. If you've figured out a way to avoid any of the above, particularly the ageing process, please form a company and count me among your first investors.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Sadly, my wardrobe of bespoke clothing is not the result of 6 days of divine design ( looking skyward with a heartfelt prayer though.) No, my wardrobe is slowly evolving, usually in long geologic time with some rapid periods of great change. There are some extinctions; spats and moustache wax( and the moustache) some mutations gone terribly wrong; flip flops and jeans and a few timeless designs that continue virtually unchanged; navy tie with white pindots and captoe Balmoral. Environmental pressures may force me into seersucker all summer like the famous white/ grey moth of industrial England. But I have hope for a cold winter in time for a planned Harris tweed. Tell you what, following the inovation of Amy Semple-McPhearson I will forego humility in my Greek Church this coming sunday and put hands on my computer monitor. In the Name Of JAZUUUSS I pray, JAZUUUSS, open my heart,wallet and closet to real clothing, In your name I pray, amen. Opens left eye and squints at closet. damn.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

*New book by Christopher Hitchens*

Apropos of this discussion, there's a new book out by Christopher Hitchens that was reviewed in today's _NY Times_:

* GOD IS NOT GREAT: How Religion Poisons Everything*

You can read Michael Kinsley's review here and the first chapter here.

From the review:
To [Hitchens], it's blindingly obvious: the great religions all began at a time when we knew a tiny fraction of what we know today about the origins of Earth and human life. It's understandable that early humans would develop stories about gods or God to salve their ignorance. But people today have no such excuse. If they continue to believe in the unbelievable, or say they do, they are morons or lunatics or liars. "The human wish to credit good things as miraculous and to charge bad things to another account is apparently universal," he remarks, unsympathetically.​


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm a liberal who displeases both conservatives and liberals for being a NRA member. I am by avocation a scientist questioned again by zealots on both sides for my religosity. This debate is a bunch of fossilized coprolite and just as old. I would much rather be shopping with Andy than listening to a man sharing my greek name without the good sense and ethics unhindered by myth to change it.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

*Because the "scientists" told me so, and we all know they're incapable of deceit.*



Kav said:


> "Science is based on empirical data."


Horse Hockey.

Science should be based on empirical data.

"Science" is a whore to the gods of funding.

The gods of funding are intransigently close-minded neo-Darwinists.

Or, perhaps they subscribe to the more advanced theory of asteroidal micro space boogers cruising to earth to generate Gould's precious _Cerion_ .

Which begs the question, whence the outer-space bacteria?

Ah, then one conjures gazillions more time units to conform to one's evolutionary abiogenesis fantasy.

Hence, more taxpayer extortion benefiting the "scientist".

Yes, yes. More, more. Feed the insatiable, untestable, unverifiable "every(indoctrinated)one knows it's true" abiogenesistic hypothesis beast.

Have a nice day, monkey boys.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Keep your post in mind while you comb your back hair and scratch your tailbone.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

cufflink44 said:


> Apropos of this discussion, there's a new book out by Christopher Hitchens that was reviewed in today's _NY Times_:
> 
> * GOD IS NOT GREAT: How Religion Poisons Everything*
> 
> ...


I have read scientist who grew up beliving what you wrote and then in their 40' to 70's turned away from it. Why? Some of these scientist probably know more than all of you put together and believed it while they taught and practiced it. With all the so called evidence how could they walk away from it? Why did they walk to Christianity of which they had scoffed all of their life?

Evidence can be explained many different ways, and many of those ways have turned up to be hot air. There are many different books written, probably by the thousands, that are now in the dump. And yet you turn to the same people for answers? That is a logical evidence it's self. While you say you are relying on science and not faith, but is that true? Some of you were convinced by some of the books that are now in the dump and yet you still blindly believe in a system that produced failure- I call that faith. Hiding your faith behind science and saying you don't have faith is still lieing, and do you know some of you are doing that? Believeing, as you do, in evolution when there really is no evidence is faith.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

rip said:


> Whether or not you had "nearly every dab figured out", the painting begins with but a single "dab" and "evolves", stroke by stroke, into a painting, which then goes through a drying process and then an ageing process during which time it changes, perceptibly or not. You may be able to turn loose of the process after you have applied the last dab; if so, you are a rarity, if not unique, among the many artists I know. If you've figured out a way to avoid any of the above, particularly the ageing process, please form a company and count me among your first investors.


If you want to explain evolution that way then God could actual create the cosmos in six 24 hour days. Like the painting- preinvented before actually being created for all to see. God says I knew you before the cosmos. God said "We decided" God in three Persons, being We is plural.

Anyway, I'm not here to push religion. I am here to knock evolution, which has nothing in it but continued hot air. Some of these Christain groups that knock evolution has a bit of wit and wisdom that every real scientist pays attention to. Real scientist want the truth and these Christain scientist point out a number of errors. There is no reason to expand errors that can be dismissed at the beginning. No scientist wants to waste time on errors, but cons will spend hours and even years pushing errors.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> I have read scientist who grew up beliving what you wrote and then in their 40' to 70's turned away from it. Why? Some of these scientist probably know more than all of you put together and believed it while they taught and practiced it. With all the so called evidence how could they walk away from it? Why did they walk to Christianity of which they had scoffed all of their life?


Your questions make sense only when one believes evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Even if one takes the Bible absolutely literally, nothing in that book precludes the possibility that God created evolution so living beings would be able to adapt to their environments.

Why is this possibility so threatening to religious fundamentalists? I just don't understand their animosity.

Scientists don't spend their time attacking established religion, while religious fundamentalists seem to be perpetually defending their beliefs against established science. Why is this?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, Hot air is merely another expression for the Big Bang theory. You can find the Big Bang theory already in Genesis, something about the breath of God. Couldn't that be hot air? You keep making reference to 'scientists who turned to religion' or 'this is a known fact' ad nauseum ( thats bad old Catholic latin for same old stuff) Yet you never provide references, names or any empirical proofs of your earthly statements. And for that matter, which one of the 'churches' do you belong to anyway? I decided if I was to do the Christian gig I wanted the full deluxe package with complimentary fruit basket. I went back to the beginning, the Catholic Church before the great schism and before Luther. I can sort out where a tough german Lutheran pastor is coming from, lunch with Baptists and make Presbyterian jokes. But I weary of trying to untangle teh linear electrical cord of every former bowling alley churchgroup that proclaims itself the alpha-omega of Christianity with the pink slip to Noah's Arc, Love gifts of those snowglobes depicting Hell for a donation and direct electrical juice from the big J himself. So please, before we proceed further, who are you and what are your credentials? Which Bible did you read, the Septuagint in greek, or the latest Reader's Digest condensed version that plays a rock tune from Stripers when opened like those electronic Hallmark cards? My masters is in Archaeology from U.C. B. thats my scientific credential. Whats yours in theology?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Your questions make sense only when one believes evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Even if one takes the Bible absolutely literally, nothing in that book precludes the possibility that God created evolution so living beings would be able to adapt to their environments.
> 
> Why is this possibility so threatening to religious fundamentalists? I just don't understand their animosity.
> 
> Scientists don't spend their time attacking established religion, while religious fundamentalists seem to be perpetually defending their beliefs against established science. Why is this?


