The new $27 million Creation Museum near Cincinnati has lots of glitz and high-tech animatronic displays.
But is it science? No.
The evangelical group that built the museum says science backs its claims that biblical stories such as Adam and Eve and Noah’s ark are literally true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Dinosaurs are shown co-existing with humans.
The founders have every right to create a museum extolling their beliefs, which are shared by many Americans. What they don’t have a right to do is claim that this has anything to do with science.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
444 Comments
$27 million for a recreation of a Flintstone’s cartoon? You’d think with that money they could do some scientific research to actually support their position. But hey, why have facts when you can just provide propaganda?
I hadn’t heard the $27 million price-tag, but it makes sense now. Admittance to the “museum” has been publicized as $27 a person. There are probably a million people who will show up just for the goof factor alone.
If (God forbid) I happened to end up in Cincinnati with a couple of hours to kill, I’d probably go.
Never, ever, underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
“Guess what, kids! We can afford a vacation this year!”
“Yeah! Are we goin’ to DisneyWorld?!”
“No.”
“Are we goin’ to 6 Flags!?”
“No.”
“Are we goin’ to the ocean?!”
“No, we’re going to the Creation Museum!!”
“Uhm. Could we go see the big ball of twine instead?”
At least the big ball of twine is real.
What would happen if those people actually took over our government, like they WANT to do??
You think they dont?? Hey, look em up some time on Google… They are in there, and they want power, and control!!
Watch this; it’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen, and fits perfectly hand-in-glove with this article.
http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c39212b940680112b9bf31dd000d
You have to be kidding me. Gawd, just when you think the cons cannot outdo themselves with foolishness! I wonder of the “museum” has a section called “The Earth Really Is Flat” in it.
why not, you fell for the “evolution theory “. that was backed by stupidity.
why not, you fell for the “evolution theory “. that was backed by stupidity.
And why do you care what an American does with his own property?
Kent, why don’t you back up your ascertion that “evolution theory is backed by stupidity”?
We have heard over here in UK that 50% of Americans believe in creationism so this sort of museum would attract plenty of customers for sure. What is wrong with the US education system to allow the bible bashers to brainwash children? When will common sense prevail?
Kent, don’t try to get all Kirk Cameron on us and claim you can use REASON to back up creationist beliefs.
If you think evolution is illogical, then that’s fine, but creationism is even less logical (which is ok, because it’s not supposed to be about logic– it’s about faith despite inconsistent facts). But don’t go claiming the intellectual/rational superiority of creationism over anything, because it’s just going to make YOU look stupid.
Sally…………………………what do you mean exactly by “What is wrong with the US education system to allow the bible bashers to brainwash children?”
Here in the US, we have this document called the “Constitution”. The 1st amendment to our Constitution contains a something commonly known as the “Establishment Clause”; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…….” Many Court rulings here have made in very clear that teaching “creationism” in a public school equates with endorsing, or establishing a specific religious doctrine. Recently, the “Kitzmiller v. Dover” {http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf} case established that the current creationist iteration, “Intelligent Design”, is in fact creationism as well.Therefore Sally, “common sense” has prevailed here in the states. Real Science is taught in our public schools and faith-based creationism is NOT.
Sally…………………………what do you mean exactly by “What is wrong with the US education system to allow the bible bashers to brainwash children?”
Here in the US, we have this document called the “Constitution”. The 1st amendment to our Constitution contains a something commonly known as the “Establishment Clause”; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…….” Many Court rulings here have made in very clear that teaching “creationism” in a public school equates with endorsing, or establishing a specific religious doctrine. Recently, the “Kitzmiller v. Dover” {http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf} case established that the current creationist iteration, “Intelligent Design”, is in fact creationism as well.Therefore Sally, “common sense” has prevailed here in the states. Real Science is taught in our public schools and faith-based creationism is NOT.
Sally…………………………what do you mean exactly by “What is wrong with the US education system to allow the bible bashers to brainwash children?”
Here in the US, we have this document called the “Constitution”. The 1st amendment to our Constitution contains a something commonly known as the “Establishment Clause”; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…….” Many Court rulings here have made in very clear that teaching “creationism” in a public school equates with endorsing, or establishing a specific religious doctrine. Recently, the “Kitzmiller v. Dover” {http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf} case established that the current creationist iteration, “Intelligent Design”, is in fact creationism as well.Therefore Sally, “common sense” has prevailed here in the states. Real Science is taught in our public schools and faith-based creationism is NOT.
Sorry about the triple post……….IE crashed shortly afterwards.
Reminds me of touring the Mormon Temple a few years back..lots of animation illustrating the Mormon bible (did you know that Jesus sailed to the Americas?) and even a great big talking Jesus. They’ve scaled it down some since then…maybe too many people left laughing, which is what’s bound to happen with this “museum”.
I think Sally refers to the fact that the Bible-Bashers, a.k.a., Literalists, have been very successful to infiltrate local school boards and dictate the curricula, e.g., the “Wedge Document” sort of approach. The brainwashing may not exactly happen in classrooms, but more from the outside settings, parents and religious leaders mostly.
On the other hand, science is not about common sense, notably when it comes to extreme physical conditions, e.g., close to Planck scales. Even the common saying “what goes up must come down” is no longer universal following Newton’s Mechanics.
This is great! This will be a must see stop should I ever be in the Cincinnati area. The thought of dinosaurs on the ark with Noah is hilarious. I wonder if our own Senator Sam will sign the quest book.
I don’t see nothing wrong with the Creation Museum. As one person posted, why should anybody care what they do with their own property.
If people want to go to it and believe, that’s on them. It isn’t any different from a UFO museum or freak show. People will check it out and it will probably be very successful. Getting $27 million to build the museum seemed pretty easy for them to achieve, which is quite the feat in itself.
Randy,
Evolutionary theory doesn’t hold the rights to the term science.
Creationists can use it too.
If we’d done a decent job of teaching science all along, we wouldn’t be in this mess. We who are not creationists need to stick to what we know and not worry about what the others are doing. Anyone who understands the scientific method, and how to evaluate results (vs. anecdotal evidence) would see through that museum, and all the other creationist crap, in the blink of an eye. The schools need to just dig in their heels and teach, teach, teach. Kids need a good foundation in science, and they need critical thinking skills. With that in place, the rest will take care of itself.
How long did they display the evolution of the horse display in museums across the country?
How many still do?
Yet is was based more on drawings and the imagination than any form of “scientific evidence.”
The syndicated piece published in the Eagle is lame. Here’s a much more informative article on the museum in the liberal press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html
The Times piece portrays the Creation Museum as a fascinating, thought-provoking place, which the captioned photo of one of the exhibits affirms. This museum hired some very gifted people.
Anti-creationist Larry Krauss was among a group of protesters lining up outside the museum. He and his friends are anti-science boobs.
If they were interested in learning, not biological science, but achieving general enlightenment per se they would have paid their admission and found out what the museum was. They could have exited, saying, “We strongly disagree with the museum’s interpretations of natural history, which we think are crap, but we do commend them for exquisitely-crafted model dinosaurs, and impressive edutainment technology.
They weren’t interested in that. They just wanted to publicize their doctrinaire prejudices, and get media attention as 60’s-reminiscent banner-carrying anti-war college students. Adolescent behavior.
“What they don’t have a right to do is claim that this has anything to do with science.”
Hate to be picky here, but they have a “right” to advocate any damn thing they please (short of overt violence, of course), with their own money. And they can call it anything they like.
And you have a “right” to criticize to your heart’s content, and a “right” to go or not go, as you choose.
That’s the beauty of a free country.
Great, Wichita has the bible thumpin theme park and now they have a megachurch museum.
Hey, if Mary can create a baby out of nothing, then I can believe that the earth banged and was.
Ah, I am still waiting for the “scientific evidence” of Creationism.
If Creationists want to have their “theory” considered a real science, then they need to produce the evidence, not just criticism of evolution or Darwin.
I agree, private citizen can erect a museum to any topic that they choose - but they shouldn’t expect a pass on negative commentary. They chose to bring their belief system into the public square, making themselves fair game.
This does give a whole new meaning to “the Mistake by the Lake”!
I have been to museums that had pictures of things that didn’t exist. I have been to museums that had sculptures of things that didn’t exist. Now we have a museum of timelines that didn’t exist. What is so new about that?
What’s the “bible thumpin theme park”?
To those who wonder why anyone cares what they do with their money:
They have spent their money to make an open-to-all public entity. Its very publicness implies either a public service agenda or an attempt to make money. This museum may be both, but it is putting forth an agenda that, as pointed out here, many believe to be false.
I personally have the same issue with the Museum of World Treasures: it is not accredited, does not provide documentation proving the legitimacy of its artifacts, and does not adhere to many other standards of professionalism regarding archiving and documentation. But it trades on the assumed cultural legitimacy of the word “museum” to dupe its patrons into believing that MWT is on par with the Smithsonian, the Cosmosphere, and other reputable institutions.
By using the word “science” in its name, the museum in Cincinatti pulls the same sort of snake-oil trick. The definition of science includes that theories be testable and therefore provable, neither of which have anything to do with creationism (in fact, the very nature of faith is to believe despite what the observable facts say, right? Faith-based systems of knowledge resist– in fact are opposed–to scientific analysis).
So the reason we care about the Creation Museum despite its private funding is that it exists in the public realm with a dubious agenda: legitimizing creationism as science, to the public.
I have to wonder if Jesus would have spent $27 million for some creation museum or if he would have used the money to ease the suffering of the people he was trying to minister to?
This museum seems more like a monument to the evangelicals that built it than than a testimony of their faith.
Delsol,
Simply because a museum is accredited doesn’t stop it from displaying many things which have been shown to be false.
i.e. The Evolution of the Horse.
How many museums have the same type of imaginative artists renderings of what something would have looked like?
What Evolution does with artists renderings is no better than the things you sit here accusing the Creation Musuem of doing.
The Theory of Evolution is full of many black sheep which it’s loyal believers pretend don’t exist.
Nathan confuses “mistaken, later corrected” with “false.”
Dogma is never mistaken. Never corrected. It is as it is, as it always has been, and always shall be. Dogma is exactly not like science.
I think it might be a good idea to point out that a whole lot of folks who believe in this Creationism idea also believe that the holocaust never happened, and that God suspended the speed of light, so we could see stars, many of whose light took longer than 6,000 years to get here. LOL
And besides, the Creationists totally dismiss the SECOND Creation story in Genesis… the one where MAN is created BEFORE anything is put in the garden… See, if you add that story in, the whole “Six Days” argument falls apart for being FACTUAL…
Sometimes having a theologian around can come in handy.