Scientists don't attack established religion? How old are you? Maybe scientists don't attack nearly as much as before, but they sure used to. They have been doing this long before there ever where and Christian scientist groups that I ever heard of. When in high school the one teacher I had a couple times went way out of his way to attack Christianity. I remember one time with the same breath of air, accuseing christains for things they shouldn't have done, he then procceeded to do the errors himself as though scientist can't error. They got you so conned into believeing they are innocent, when they were well organized attacking Christians for decades. Like I said you shouldn't believe cons.

I think most "churches" have walked away from Church and are now into a bunch of balony. The religious fundamentalists get blamed for a lot of things today, but what was the past like? So much of what the fundamentalists stand for was normal life 35+ years ago, as I saw it from my peers and teachers in school and the community, it is the main line churchs that walked away from their beliefs that to include them as churches anymore is ridiculous- not that they had faith, but at least they had belief, which they nearly have nothing now, if anything. The religious fundamentalists simply like things the way they were, and it is America that has changed under foot. When I was in public school even the atheist knew the Bible extentsively compare childern today. Today there are not enough childern who know the Bible, like my generation did, to even say there is a few. My generation learned the Bible in Church, and today the school districts across the country are talking about teaching the Bible in school so the childern can understand the history of Western Civilization and it's literature. If you don't understand the religon that shaped so much of Western Civilization, then how can you understand it's history? This goes for all around the world which religons have played so much in shaping.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JRR said:


> Yep, lots of people will travel more than 250 miles to visit a museum based on fiction...


 Lord of the Rings Tours in New Zealand

The popularity of Lord of the Rings has seen New Zealand tourism companies offer a wide range of tours that cover location sites and general sightseeing or adventure activities. For Tolkien fans and those with just a mild interest, these tours vary in length with many personalised Lord of the Rings options available. Check out the LOTR tour options now.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The great flaw in the movie trilogy was omitting Tom Bombadil. He cared nothing for the ring and had a fox girlfriend. It was at this point in the book the sun turned stone Trolls gave a fright, a lesson in what happens to some beings under the light of scrutiny. that, and Strider should have been played by Clint Eastwood instead of Vigo Mortenson. You feel lucky ringwraith? Well do ya?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Scientists don't attack established religion? How old are you? Maybe scientists don't attack nearly as much as before, but they sure used to. They have been doing this long before there ever where and Christian scientist groups that I ever heard of. When in high school the one teacher I had a couple times went way out of his way to attack Christianity. I remember one time with the same breath of air, accuseing christains for things they shouldn't have done, he then procceeded to do the errors himself as though scientist can't error. They got you so conned into believeing they are innocent, when they were well organized attacking Christians for decades. Like I said you shouldn't believe cons.


To answer your question, I'm in my 40's, was born and raised a Roman Catholic, have spent 30+ years studying the Bible, and I've never run into a single person in the RCC who claimed that science was out to destroy Christianity.

Someone else in this thread asked what flavor of Christianity you subscribe to, and I'd also like to know.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, My masters is in Archaeology from U.C. B. thats my scientific credential. Whats yours in theology?


My Granddad was a preacher. Dad says he never went to any college. Perhaps eight grade was his last days in school living in a sod house in Neb.

You show that you have a degree in discovering history and not theology nor science. That shows that you were shown and told what to think. Don't you ever do your own thinking? My experience being around people with degress is that some are lost in a sea of knowlege and they don't have a clue what the truth is, though they can tell you a whole lot of worthless knowlege. I don't have a degree. If I were going to do lots of music college is a good way to go, but not the only good way to go. Geology is cool, though it is smothered in evolution. Economics is interesting. And art a pleasure. How would a degree in any of these make my theological view points anymore right? I like Pentecostal. I gather your view points of God is a way to explain morals, so no real living God, but a made up One to help explain morals and a pretend life. I believe in God because once in a while he talks to me, or answers prayer. One time at work I got a bloody noise during break and it wouldn't go away, after about 14 minutes I gave up on it going away like normal so I ask God to heal it, it felt like something touched it from the inside of the blood vessel and move about 3/8's of an inch and the bloody noise was gone. Have you ever had a bloody noise quit with your imagination? From the way you write your God is carnal. When as a very small boy a voice spoke to me, but not audible and taught me a certain way to think. Years later one of my brothers took a logic class at a college or university, this logic class is supppose to be equal to Trigonometry 3. some words have mathamatical properties so as you go through a sentence you come up with an answer. My brother has me doing the homework with him, but I had been doing that since I was a little boy, because that voice taught me.

Over 99% of theology is false. Has to be. If you have 100 doctrines competing on one subject, then only one can be right, if even that one.

If you are not skeptical of a doctrine, that has never been proven to you, then you should be. But if one proves right then a bunch of others are proven wrong. Some doctrines can only come to you, which can take years. When all said and done by a life time - nobody knows much. It is rare that God reveals anything. And if he reveals something to me how can I prove it to you? Or, you me? Such is life.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> My Granddad was a preacher. Dad says he never went to any college. Perhaps eight grade was his last days in school living in a sod house in Neb.
> 
> You show that you have a degree in discovering history and not theology nor science. That shows that you were shown and told what to think. Don't you ever do your own thinking?


Is there a history of cerebral palsy in your family?

That's an honest question, not meant as an insult.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Is there a history of cerebral palsy in your family?
> 
> That's an honest question, not meant as an insult.


nope.

Granddad was born in the 18xx. Few people born out in the prairies back then ever went beyond 8th grade. Somebody sent me a test for 8th graders to pass the 8th grade back in the olden days- I don't think many high schoolers could past that test when I went to high school.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, does "Judge not, less yea shall be judged" ring any Nebraska schoolhouse bells? You might want to locate a copy of BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY to see what my peers are doing. Evidence for King Herod's tomb was recently announced for one. As to my religon, My people are a mixed lot; Fenians who were excommunicated from the RC and became Church of Ireland and one self proclaimed Druid, a Dutch Jew of a minor family called Rothschild and a Choctaw Indian baptised Catholic for his french wife. I've spent 6 months in a Soto Zen Monastery, attended orthodox temple, corresponded with Joseph Campbell and chewed peyote under the California night sky with a Holyman.Theres a Khata from his Holyness The Dalai Lama in my safety deposit box. I've read the Bible cover to cover, both the OKJV and the Septuagint in translation under a Anglican priest with honours in Classics from Cambridge. I have found a spiritual home in Orthodoxy and respect the choices of my fellow man if they respect mine. People have tried to dicuss this with you and get trailerpark newspeak and arrogant ignorance in reply. I suggest you beg,borrow or likely as not steal a weedwacker, cut down that Northern Prairie tallgrass and wheat obstructing your view and look around a little. Revelling in your ignorance is no less akin to wearing flip flops and thinking oneself superior to a man in Aldens. I'm off to Orthros and the Liturgy. I'll light a beeswax candle for the forum.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Your questions make sense only when one believes evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Even if one takes the Bible absolutely literally, nothing in that book precludes the possibility that God created evolution so living beings would be able to adapt to their environments.
> 
> Why is this possibility so threatening to religious fundamentalists? I just don't understand their animosity.
> 
> Scientists don't spend their time attacking established religion, while religious fundamentalists seem to be perpetually defending their beliefs against established science. Why is this?