Ah, waiting on the “scientific evidence……”
Ummm Clark… There aint any!!
Chas,
You are purposefully being deceitful in your comments.
“…whole lot of folks who believe in this Creationism idea also believe that the holocaust never happened.”
Where on earth did you get that from? I would like to see or I am calling you a liar.
“and that God suspended the speed of light”
If you accept the premise that God created everything then you believe everything was created as is. You don’t have to suspend the speed of light to believe in Creation.
Just something else you can try to make up about Christians.
Chas, there is no second creation story in genesis. It is a summary of what happened during creation, not ANOTHER creation story.
That is such an old argument I am surprised you are still trying to use it.
I don’t know what theologian you have around, but I suggest you get another one!
Chas….. a self proclaimed minister, pastor, whatever. So what religion is it that you claim?
Nathan, your analogy is so swiss-cheese-esque that there’s nowhere to even start in a forum like this.
Have you ever taken a science class? What do you actually know about evolution–anything at all? Do you even understand the processes of deriving its information, and the concept of testability and how it has been applied to evolution? Do tell, because your comment above is the estimation of an observer far removed from science itself.
I think there may be a faction trying to open the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) museum here in Wichita if the space occupied by the KS Sports Hall of Fame becomes available.
Nathan, I am sure you are aware that Creationism believes the Earth is no older than 6,000 years… When they are questioned by others about the light from the stars that took longer than 6,000 years to reach earth, they normally answer that God suspended the speed of light at the time of Creation.
There are many Creationist groups around the country and in the world that refuse to believe that the Holocaust happened… If you dont believe me, Google it… It’s sad, but unfortunately, true…
Sol — I am pastor in a main line denomination… ordained nearly 29 years… I hold degrees in Sociology, Theology/Ministry, and Adult Education.
By the way, Joseph Campbell is one of the leading experts on the stories and meanings of Creation Myths in many religions of the world… His books are terriffic.
Nathan, I am NOT saying that ALL Creationist groups deny the Holocaust… or that all Holocaust denying groups are Creationist… There is just a correlation between some of them…
Chas,
In the context of your statement you clearly meant to label Creationist types as holocaust deniers.
I have yet to meet a Christian who denies that the holocaust happened.
What Christian groups are you talking about, because I bet they are so far removed from the mainstream they are not even thought of as Christians.
Your comment brought nothing to this conversation other than slander.
Does your ‘main line denomination’ preach from the King James Bible?
Is it a Christian faith? Why are you ashamed of it?
Del Sol,
“Have you ever taken a science class?”
Yes, many of them. I have studied biology, sociology, and chemistry all at the college level.
I have also studied mathmatics up to differential equations different statistics classes and physics.
I love to study science!
“What do you actually know about evolution–anything at all?”
10 times more than most people who say they believe in it.
“Do you even understand the processes of deriving its information, and the concept of testability and how it has been applied to evolution?”
And most often lack thereof? Yes.
“Do tell, because your comment above is the estimation of an observer far removed from science itself.”
Um, then why do museums and did museums continue to display something which was proven to be false?
Ah, waiting on the “scientific evidence……”
I am curious to see if any of you non-creationsts have one bit of emperical evidence supporting evolution. There are some pretty nasty gaps in your theory as well. Evolution is a more a religion than theory in my opinion.Oh well. You do your thing I’ll do mine.
Chas - Nathan does not believe anyone is ‘Christian’ unless he/she believes exactly the same way that he does.
It does not matter how many theology degrees you hold or that you are a pastor - Nathan refuses to believe anything that he deems ‘unchristian’. Logic will never change a mind that is so closed.
Chas,
Simply, there are many things Christians could speculate on in regards to light and creation.
I have held that God created things as they are.
Let me explain logically:
When God created Adam and Eve as adults how old were they?
They were 0 years old yet both were adults. Both we could estimate to be at least mid 20’s if not more.
Yet they were 0 years old.
The same thing can easily be applied to the stars. When God created them they were created as they are with light already in place.
The light would take millions of years to travel, but was already in place when God created it that way.
Regardless of any of that, we are talking about an omnipotent God creating the universe and you are nit picking his alleged violation of the speed of light?
Chas, I appreciate your comments. They are thoughtful, educational and respectful. I usually google something after reading you because you mentioned something I want more info about. Thanks!
Have fun discussing with Nathan. Every time I read his posts I always think of that line, “depends on the meaning of what “is” is.” The irony of Nathan and Bill using the same tactic always provides me a good laugh.
We’ll wait forever for the creationist’s “scientific evidence”………….becuase there is NO EVIDENCE to support their claims.
Cat,
I base what I view to be a Christian from what the Bible says.
It is a standard that is not based on me.
If you disagree then it is very easy to engage in a logical well thought out discussion on what the Bible says.
“I am curious to see if any of you non-creationsts have one bit”
Those that claim Creationism as science need to provide the scientific evidence of same, not just criticism of evolution.
All I see and hear from that side of the equation is just yada, yada, yada, evolution - never evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, or evidence that the Earth is only six to ten thousand years old.
This should be pretty easy - if ID/Creationism is science - where is the scientific evidence?
WSClark………….you see, the creationists don’t really need any stinkin’ evidence. Because they “believe” is enough for them and allegedly it should be the same for every other person in the world as well.
Well,
Since the claim is that there is no evidence…
Geologists used to mainly view the Earth from a catastrophic flood event up to I think the 1800’s.
This was replaced by the small changes over large amounts of time view which is predominately held today.
However, you can look to placed like the Eruption of Mt St Helens to see that sedimentary layers can easily be formed from one large event and don’t take small changes over large amounts of time.
Look at the canyon formed from the river during Mt St Helens which would seem to indicate by todays geological standards a river flowing for thousands of years slowly carving out the canyon. Yet is was formed very shortly.
It is not that there is no evidence for creation. Many times it is the same evidence for Evolution interpreted differently by two opposing view points.
When studying evolution many go into it with the preconceived notion that Evolution happened so we must look at it this way.
It is the exact opposite for Creation. We look at it from the preconceived notion of Creation so it must have happened this way.
There is 1 thing for you to chew on.
Andy,”I am curious to see if any of you non-creationsts have one bit of emperical evidence supporting evolution.”
So where’s your “emperical evidence” supporting Creation?
Who said that they expected a pass on negative commentary. But negative commentary is not the same as harassing people who want to go in. Krauss and company (public school science teachers among the protester crowd?) showed not criticism, but intolerance, using physical means. That’s out of order.
Most of you have never done formal science, although, through living, doing things, particularlarly new things and observing results, all of you have informally been scientists.
Science is not reading textbooks. It is about making conjectures, testing them yourself, and observing what happens. Evolutionism is science to those who do field surveys, and personally see the evidence. It is not science in the classroom, where students cannot themselves test the propositions, obtaining and evaluating physical evidence.
Our schools are incapable of teaching science, with occasional exceptions, for many reasons, primarily related to the facts that people who run schools of education that train teachers do not know science, yet harbor the conceit that they are qualified to design math-and-science-teacher-training, unionist policies that hold PE teachers should be paid as much as math and science teachers, and the refusal by administrators to allocate sufficient funds for extensive hands-on science experiences for kids to learn science the only way it can be done, by doing it.
This isn’t my peculiar view. It has been documented in international studies, such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, and its successor, Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (both same acronym TIMSS).
nces.ed.gov/timss/results03.asphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIMSS
An international study of problem-solving and math abilities conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-Operative Development (OECD) has also shown U.S. kids to be lagging behind Asian nations that 50 years ago were Third World agrarian societies.
http://www.oecd.org/document/55/0,2340,en_ 32252351_32236173_33917303_1_1_1_1,00.html
Last year the Intel Science Search named 40 finalists from 19 states including smaller states such as Utah, Louisiana, Idaho, and Oregon(2 actually). Kansas didn’t have any.
In 2005, a New Mexico student won a 4th-place $25,000 scholarship.
In 2004, students from Iowa, Oregon (2), Vermont, and Minnesota were ITS finalists.
This year, a student from next-door-to-Kansas Oklahoma won the first-place $100,000 scholarship prize. A student from Oregon placed third ($50,000). A student from neighboring Colorado earned ninth place and a $20,000 scholarship. A student from North Dakota placed sixth ($25,000).
In Math, student who placed first in Kansas in the American Invitational Mathematics Exam scored a 7 on a 15 question test. The top national scores were 13-15. After our top student, the highest score, earned by 2 students, was a 6. To put this in context, a student in next-door Oklahoma scored a 14–twice as many questions answered correctly as Kansas’s top student.
Texas has 9 times Kansas’s population. So how do we explain 33 times as many 7+ scorers in Texas, as in Kansas? On a population-adjusted ratio, that’s a 3 to 1 rout.
There are people here who say that Kansas schools are excellent in teaching math and science. These people are math-and-science ignorati and con artists. Evaluations of high-level math and science performance of our best-taught students totally belie this moo-state jackdaw BS.
That’s not evidence Nathan.
Chas,
Does your ‘main line denomination’ preach from the King James Bible?
Is it a Christian faith? Why are you ashamed of it?
Now Doc Schooley, be nice……..
I disagree with little of what you posted, except of course the “union” jab.
If you remember correctley Doc, last summer YOU were advocating the introduction of ID into the classroom as well. It’s kind of hard for one support LAB based science and support ID.
Apophis,
If looking at the seidmentary layers of the earth viewing them as happening over short amount of time as oppposed to millions and billions of years isn’t evidence, then I am not sure what is.
Pleae let me know the standards you seek so this is not a guessing game for me.
Nathan, you have repeated criticisms of evolution and so-called “evidence” that creation “could be possible.”
Neither point provides scientific evidence of ID/Creationism.
“Many times it is the same evidence for Evolution interpreted differently by two opposing view points.”
Unfortunately, Nathan, that is not true. The scientific evidence shows that the Earth is millions of years old, and the Universe is 13.5 billion years old.
There is no evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. There have been no archaeological findings that uncovered human and dinosaurs bones in the same strata.
The point is, ID/Creationism proponents want their theory treated as science as evolution is, but all they have to offer is criticism of evolution and claims that “creation could have happened.”
That is hardly scientific evidence.
SOL — We havent used the good ol’ King James Bible for YEARS!!
In fact, I dont even OWN one…
And Nathan, you just used the very form of circular reasoning I mentioned… God suspended the speed of light at Creation, so it didnt take longer to get here…
Come on, do you expect anybody to actually believe that in order to be a Christian???
Chas,
Is the God you believe in an omnipotent God or is he limited by physics as we understand it?