I think there's a great, great fear among religious fundamentalists that Science will someday find Popper's black swan, and their house of white swans will come tumbling down (Popper posited that the observation of a single black swan will prove false a theory, also based on observation, that the world is filled only with white swans). The real problem, as I see it, is that, while their faith might be strong, their belief in their faith is terribly weak, unable to withstand these "onslaughts", therefore they must demonize all scientists and, by extension, all science (although it is a bit humorous how quickly they gather to their bosom any science which tends to support their understanding of scripture) and they consider an attack any science that does not conform to their worldview. My faith, God-based, Jesus-centered and extremely strong, has plenty of room for swans both black and white, does not require that the ages of the saints add up to a particular number or need to know where Cain's wife came from.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Festivus is silent on evolution vs. creation. I think a decision must be made. Possibly through the Feats of Strength?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

rip said:


> I think there's a great, great fear among religious fundamentalists that Science will someday find Popper's black swan, and their house of white swans will come tumbling down (Popper posited that the observation of a single black swan will prove false a theory, also based on observation, that the world is filled only with white swans). The real problem, as I see it, is that, while their faith might be strong, their belief in their faith is terribly weak, unable to withstand these "onslaughts", therefore they must demonize all scientists and, by extension, all science (although it is a bit humorous how quickly they gather to their bosom any science which tends to support their understanding of scripture) and they consider an attack any science that does not conform to their worldview. My faith, God-based, Jesus-centered and extremely strong, has plenty of room for swans both black and white, does not require that the ages of the saints add up to a particular number or need to know where Cain's wife came from.


+1

That's true not just for religion and faith, e.g. I've found people who rant against same-sex marriage are generally the ones who are insecure in their own marriages; consistently high rates of homosexuality found in studies of people who identify themselves as homophobic, etc etc. What people hate and fear in others is usually what they hate and fear about themselves.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

Friday was USC's graduation day. At the main ceremony, the valedictorian's speech was given by a dazzling young man named Colin Koproske--summa cum laude, of course; double major in Poli Sci and Music; did extensive volunteer work with the Navajo Nation; off to Oxford in the fall on a Marshall scholarship to study political philosophy; and president of the USC Secular Alliance. His splendid speech--about the quest for honesty, the importance of examining assumptions, the need for a healthy skepticism, the dangers of dogma--was very well received.

Here's Colin on "The Spiritual University," recorded when he was a summer intern at the Center for Free Inquiry. It's near the beginning of the podcast, at 1:42.

https://www.pluggd.com/episode/show/tom_flynn___the_rise_of_the_non_religious

I'm buoyed up by young people like this guy, who's getting the message out to his peers that non-belief is no less respectable than religious faith.


----------



## Shriver (Apr 23, 2005)

lee_44106 said:


> Traditional Christian believes, including a literal faith in the description of creation, as mentioned in Genesis, has become favorite objects of attacks and ridicule. Very few mind the establishment of evolutionary-themed museums and parks.
> 
> I for one would support and go to the museum described from the OP.


Ridiculous things deserve to be ridiculed...

It isn't unfair in the least to ridicule 'creationism' and not ridicule biology - one is silly and false and one is true.

These people are certainly within their rights to have such a museum, and I don't think anyone is demanding that they close it, but if they want to try and make a buck of the suckers who think people used to ride dinosaurs, they get to take their chances with public ridicule.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> Friday was USC's graduation day. At the main ceremony, the valedictorian's speech was given by a dazzling young man named Colin Koproske--summa cum laude, of course; double major in Poli Sci and Music; did extensive volunteer work with the Navajo Nation; off to Oxford in the fall on a Marshall scholarship to study political philosophy; and president of the USC Secular Alliance. His splendid speech--about the quest for honesty, the importance of examining assumptions, the need for a healthy skepticism, the dangers of dogma--was very well received.
> 
> Here's Colin on "The Spiritual University," recorded when he was a summer intern at the Center for Free Inquiry. It's near the beginning of the podcast, at 1:42.
> 
> ...


Colin sounds like a sharp cookie, but I think his youth and inexperience show through at times. E.g. on the issue of religious study he talks about empirical evidence, scientific consensus etc, but trying to understand religion by scientific/empirical methods is like trying to understand or fully appreciate a Bach concerto by looking at its sheet music. I've of little or no value, aside from being fodder for intellectual discussion.

This is one of the main reasons I can't stomach Bible thumpers. Their "truth" is comprised entirely of spots of black ink printed on dead wood. I think Colin is falling into the same trap, via a different trail.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

You are on to something. The most important element of faith, in my opinion, is doubt. I think far too often those who attack people who are religious believe that religious people don't have doubts about theological issues and that they have closed themselves off to inquiry and further questions. Of course there are many religious people who do the above, but virtually all atheists I know have closed themselves off to inquiry and further questions as well. atheists have faith as well, as the non-existence of God is unproven. If atheists want to ridicule people of faith then fair enough but in doing so they are ridiculing themselves.

All one can do, if they are honest, is inquire about and further question the faith they have, doubts and all.

Karl

P.S. For the record I believe in evolution BUT I think far too many of you are accepting evolution as a proven fact, as far as I know its still called the Theory of Evolution, no? The evidence leads one to believe that evolution is fact but do not the rigors of science require even greater proof before we jettison all skepticism, no matter how small?

But don't take my word for it -

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> P.S. For the record I believe in evolution BUT I think far too many of you are accepting evolution as a proven fact, as far as I know its still called the Theory of Evolution, no? The evidence leads one to believe that evolution is fact but do not the rigors of science require even greater proof before we jettison all skepticism, no matter how small?


Evolution is only a theory, what's your point? My understand is that there are at least two other 'theories' people really don't question: gravity and electricity. They are 'only' theories too. Hmmmmm I'm not a scientist and admit I don't understand a lot of modern science. I am curious why it seems acceptable to discount evolution because it is only a 'theory' but there is no dispute over the 'theory' of electricity or gravity or any other scientific 'theories'. I thought the acceptance of a theory is the acknowledgement that it is the simply the best idea to explain something so far - no?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> Evolution is only a theory, what's your point? My understand is that there are at least two other 'theories' people really don't question: gravity and electricity. They are 'only' theories too. Hmmmmm I'm not a scientist and admit I don't understand a lot of modern science. I am curious why it seems acceptable to discount evolution because it is only a 'theory' but there is no dispute over the 'theory' of electricity or gravity or any other scientific 'theories'. I thought the acceptance of a theory is the acknowledgement that it is the simply the best idea to explain something so far - no?


This might help you.

Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal *Law* of Gravitation

https://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Electricity is not simply a theory either. However, electric flow is indeed full of theories - electromagnetic theory, electrodynamic theory, electric fluid theory, and Maxwell's equations. There are several electricity/electrical laws, primarily the Law of Charges, Coulumb's law, Ampere-Maxwell Circuital Law, Gauss's Law, and Faraday ElectroMagnetic Law, et al.

For example, electrodynamic theory was branched by the guy that worked on restating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Clausius circa 1870. Except for an issue with velocity experimentation this might be a law as well.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

For electrical laws, see Ohm's Law, Ampère's Law, Gauss's Law, Coulomb's Law, Faraday's Law of Induction and the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

Edit: ksinc, 
It looks like we had the same idea.


----------



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

Karl89 said:


> "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
> 
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


The Gould quote pretty much sums it up. Evolution itself is a fact. It occurs and can be observed --> disease resistance to antibiotics is evolution at work. However the mechanisms involved with how evolution occurs and the sequence/rate of past events are all part of the theory, which is constantly being debated and refined as more information becomes available.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> For electrical laws, see Ohm's Law, Ampère's Law, Gauss's Law, Coulomb's Law, Faraday's Law of Induction and the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.
> 
> Edit: ksinc,
> It looks like we had the same idea.


LOL Sorry! First phone call was 8:18am this morning and I'm trying to drink coffee, post here, and fake concern on the phone simultaneously


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> Evolution is only a theory, what's your point? My understand is that there are at least two other 'theories' people really don't question: gravity and electricity. They are 'only' theories too. Hmmmmm I'm not a scientist and admit I don't understand a lot of modern science. I am curious why it seems acceptable to discount evolution because it is only a 'theory' but there is no dispute over the 'theory' of electricity or gravity or any other scientific 'theories'. I thought the acceptance of a theory is the acknowledgement that it is the simply the best idea to explain something so far - no?


There's a major confusion over the word "theory", which has a specific scientific meaning. I quote the following _
"Hypothesis is the first component in the process, often written in 'If&#8230;. Then.." format. Curiosity and observations of life around us lead to the hypothesis. You must be able to test the hypothesis with an experiment.

It requires lots of experiments and observations to evolve a hypothesis into a theory or law. Oftentimes hypothesis are modified and/or tossed aside as experiments are performed. There are often many cycles in the process.

Most scientific theories explain events that were not directly witnessed. So we say they are supported by indirect evidence. For example the atom is too small to see and the continental plates move too slowly over a very long time period that no one can see or feel them move in one life time. As a result, it is not uncommon for theories to be altered over time as new evidence is uncovered. Usually well accepted scientific theories evolve with slight modifications, they are rarely, if ever, completely disproved since they are supported with lots of evidence.

Laws describe events in nature and often are expressed as mathematical relationships. For example the gas law says that for a gas at constant temperature, as volume decreases, the pressure increases.

Laws often are accompanied by theories that explain why the described behavior occurs. The following is an example. The particle theory of matter states that all matter is made of small individual building blocks called atoms. The kinetic theory of matter states that these particles are always moving, and moving very quickly in gases. The gas law states that as volume decreases, pressure increases. Pressure is caused by particles colliding with each other and the container. The kinetic and particle theories explain why the gas law behavior occurs. If you squeeze the same number of particles into a smaller volume, then there will be more collisions, causing more pressure.

Hypothesis - Tentative Explanation.
Theory - Verifiable Explanation.
Theorem - Demonstrable Explanation.
Law - Definite Explanation." _ 
Barrow, John. Theories of Everything (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> As far as hoax's evolution is the biggest I have ever seen. While the church has done many scandals they don't even come close to what the evolutionist have done. The biggest scandal of all is to disarm people from even thinking there might be a scandal involved. There are a number of top scientist who come from athism and evolution that walked away from these to a belief in God's six days 24 hour creation. Sounds like God reviews Himself in nature, and what do scientist study? Nature.
> 
> While some of you blindly believe some scoundrels who come in the name of science with evolution, but smart enough not to believe every body who comes in the name of christian, but you accuse christians of being gullible and don't see that your just as gullible. Scoundrels in both science and christianity have done damage- you need to blame both that do damage. And you evolutionist still have one problem- the hot air it is built on, since there are no facts from among science that even suggest evolution exist.


It sounds as though you are a "young earth" creationist, which would indicate that you believe that God created the universe, including the earth and all the plants and animals in it, in a period of six twenty-four hour days about six thousand years ago. I've read that people in this category, who are also biblical literalists, believe things like dinosaurs and human were in existence at the same time and that Noah brought dinosaurs onto the ark with him (I just read recently that he brought baby dinosaurs because that's what he had room for).

I'll try to avoid a mocking tone, because I am curious about where these ideas lead, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who thinks this way, so could you answer some questions for me?

Is it your belief that all the species on earth were created at the time Genesis recounts, or have some species arisen (evolved) since then? Also, do you believe that the God that you believe in could not have created a universe in which species evolve into new species, or just that he didn't? What about extinction? Has it happened, and why? Was there something wrong with the species that God created that they couldn't exist in the conditions that God created for them?

Finally, do your beliefs also mean that you reject ideas like plate tectonics? Do you think the physical earth is exactly the same now as it was when it was created six thousand years ago? If so, how do you account for geological evidence of change, such as evidence of oceanic life on what is now dry land?

Thanks.


----------



## charms (Mar 24, 2007)

There is much confusion about the use of 'law' and 'theory' within the scientific community. Most scientific "laws" were so-named during the classical scientific period and are often simple mathematical relations designed for the beginner or intermediate student. The terms were very loosely and haphazardly applied, so calling something a law does not necessarily make it more legitimate than a theory. Newton's LAW of Gravitation has been proven imprecise or downright untrue for a wide variety of conditions.

A great many, if not most, of your everyday technologies were designed using "theories," for example take the computer that you are now reading. Nonetheless, I assure you that your computer's continued operation is very much a reality and not an apparition designed by scientific conspirators.

Calling evolution _just_ a theory is a (poor) semantic argument, ignorant of the proper usage of the term, and one which does not directly confront or counter the evidence in question.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

JRR said:


> Yesterday, I was proud to be living in Cincy/N Ky after the whole OJ/Jeff Ruby brohaha...
> 
> However, today I read the above article, and am reminded again why I have such mixed feelings about this area of the country.