Please note… I expressly stated that not ALL Creationists are holocaust deniers… And not all holocaust deniers are Creationists… I merely said that there is come correlation in some groups… That is ALL I said… And, I also said Google it if you dont believe me…
Chas,
You are still avoiding answering the question.
What is your faith? What is the name of your church?
Chas,Are you Christian? Which book do you preach from? What does that book say about the beginning of the world?
Nathan, I didnt fall off the turnip truck yesterday… I am NOT going to fall for your small spattering of physics, to allow you to get me to say that of course I believe God is Omnipotent… AND eternal… AND without beginning or ending… AND, to quote Luther, “God is in all things and everywhere present.”
Now, that being said, what WE understand now as physics, is SCIENCE… What I just said about GOD is religion/theology… The two do NOT need, nor do they necessarily go together in the same discussion…
For that matter, Physics has evolved so much today, that Newton might not even recognize much of the newer Quantum theories…
So, what’s your point??
Got some business to take care of for now… be back later — You all have a good day!!
Chas,
I believe that there could be Creationists who are holocaust deniers.
I believe there are probably some holocaust deniers in almost any classification of a group you want to name.
Your lumping that in with all the other things was a blatant attempt at little more than trying to discredit and slander Creationists as holocaust deniers.
Here is an easy question for you:
Why did you include that in your statement?
What function did you want your statement to serve in this discussion when you said:
“I think it might be a good idea to point out that a whole lot of folks who believe in this Creationism idea also believe that the holocaust never happened.”
My point?? To show that some folks who believe in Creationism, also believe the holocaust didnt happen… In other words, some folks wont believe anything except for what they WANT to believe… The Holocaust is pretty hard to deny… But there are a number of folks who do… And I have personally heard several different ones also believe we ought to teach Creationism in the school, AND teach the “truth” as they see it about the Holocaust…
Do you get it now???
SolDevVB,
I don’t have a problem with answering the question.
I am a Christian. I read the NASB Bible. I also use the NIV, NKJV, and KJV.
I am a member of the Assemblies of God Church.
See how easy that is?
Once he reveals a standard he uses then we can use that standard against him. He knows this. This is why he refused to answer.
Chas,
But you specifically said: “whole lot of folks”
You were purposefully doing little more than trying to lump those who support Creation in with those who deny the holocaust happened.
It was a cheap, low, dirty, underhanded thing to say.
I answered your question, Sol… I told you I dont even own a King James Bible… You asked me if I used it… Now, what further answer did you want, that you didnt ask for??? For what its worth, I use the RSV and NRSV mainly, along with the Greek New Testament… never learned Hebrew…
“What is your faith? What is the name of your church?”
It is rather inappropriate to ask Chas what Church he serves at Nathan. Obviously, if he were to answer, that would “out” him.
Outing is only voluntary - ask Republank.
I ALSO said, Nathan, if you dont believe ME, Google it, and you find it out…
Now, last time I checked, the Aryan Nations Church and the Christian Identity Movement both believe in Creationism, and deny the Holocaust… And, they would LIKE to have both things taught in the Public Schools… but since they arent taught there, many of them home school their children…
Creationists have the same mentality as holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, and people who think Britney Spears should win a Grammy. They see the evidence against their position but their ideology forces them to deny reality.
This creationist organization had $27 million to spend. They didn’t spend it supporting their position with science. Nope, they preferred propaganda instead.
In the Dover case the judge asked the creationists for evidence supporting creationism. They didn’t provide any. When the creationists claimed the scientists didn’t have any scientific evidence to counter irreducible complexity the scientists provided reams of data refuting the creationists.
It’s pretty evident Nathan. You guys have no evidence, you just have your lies and religion. Or maybe it’s just a mental disorder that prevents creationists from accepting reality. Your religion says the Garden of Eden is in Missouri, so where’s the archeological evidence for that?
Why do I bother even asking, you’ll never present anything.
Chas,Are you Christian? Which book do you preach from? What does that book say about the beginning of the world?
Chas,
So the Aryan Nations Church and the Christian Identity Movement are what you consider to be “a whole lot of folks?”
I am not arguing that there are those that do deny the holocaust.
I am arguing that the verbage you used and the placement of it was nothing more than an underhanded ploy at linking those who believe in Creation with holocaust deniers.
Are you implying that you have to believe in Creationism to be a Christian, SolDevVB?
Where is the scientific evidence to back up the young earth creationist myth? If you really believe in light that was created in transit or some major shift in the speed of light, you should be able to prove it with empirical evidence. The fact is, not a single facet of the biblical creation story is backed up with any type of real evidence.
Sol… I already TOLD you which book I use… did you not read it?? ALL religions, including Christianity, have myths about the origins of human kind… The Book of Genesis is not specifically Christian… In fact, three major world religions all use Genesis as a Creation Myth…
WS Clark,
Threatening to call someones work place is inappropriate.
Asking them what church they go to shouldn’t be. We don’t live in China where being a Christian is against the law.
Why would he be ashamed or feel that way? He is the one who introduced his faith here. I think we have every right to question him on it.
Sorry if the ugly truth hurts Nathan… If I am going to base my entire faith on some idea that has extremely little if any scientific evidence in reality, then I surely dont want to be included with a bunch of deviants who deny the holocaust, or the moon landing, or other things… THAT is what I am saying… no more, no less…
I can profess to being Christian, Nathan, without divulging which particular denomination I am a part of… I will tell you this: Our denomination, as I have stated before in WEBlog, is one of the more liberal, progressive denominations… That should satisfy your curiosity…
Scott,
There is a difference in proving that God actually created the Earth and proving that the Earth is only several thousand years old.