It's not regional. Do you really think there is a scarcity of such idiocies in any other state? It's just that their nature changes from region to region/ state to state. Somewhere (probably in California) there is, no doubt, a museum of the earth goddess, or a museum explaining how we're all a genetic mixture of ape and space alien, etc. Just enjoy it as local color and move on.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

My sister is a member of some Baptist group in the Kitchner/Waterloo area. They are anti-evolutionists, were sure the world was ending at Y2K (and of course they were in the "chosen" section!), and basically rather fundies. However, they seem to have no problem believing in the efficacy of modern antibiotics, especially when these drugs were able to help their sick child. Of course, evolution as "theory" and creationism = fact became moot to them when their child grew ill (the little gaffer is fine now).

Goes to my theory that most people are religious until the point that it becomes very inconvenient. Fear those that do not have this point, as they fly planes into buildings.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

I'm surprised that the Pastafarians haven't weighed in yet:

https://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

"... I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

"Happy, indeed, are those who have faith without having to feel the touch of his Noodly Appendage!"


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> It sounds as though you are a "young earth" creationist, which would indicate that you believe that God created the universe, including the earth and all the plants and animals in it, in a period of six twenty-four hour days about six thousand years ago. I've read that people in this category, who are also biblical literalists, believe things like dinosaurs and human were in existence at the same time and that Noah brought dinosaurs onto the ark with him (I just read recently that he brought baby dinosaurs because that's what he had room for).


I have no idea if they or many of them were brought into the ark. Somebody here says the evidence prove evolution is real. Of course how one reads the evidence can change how one thinks and from the evolutionist side there are many books in the dump where the evidence got explained that is no longer ok. Since you mentioned dinosaurs there is evidence that mankind and dinosaurs lived togther, isn't there? It is amazing how evolutionist leave out evidence they don't want you to know about. Tracks in the mud that is now solid rock.



> Is it your belief that all the species on earth were created at the time Genesis recounts, or have some species arisen (evolved) since then?


Evolved? Micro? Or, macro? These are not the same are they? Even that pro macro evolution teacher in high school said that. How else do you think all those different dogs came about in a few years? Micro. One book I was reading this famous Palaeontologist (don't remember the name) who believed in E toward the end of his life made this statment about the bones and fossils "each kind came after it's own kind" or something or other like that, but he just couldn't believe what the evidence showed that caused him to make that statment. As Genesis recounts and nothing evolved and there is no mention, that I know of, where God invented something new.



> Also, do you believe that the God that you believe in could not have created a universe in which species evolve into new species, or just that he didn't?


If he wanted? Yeah! Why not!



> What about extinction? Has it happened, and why? Was there something wrong with the species that God created that they couldn't exist in the conditions that God created for them?


Extinction? It would be nice if it came to an end, since we have lost enough.



> Finally, do your beliefs also mean that you reject ideas like plate tectonics? Do you think the physical earth is exactly the same now as it was when it was created six thousand years ago? If so, how do you account for geological evidence of change, such as evidence of oceanic life on what is now dry land?
> 
> Thanks.


I suppose lots of stuff got sloshed during that ark ride Noah had. Does it say the foundation of the earth got busted, then, too? This one time in Anchorage this portly guy sitting in a wire frame chair all a suddenly started dancing around really fast while sitting in that chair and I wondered how he could do that. It had been a few years since I had been in an earthquake and I didn't notice this one watching the feet of his chair moving so fast. In 1981 they were getting 2-3 earthquakes a week up there. And there has been several around here through out the years.

How you guess evidence makes you right or wrong. Most guesses by scientist have been wrong, by the evidence in the dump. When you have been preprogramed to exclude objective thinking, then somebody else is pulling your strings. When you are on one side of the fence and you never step over to hear what the otherside has to say, then how are you being objective? If you go over there with preconcieved ideas, how can you do objective thinking? On other subjects I have been on both sides of the fence, but it started out on one side and with me laughing at the other unawhere that I had been lied too and set up and it was also their way to keep me on their side. And this is what I see of you and others here being only on oneside and really never the other. Every scandel tries to keep you from the otherside.

Scientist who walked away from evolution;
Physical anthropologist Dr. Neil Huber, Creation Magazine vol. 24 No. 2, March-May 2002, pages 44-45 (I thought this guy walked away from evolution in his 70's, but after rereading the article, maybe not). You can write and ask some of these anti-evolution organizations and ask for ex-believers of evolution who got their Ph.D's before they became ex-believers. Another I read about I think was in probably guidepost or Readers Digest, several months ago. If evolution is so right- how could they walk away? What is your side keeping away from you?


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

You know who was a creationist before coming to evolution?





Charles Darwin


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

anglophile23 said:


> You know who was a creationist before coming to evolution?
> 
> Charles Darwin


Is it true he walked away from evolution in the end?

I don't remember, but it seems like people who believe in evolution say he did.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Is it true he walked away from evolution in the end?
> 
> I don't remember, but it seems like people who believe in evolution say he did.


Depends whether one chooses to believe Darwin's daughter, or some lady with a religious agenda:

"It has been supposed that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed. Shortly after his death, temperance campaigner and evangelist Lady Elizabeth Hope claimed she visited Darwin at his deathbed, and witnessed the renunciation. Her story was printed in a Boston newspaper and subsequently spread. Lady Hope's story was refuted by Darwin's daughter Henrietta who stated, "I was present at his deathbed ... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier."


----------



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

WA said:


> I have no idea if they or many of them were brought into the ark. Somebody here says the evidence prove evolution is real. Of course how one reads the evidence can change how one thinks and from the evolutionist side there are many books in the dump where the evidence got explained that is no longer ok. Since you mentioned dinosaurs there is evidence that mankind and dinosaurs lived togther, isn't there? It is amazing how evolutionist leave out evidence they don't want you to know about. Tracks in the mud that is now solid rock.


From: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html


> The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not. For example:
> Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs (Hastings 1987; Kuban 1989).
> Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting.
> Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration (Godfrey 1985).
> ...


There is no evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together.

And any single individual who believes in creationism and doesn't support evolution isn't evidence that that one is better then the other. I'm sure there are reputable scientist who later went on to study flying saucers as well.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You want scientists? I'll give you scientists. I was at UCSC when the authors of the 'selfish gene' theory began pushing their ideas in class. I derailed the lecture and reminded people how such psuedo science led to some of the nazi's more interesting leisure activities. I dropped the class and enrolled in the Gamelan Orchestra. Then there was the afro american ( thats we he insisted we call him, though only a swedish girl had been there-twice) archaeologist who wrote a book theorising humanity began in New Mexico and not Africa and once in a lifetime foot journeys were made to the painted caves in Spain and France, much like the Haj to Mecca. Funny guy, making excuses when the tribal council discovered he used a backhoe on a mortuary complex until I monkeywrenched it. I can scrounge up no meaness of quack scientist for every equally quack theologian. Maybe I'll take out a Craigslist advertisement; Will trade 2 useless degreed scientists for two useless theologians, bookdeals royalties included.Curbside delivery only.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Let's see the creation museum explain this:


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

An *objective, investigative* intelligence will find no substantive evidence of evolution.

Exalting evolution as "theory" disservices the "scientific method". It is speculative hypothesis, at best.

Academic mythology and philosophical propaganda postulated as fact.

Fools' fantasy: Psalm 14:1


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Let's see the creation museum explain this:


You should ask them. To make it simple my take is this. I have seen emotional nonsence like this come up many times. But where are they now? In the Dump. History repeats itself!!

Now a question for you. How come you believe speculation as fact?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> only a swedish girl


Aahh!! So, this is where your mind was at when in school.

That explains a lot.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Gradstudent78 said:


> From: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
> 
> There is no evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together.
> 
> And any single individual who believes in creationism and doesn't support evolution isn't evidence that that one is better then the other. I'm sure there are reputable scientist who later went on to study flying saucers as well.


I don't know about these that you mention, but it seems to me I have seen photographs of People standing beside, or on rock, that has clear prints of humans and dino's.

By the way, this website mentions tampering of evidence- you actually believe some evolutionist don't?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Some of you people write as though science and evolution can't be seperated, like, "no evolution = no science". So, were there no scientist before the thought of evolution? 

When you take that next drug from the doctor, or your wife takes it, or child, or parent and it was researched by a non-believer of evolution who directed it's creation- did they create this medical drug without science?

For how long Christian fundamentalist have been in the news (something like 30 years) it seems like (from reading here) some of you know a little more than zero about them. It is kinda strange to read, among some of you, that, because they don't believe in macro evolution you believe they don't believe in science. 

Mechanics is rather important, after all it moves a car. I was reading a book about evolution by an evolutionist. He lays the ground work first and then he sets theroy number one block, then number two and so- up and up we go. Come to theroy number 8 and he is now proving that theroy number 5 does not exits. Up and up we go, if you think so. Theroy number 13 and he has to prove 9 and 8 don't exist, up and up we go, if you think so. Theroy number 18 and he has to prove 15 and 7 don't exist, up and up we go, if you think so. Well, at this rate to theroy number 45 there is lots of thin air between what is left of the blocks, since a number of blocks are missing and I believe in the science of gravity- where does this leave us? On the ground. What does the mechanics say about the tower of evolution? Babel


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> Mechanics is rather important, after all it moves a car. I was reading a book about evolution by an evolutionist. He lays the ground work first and then he sets theroy number one block, then number two and so- up and up we go. Come to theroy number 8 and he is now proving that theroy number 5 does not exits. Up and up we go, if you think so. Theroy number 13 and he has to prove 9 and 8 don't exist, up and up we go, if you think so. Theroy number 18 and he has to prove 15 and 7 don't exist, up and up we go, if you think so. Well, at this rate to theroy number 45 there is lots of thin air between what is left of the blocks, since a number of blocks are missing and I believe in the science of gravity- where does this leave us? On the ground. What does the mechanics say about the tower of evolution? Babel


I very much doubt that this book you mention exists, but if it does could you provide the title and author?

Edit: I should rephrase that: I very much doubt that this book exists, but if you will provide the title and author I will agree to read it.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

*Reading the original CD*

In case anyone is interested, you can read Charles Darwin's original writings on-line at https://darwin-online.org.uk/.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, How 'christian' of you to make a sexual inuendo to negate my life experiences. Go to a library, I am sure people will point it out. It says LIBRARY. Get a dictionary, they are usually great big books, often red or blue. Thumb to F, thats after E and before G. Now look up FUNDAMENT, the root word for your most ancient branch of christianity. Now look at it's meanings. I believe one will describe you, your church and the 7 'teachers' who passed you on. I am done with you.


----------



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

WA said:


> Some of you people write as though science and evolution can't be seperated, like, "no evolution = no science". So, were there no scientist before the thought of evolution?
> 
> When you take that next drug from the doctor, or your wife takes it, or child, or parent and it was researched by a non-believer of evolution who directed it's creation- did they create this medical drug without science?


An understanding of how diseases evolve is an important part of studying and controlling diseases, its one of the reasons why AIDS is so hard to fight and why it is essential people take a full course of antibiotics.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> When you take that next drug from the doctor, or your wife takes it, or child, or parent and it was researched by a non-believer of evolution who directed it's creation- did they create this medical drug without science?


WA, I am not going to waste much bandwidth on this, but you do understand that some very basic "labs" one does in any health science program is to cause the mutation of bacteria on an agar plate and then test what abx they are sensitive? You do understand this is Micro-bio at about the second term level, right?

If anyone else has taken a micro-bio class at an advanced level in the last 15 or so years, please weigh in for WA with that little experiement where you introduce plasmids to bacteris and create abx resistance.

Anyone taking any generational abx is benefitting directly from evolutionary science.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gradstudent78 said:


> An understanding of how diseases evolve is an important part of studying and controlling diseases, its one of the reasons why AIDS is so hard to fight and* why it is essential people take a full course of antibiotics.*




Not only that they take the full course, but that they follow the dosing instructions also.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, How 'christian' of you to make a sexual inuendo to negate my life experiences. Go to a library, I am sure people will point it out. It says LIBRARY. Get a dictionary, they are usually great big books, often red or blue. Thumb to F, thats after E and before G. Now look up FUNDAMENT, the root word for your most ancient branch of christianity. Now look at it's meanings. I believe one will describe you, your church and the 7 'teachers' who passed you on. I am done with you.


Sorry Kav. I only ment clean fun humor and a break away from the subject of this thread.

About one of your degree (don't remember what the other one is) it makes learning history so much more intertesting. From that Aztecs to the Roman villages to the pharaohs of Egypt and so on. Maybe you will be the one to discover the lost info on how the pyramids were made. I have nothing against your degree and glad you have it. When are you going to get your Ph.D?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I very much doubt that this book you mention exists, but if it does could you provide the title and author?
> 
> Edit: I should rephrase that: I very much doubt that this book exists, but if you will provide the title and author I will agree to read it.


Don't remember the name or author of the book. After all, it was about 35 years ago when I read it. It could have been printed in the 50's or maybe the 60's. It was in the high school library. While I layed out the direction as blocks going up like a Greek or Roman colume to be sure you understand what he said can't work, but he did go step by step, and as he went he started to remove steps along the way. For one step he had to remove at least three other ones. I don't care how he explained why he could do that, because the mechanics say you can't.