I don’t think we will ever be able to prove that there is a God, let alone that he created the Earth. That is why it is faith.
However, there are plenty of things pointing to a young earth.
Either way, science doesn’t have any better of an answer for the existence of the Earth or life.
Apparently according to many here we can only look at Evolution pertaining to assuming life and going from there.
So, for the purpose of discussing creation we will just assume Adam and Eve and go from there.
Deal?
Chas,
At least you finally admit to what you did instead of continuing your litte dance.
Discussing his “faith” is one thing Nathan, asking his workplace is another.
And since this was obviously directed at me, explain when I did this….
“Threatening to call someones work place is inappropriate.”
And since you are obvious a master a smoke screening, when are you going to provide scientific evidence of Creationism?
You have been asked numerous times and all you have provided is criticism of evolution and so-called evidence that Creation “could have happened.”
Tsk Tsk Tsk, but assuming Adam and Eve is assuming a WHOLE lot…
As I stated earlier, Nathan, which chapter of Genesis do you wish to base Creationism on?? Genesis 1, or the Second story?? The one where MAN is created OUTSIDE of the Garden, before ANYthing is planted… That should show you or anybody, that the people who put the book together obviously were aware of differing opinions even that long ago…
Now, if you want to assume Adam and Eve, and go from there… then we just wipe out Genesis 1, which is where the Creationists base their entire mythos…
Sigh…
To see God outside the universe as a guy who’s omnipotent, omniscient, and all the rest is to engage in philosophical sophistry that leads nowhere.
Is God all-powerful? How do you mean this? Do you mean he can do anything? Do you mean he can do anything within the bounds of logic? God cannot, by definition, calculate the last digit of a transcendental number, since it has an infinite number of them. God cannot have “written” the book on the course of everyone’s life, to the last detail, and still allow us to have free will…that’s like saying the author of a play who scripted every scene claims the actors are free to do what they want on the stage.
Was Jesus omniscient? Clearly he was not. For example, in Mk. 13:32, Jesus says of the end of the world, “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” You can make all the arguments you want about how Jesus the “man” was different from “Christ” the Savior with lots of hand-waving sophistry.
Was Jesus sinful..clearly he was by his own definition. Jesus, in essence, said that if one is tempted to a sin, then one has already committed it…adultery being the specific of the more general comment. So, Jesus was “tempted” by Satan….Satan did not “try” to “tempt” him, he “tempted” him. What is the distinction, if you’ve just eaten a large meal, an your wife brings home a pizza, she might try to tempt you with a slice, but you have no desire for it since you’re full. On the other hand, if you do consider eating a slice, then you’ve been tempted.
All this being said, who gives a flying fig about all of this? If you really ARE a Christian, then you prove your love of God by having compassion for others. As St. Francis of Assissi said, “By all means, preach the Word of God. If all else fails, speak!!”
“So, for the purpose of discussing creation we will just assume Adam and Eve and go from there.
Deal?”
No.
Why would we “assume” Adam and Eve when the scientific evidence points in another direction?
Unless you want to concede that Adam and Eve were Homo habilis.
Chas,
What parts of the Bible do you think are true or do you think are myth so that we can figure out what it is you do believe.
I mean, it is odd that you can believe in a God who which is basically your “going to base my entire faith on some idea that has extremely little if any scientific evidence in reality” yet turn around and say that you are not going to believe in Creation?
LOL
So, ok to believe in a God which has absolutely no foundation in science, but not ok to believe in Creation.
I see, makes no logical sense, but whatever…
WS Clark,
So I can use the evidence or complete lack thereof pertaining to how science explains life to attack Evolution?
Oh, and by the way, there are no names “Adam” and “eve” in Hebrew. “Adam” means “mankind” and “Eve” is loosely translatable as “womanhood”. Again, this shows that the writers were speaking of man and woman not “a” man and “a” woman.
Chas,
Once again, it is an old, refuted, and quite out dated argument to say there are 2 creation stories.
For someone who is a theologian you of all people should know this.
I think you fianlly got it correct Nathan, they are both “stories”, not science.
BFAH,
Of course! So when the Bible continues to talk directly of the brother cain and lineage of Adam and Eve we will just gloss right over that…
When the Bible talks about Satan tempting Eve, that was not a person just some general term for womanhood.
You have to completely dismiss the entire book of Genesis to say that Adam and Eve were just references to “mankind” and “womankind”
The story clearly defines them as two individuals.
Ok Nathan, now you have shown me what I was looking to see… HYou see, I CAN believe in a God even though Science cannot prove God’s existence… And I CAN believe in creation…. Of course I can believe in Creation…. But, I do not believe in what YOU call Creationism….
I find it most difficult to enter a discussion with you, because you seem unable, or unwilling to enter into abstract thinking on this matter… And that is the problem here… as well as in that museum in Kentucky…
Do I believe in God?? Yes…Can I PROVE that God in a laboratory?? Of course not…
Does that make one valid, and the other not??? Not at all!!
One is called SCIENCE… the way the world works…. the way things ARE….