My experince with evolution is to many scandals, like mixing up micro with macro to decieve people. Some of the people here show they don't even know the difference between the two. The only reason why they are not clearly seperated, so the student understands which the teach is talking about, is to con. And I don't like to be around cons. In my book honesty goes along ways. Here is something for you to think about. In high school one of my peers, who's dad was probably a proffessor, said he was going to pursue evolution as a career. Somebody asked him why and he replied that it is the only proffession where telling lies is respected. Did he even believe in evolution? I don't think so. While there are many who are good honest people, some of the major people behind evolution are not, and if they were not there with their influence what is taught and believed would be way different. I can tell you more reasons why I don't like being around those hard at pushing evolution. Well, enough for now.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

WA said:


> My experince with evolution is to many scandals, like mixing up micro with macro to decieve people.... In my book honesty goes along ways. Here is something for you to think about. In high school one of my peers, who's dad was probably a proffessor, said he was going to pursue evolution as a career. Somebody asked him why and he replied that it is the only proffession where telling lies is respected. Did he even believe in evolution? I don't think so. While there are many who are good honest people, some of the major people behind evolution are not, and if they were not there with their influence what is taught and believed would be way different. I can tell you more reasons why I don't like being around those hard at pushing evolution. Well, enough for now.


If you replaced the word 'evolution' with 'religion' I would agree with you.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

*Nova show on creationism vs evolution*

I saw a very interesting show on Nova last night that went in detail through the court case stemming from the decision in Dover, PA to require science teachers to read a statement that there were other theories to evolution.

This was a fascinating show and detailed how the law suit very clearly showed that "intelligent design" is really creationism and that it is not a science. The show also detailed how some of the intelligent design claims as to things being too complex to evolve naturally were not only wrong, but that the proponents of this had mis- or wrongly quoted scientists to make their case. There was also a brief discussion of the testimony that yes evolution is scientific theory just like gravity is "only" a theory, but that it is a theory that can be studied and tested by the scientific method (and detailed how these studies support evolution). The testimony also described how intelligent design can not really be studied or tested because it is based on the basis of the proposal being answered by an intelligent something or other (ie creator, God) which can not be tested. (He gave an analogy to the Boston Redsox coming back after being three games down to the Yankees in the pennant race. You could say that God got tired of the Yankees winning all of the time and made the Redsox win. This can't be tested but is the same logic that God created Man, its faith based, not science based).

As an undergraduate it would have been nice to answer some of my chemistry exam questions by saying God made the reaction (or whatever) happen. I would have received much better grades!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> I saw a very interesting show on Nova last night that went in detail through the court case stemming from the decision in Dover, PA to require science teachers to read a statement that there were other theories to evolution.
> 
> This was a fascinating show and detailed how the law suit very clearly showed that "intelligent design" is really creationism and that it is not a science. The show also detailed how some of the intelligent design claims as to things being too complex to evolve naturally were not only wrong, but that the proponents of this had mis- or wrongly quoted scientists to make their case. There was also a brief discussion of the testimony that yes evolution is scientific theory just like gravity is "only" a theory, but that it is a theory that can be studied and tested by the scientific method (and detailed how these studies support evolution). The testimony also described how intelligent design can not really be studied or tested because it is based on the basis of the proposal being answered by an intelligent something or other (ie creator, God) which can not be tested. (He gave an analogy to the Boston Redsox coming back after being three games down to the Yankees in the pennant race. You could say that God got tired of the Yankees winning all of the time and made the Redsox win. This can't be tested but is the same logic that God created Man, its faith based, not science based).
> 
> As an undergraduate it would have been nice to answer some of my chemistry exam questions by saying God made the reaction (or whatever) happen. I would have received much better grades!


No doubt you misunderstand much. So much is a play of words and not facts. Your last paragrah would git you an F by any scientist who believes evolution as a farse. You probably haven't a clue how much evolutionist control your thought, even as to what other people believe. And twist they do as you have shown above.

Evolutionist have stolen science. Wasn't that long ago that evolutionist were saying it took millions, like hundreds of years to get change. Then they noticed the evidence said otherwise, so they changed it to "sudden changes". But the bones are so far apart with none in between, so it is at best a theory, clearly not fact. How come they can find bones of one group and then find bones of "advanced", but none in between- wouldn't there be millions of bones that have to be in between for evolution to work? What a play of words "the missing link" when they don't even have one link, much more a chain. Evolutionist words are nothing but hot air. And my tax money shouldn't be spent on hot air.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Michael, if you're interested I would encourage you to read the whole opinion. Here's a link where you can get it in PDF: https://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/educate/ktzmllrdvr122005opn.pdf

In the decision the judge, who IIRC was a Reagan appointee, thoroughly dissects and demolishes the claims that creationism--oops, they like to call it intelligent design these days--is science. The court's decision conclusively demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of the Behes and Dembskis of the world, as well as the flat-out fraudulent claims of the local creationism mongers, and shatters all of their bogus claims, including "irreducible complexity", the bacterial flagellum, and the like.

Oh, and by the way, WA, any luck finding that book that you claimed to have read last year?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Michael, if you're interested I would encourage you to read the whole opinion. Here's a link where you can get it in PDF: https://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/educate/ktzmllrdvr122005opn.pdf
> 
> In the decision the judge, who IIRC was a Reagan appointee, thoroughly dissects and demolishes the claims that creationism--oops, they like to call it intelligent design these days--is science. The court's decision conclusively demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of the Behes and Dembskis of the world, as well as the flat-out fraudulent claims of the local creationism mongers, and shatters all of their bogus claims, including "irreducible complexity", the bacterial flagellum, and the like.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, WA, any luck finding that book that you claimed to have read last year?


Jack, that court case is full of lies. If you start with the first legal document of the USA it mentions God. And other places it mentions God, such as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. Const. amend. I. The very fact that this is in the Constitution say the Government is giving more to religion than you are acknowleging. No doubt there are people who want to shove there beliefs, such as evolutionist, into other peoples minds, including some Christians their view of Christianity. When I was in school I didn't want somebody shoveing there religious veiws down my throat, nor did I want evolutionist doing the same. If they are going to shove evolution down peoples throats then they should give honest compelling scientific reasons why not to believe in evolution and, they don't even have to mention any religion because there is enough science out there for the counter argument without mentioning religion. What I don't like about the evolutionist is they're extremely dishonesty about science. Have you ever heard, what you call a true scientist, attack evolution? If a professor actually did that in a university how long would he keep his job? This is a dishonesty that is praised by evolutionist. So with that, how can they be real scientist? Indeed, you can say some people have hijacked Intelligent Design, as some people (evolutionist) have hijacked science. You can't even get a science degree in college without them raming down your throat evolution. If you want to believe in evolution help yourself but stop trying to ram it down everybody else's throat. In Church you can get up and walk out but, do that in school and you get an F.

Looked through the whole thread for the books I may have mentioned, but only found mention one book that I read in High School over 30 years ago. To remember the name of that book more than 30 years ago is asking a bit much, not to mention the school does not allow adults in there buildings, except limited reasons, and 30 years later I'm sure they replaced the book. Perhaps you could refresh my memory as to which book I read last year that I mentioned? This thread is 5 pages long. There is another book I read where the guy talked about biology, at the time evolutionist didn't want to hear what he had to say. He also spent a chapter on a huge scam. This book I read shortly after high school and I would certainly shove it in your face if I knew the name of it. It seems to me all you read is pro evolution - how dishonest can you get? You really should broaden your reading.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

There are far more interesting subjects to study in the sciences than the origin of the species.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

WA said:


> Jack, that court case is full of lies. If you start with the first legal document of the USA it mentions God. And other places it mentions God, such as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. Const. amend. I. The very fact that this is in the Constitution say the Government is giving more to religion than you are acknowleging. No doubt there are people who want to shove there beliefs, such as evolutionist, into other peoples minds, including some Christians their view of Christianity. When I was in school I didn't want somebody shoveing there religious veiws down my throat, nor did I want evolutionist doing the same. If they are going to shove evolution down peoples throats then they should give honest compelling scientific reasons why not to believe in evolution and, they don't even have to mention any religion because there is enough science out there for the counter argument without mentioning religion. What I don't like about the evolutionist is they're extremely dishonesty about science. Have you ever heard, what you call a true scientist, attack evolution? If a professor actually did that in a university how long would he keep his job? This is a dishonesty that is praised by evolutionist. So with that, how can they be real scientist? Indeed, you can say some people have hijacked Intelligent Design, as some people (evolutionist) have hijacked science. You can't even get a science degree in college without them raming down your throat evolution. If you want to believe in evolution help yourself but stop trying to ram it down everybody else's throat. In Church you can get up and walk out but, do that in school and you get an F.
> 
> Looked through the whole thread for the books I may have mentioned, but only found mention one book that I read in High School over 30 years ago. To remember the name of that book more than 30 years ago is asking a bit much, not to mention the school does not allow adults in there buildings, except limited reasons, and 30 years later I'm sure they replaced the book. Perhaps you could refresh my memory as to which book I read last year that I mentioned? This thread is 5 pages long. There is another book I read where the guy talked about biology, at the time evolutionist didn't want to hear what he had to say. He also spent a chapter on a huge scam. This book I read shortly after high school and I would certainly shove it in your face if I knew the name of it. It seems to me all you read is pro evolution - how dishonest can you get? You really should broaden your reading.


Look, I don't mind constructive debate with someone about intelligent design or evolution, but honestly, what rock did you crawl out from under? You're illiterate, you can't reason and you can't think critically, and that in itself undermines intelligent design.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

How do creationists explain this?

Seeds were selected by farmers for 5000 years to create modern corn when farmers decided to plant the best seeds instead of eating them. Creationism is childish.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Michael, if you're interested I would encourage you to read the whole opinion. Here's a link where you can get it in PDF: https://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/educate/ktzmllrdvr122005opn.pdf
> 
> In the decision the judge, who IIRC was a Reagan appointee, thoroughly dissects and demolishes the claims that creationism--oops, they like to call it intelligent design these days--is science. The court's decision conclusively demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of the Behes and Dembskis of the world, as well as the flat-out fraudulent claims of the local creationism mongers, and shatters all of their bogus claims, including "irreducible complexity", the bacterial flagellum, and the like.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, WA, any luck finding that book that you claimed to have read last year?


Thanks, very interesting read, really well reasoned and written.

It never fails to amaze me then when a group of people with an idea (for lack of a better word) that is not suported by science start making statements like the scientific establishment has highjacked science, that science will not accept new ideas, that professors are afraid to disagree with the status quo (haven't they heard of tenure), etc. Instead of looking at real scientific arguments, they just retreat to the old and tired excuses.

Most scientists I know love a good controversy (this may be because I am a geologist and we argue more than most). Out of discssion and argument come some great ideas. Sometimes it takes a while, but people are open in my experience. (Thomas Kuhn writes a lot about changes in scientific paradigms and is well worth reading).

Good scientific theories can be/must be tested and studied based on scientific methods instead of faith. The narrow minded people are the ones who refuse to accept this.

(By the way, I've seen pictures of the supposed human footprints next dinosaur footprints and the "human" footprints really do not look at all human although with certain mind altering substances injested in my younger years I might have thought so, but then again, I also though the walls were melting one time. The other supposed "scientific" arguments from creationists I have seen are also very easily disputed and in some cases downright laughable. Being a geologist (now hydrogeoloist) and an "evolutionist" does not affect or interfere with my faith.)


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Kinky afterlife?*



KenR said:


> Valhalla, what better place for a tribal warlord! I'm looking for a place with lots of goddesses in togas.


If goddesses were in togas, they'd be cross-dressing.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> There are far more interesting subjects to study in the sciences than the origin of the species.


I found the charts of female anatomy very compelling when I was but a lad. The real thing is better, though.:icon_smile_wink: Disecting frogs in junior high was fun...good way to gross out the girls.

Regarding the Creation Museum: I had no idea cavemen and dinosaurs lived so peacefully together. Very Flinstonesesque.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

RJman said:


> Look, I don't mind constructive debate with someone about intelligent design or evolution, but honestly, what rock did you crawl out from under? You're illiterate, you can't reason and you can't think critically, and that in itself undermines intelligent design.


I see you believe the first legal document of the USA is obsolete.

If God created all that we see and feel and hear, then science will never prove otherwise. I think you, RJman, ought to get off the dead horse and ride a real one. I know the crowd you hang around with makes the dead horse seem so alive, but is it? How many theories has scientist proven wrong? If more than one, then evolution may be proven wrong too in the future. You accuse me of haveing blind belief in a religious veiw, but do you not have blind belief in a theory? You accuse me of knowing my belief is right, while you do the same with yours. If so many people did not believe in it, such as scientist, would you believe in it? Perhaps it is the amount of people who believe in it, or how they talk that causes you to believe in evolution and not science at all.

All I see with evolution is this theory, and after that one is proven wrong then another theory, and so on. Quite a rut you are walking in. If you walk through the bone yard of evolution theories and get a laugh, it becomes apparent how gulliably people are.

So, what is critical thinking? Pleasing your instructors? Fitting in? Don't be laughed or scoffed at? It might prove you really are thinking if people are laughing and scoffing at you. It is easy to fit in with people who use a theory to convince people that a theory is true, what is strange is when that theory is proven wrong you simply grab the next, and next, and next... A critical thinker starts thinking about that and become uninterested in fitting in and becomes more interested in whatever the truth is.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> I found the charts of female anatomy very compelling when I was but a lad. The real thing is better, though.:icon_smile_wink: Disecting frogs in junior high was fun...good way to gross out the girls.
> 
> Regarding the Creation Museum: I had no idea cavemen and dinosaurs lived so peacefully together. Very Flinstonesesque.


:icon_smile_big: The frog labs were fun, and the sheep hearts too. Very interesting stuff. The evolution/creation debate is very tiresome. Both sides have very strong views, and no one is ever convinced by the other side. It's boring to talk about. I'd rather do stoichiometry problems.


----------