The other is called FAITH…
One belongs in our schools, and universities, and the other belongs in our churches, and other sacred places of gathering…
You see, for me, it is not an either/or proposition…. it is a BOTH/AND….
nuff said for now… bye all!!
“So I can use the evidence or complete lack thereof pertaining to how science explains life to attack Evolution?”
I think that this has been answered 97 times, but the Scientific Theory of Evolution does not claim to answer the question as to the origins of life on Earth.
The theory assumes life began as single cell organisms - it does not say how. It does not claim to.
You are wanting to discuss why Babe Ruth hit more home runs than Jim Brown.
They ain’t the same topics.
Nathan,
Maybe you need to reconsider. If there WERE no names Adam and Eve in Hebrew, only the words “Adam” for mankind, and “Eve” for womankind, then what you’re claiming is that, 3,500 years from now, when stories are passed down about mighty races between “Corvette” and “Mustang” that these were people…sheesh.
If the Hebrews didn’t have these names in their lexicon, how did they suddenly appear in writing….(drum roll for God “inspired” the writers..oh sorry the writer, Moses, since he wrote the Pentateuch, right, even though he was dead for some time at the end of the story).
In order to believe the genesis creation story, you have to ignore every scientific discovery since the 1800s, specifically the known speed of light and laws of physics. If you are going to discuss your personal opinion that light was created in transit in order to mimic old age or that some major shift in the speed of light occurred then you have to provide evidence to prove it. Otherwise, your whole myth of creation is based on nothing more than your personal belief. That is the whole lie of the creationist movement, there is no science in creation science. Everytime, the book of fairy tales creates a situation that contradicts known scientific facts, they pull out the same old tired supernatual excuses.
“I am curious to see if any of you non-creationsts have one bit of emperical evidence supporting evolution.”
1) Species fit into nested hierarchies which are required by an unbroken series of ancestor-descendant relationships.
2) All organisms use the same universal genetic code which is required if they descended from a common ancestor.
3) The mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow) can be observed in the lab and observed in nature.
Much more to get you started here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
WS Clark,
It seems that the root of the arguments against Creation is that we can’t prove that there was a God who created everything.
My point was that I don’t claim that we can or will ever be able to prove that God created anything.
We can show evidence pointing to a young earth which does go along with creation.
So, just like Evolution is reliant upon assuming life to begin it’s argument, Creation is based on assuming Adam and Eve to begin it’s argument.
That was my comparison.
bggeek……….first, there is NO “creation/evolution controversy”. Creationism is religion, evolution is science. When you cite creationist websites, you automatically disqualify your credibility.
“against Creation is that we can’t prove that there was a God”
No even close, Nathan, not even in the same ballpark, to continue the previous analogy.
Evolution is considered science because there is scientific proof and a body of peer-reviewed evidence to support the theory.
If ID/Creationism wants to be considered SCIENCE, then it has to meet that same standard.
I will say again, Creationism is a belief system - it is not science and should not be considered as such.
So, once again, where is the scientific evidence of ID/Creationism?
What evidence can you show that supports a young earth and/or creation? I mean real solid, provable evidence, not assumptions based on supernatural explanations.
I don’t think that you can produce a single verfiable piece of evidence that can support an earth that is only 6,000 years old anymore than you could come up with proof that the earth is flat and has a sun that revolves around it.
I think I will change my argument stance from evolution vs creation to young earth vs evolution.
“What they don’t have a right to do is claim that this has anything to do with science.
Posted by Randy Scholfield”
So I would take it then that government should intrude to stop them? That would be your general response to these situations Randy.
One of the most frustrating (and damaging items to our republic) is that newspapers only want the 1st amendment to apply to them. Not the broadcast media. Much less the rest of the unwashed masses.
They have a right to call it whatever they want. You don’t have to believe them.
Nathan,
Perhaps that’s your misconception. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about where life came from…it only addresses the issue of what happened to it once it was here. ..and it’s all backed up with science. If you throw out any part of it, then you throw out everything that we know. For example, if you don’t believe that radioactive decay can be used to date fossils, then, you cannot accept nuclear fission for the production of nuclear explosions since the identical process is operating in both cases, and o on down the line…and we all know that nuclear weapons work.
WS: Intelligent Design is different than Creationism.
Here’s more of the anti-science/pro-creationist nonsense:http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/
If just gets more stupid doesn’t it.
“WS: Intelligent Design is different than Creationism.”
Regardless, neither is science.
And evolution is just a scientific guess as to origins.
outlander……….. a judge ruled differently. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, a Republican judge has ruled that ID is a form of creationism. I’ll link to wikipedia for simplicity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District . I would highly suggest reading the entire 144 pages of the ruling sometime.
Was Adam and Eve created with the broken gene that would normally code for production of vitamin C, or did that come later? All other primates have this broken gene as humans do, but God created Adam and Eve perfect so it’s just a mere coincidence that that very same gene would break down just like our closest primate relatives.
That’s why it takes a lot of faith to deny the scientific fact of evolution.
That’s easy Doug. Same Maker.
Apophis, I thought that site was a joke, until I read more into it. Those loons, er, people are crazy.
“Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine”
Those people actually believe that the universe revolves around the Earth.
And Outlander, a scientific theory is much more than a guess.
Remember, gravity is still just a theory. Do you believe in gravity, Outlander?
I was incorrect, the ruling is only 139 pages: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
“bggeek……….first, there is NO “creation/evolution controversy”. Creationism is religion, evolution is science. When you cite creationist websites, you automatically disqualify your credibility.”
Apophis,
I think you must have misread or misattributed a post to me. I was responding to Andy who asked for evidence from “non-creationists” in support of evolution. I posted three points of emperical evidence and a link to one of the best articles I’ve seen on the evidence for evolution.
Gravity can be demonstrated. Evolution can’t. Try again?
It never ceases to amaze me that those who don’t want ID or creationism taught in the school also want to run down a museum that has articles they don’t agree with.
What exactly are you so afraid of? You seem to be very insecure in your belief in evolution.
Outlander, so you are saying that humans evolved from a similar ancestor as the other modern primates? Funny, I took you for a creationist but now you agree that evolution is a scientific fact. Either that, or you didn’t understand the post.
For instance, Newton described the relationship of mass and distance to gravitational attraction between objects with such precision that we can use the law of gravity to plan spaceflights.
http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html
Gravity isn’t a theory it is a law.
I also reccomend reading the expert statement for the Plantiff submitted by Dr. Ken Miller. I had the opportunity several months ago to meet Dr. Miller and discuss the case with him. Here’s the kicker to Nathan and his “holier than thou” brethren. Dr. Miller is a devout Catholic. Imagine that, a man of science who is also a practicing christian!
The scientific fact of Evolution…
Which FACT does science use to explain the cambrian explosion?
Last I checked there were several ideas on that one… Which one is FACT?
sorry bggeek
No Doug. Same Maker.
“Intelligent Design is different than Creationism.”
No it’s not. A design is just a plan or a specification. A design doesn’t exist until it is created. If something exists and it was designed then it was also created.
Apophis,
My father was a Nuclear Power tech on Submarines.
He was the Senior Instructor at Nuclear Power School in the Navy.
My Mother has 6 degrees in Genetics, Chemistry, and others.
They both believe in Creation.
Not accepting Evolution is not a disbelief in science.
Okay outlander, perhaps it’s commonplace for creationists to simply say phrases over and over again but do you care to actually present something substantial?
Nathan, are you referring to the same Cambrian explosion that happened over millions of years? That refutes the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth.
ks,
This is a discussion about whether ID is science or not. Who cares about the museum? It’s peripheral to the issue. Let them open it. It always amazes ME that people try to extrapolate emotions from statements of fact…where did you ever get the idea that anyone was scared by this. Mostly, it’s more like flabbergasted. I guess Hitler knew what he was talking about… a big lie is much easier to believe than a small one.
Doug,
Similarities in genetic code do not prove ancestry.
It is speculation.
For heaven’s sake, people, you’re beating a dead horse here.
Either you believe in empiricism or you believe in magical thinking.
Nathan, outlander, ksgrm, ProudMan believe in magical thinking.
Once they have made the leap off the terra firma of reason and empiricism and throw themselves into the la-la land of Harry Potter and medievalism, there’s just no talking them.
They’re in the realm of angry gods causing a dragon to eat the sun during a solar eclipse.
The rationalists are just wasting their bandwidth here . . .
so nathan…………whya can’t you accept evolution? If you come from such an intellectual home, why the regression to dark Ages thinking?
Can’t answer the question Doug?
This is great news for any young people going into scientific fields. The more people there are that don’t believe in carbon dating, the less people there will be competing for high-tech jobs. Keep up the good work. They should open these places in every city. Think of how much bargaining power we’ll have for wages when the baby boomers are retired and young people don’t believe basic scientific principals. I’ll be able to retire before I’m 40.
Evolution theory doesn’t say a thing about the origin of life. It’s testable and, despite what Mark says here, it depends directly on the scientific method.
Creationism is faith. It is not science. Because its system of rules/laws/theorems doens’t near rise to the rigor of the scientific method, its proponents dodge science whenever it must and then use the same diorama crapola that Nathan and Mark try to use to condemn evolution (Nathan condemns evolution based on museum dioramas; Mark uses diorama-science to condemn evolution’s ability to explain life origins, even though evolution theory makes no such claim). The new museum in Cincinnati is a perfect example. Hokum + selective science = a real feel-good time for Creationists, who can laugh along with the dioramas. People who believe in the scientific method laugh AT the dioramas, and feelings eeked out in purposeful order to have them hurt are, indeed, righteously hurt. Creationists use their extended and then hurt feelings to rail against science and to attract those stupid enough to rebel against the scientific method.
ID is a bridge between the two. It allows enough space in the life-origins room for Bible believers to dodge science and the scientific method and still believe in the Bible. It is a place under the bed where fearful Creationists and dreamier scientists (like Mark) can hide from the scientific method. It allows one to have one’s cake and eat it, too. It is not science.
That’s about it, really.
“Gravity isn’t a theory it is a law. by KSGrm”
Then why is it referred to as a Theory in scientific papers, Grm?
A SHIFTING THEORY OF GRAVITY
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielemilio/a_shifting_theory_of_gravity.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm
Nathan, you believe it’s just wild coincidence that of all the species in the world that it’s just primates that share a similar genetic defect? So something so profound on a genetic level that connections primates to a common ancestor isn’t evidence of a common ancestor. To you it’s just evidence that your gods created life with something to convince people that evolution is true merely because they have a sense of humor.
Keep on wearing that tinfoil hat Nathan, we never landed on the moon and Elvis didn’t do any drugs.
Apophis,
The point was that it is not dark ages thinking nor a regression to not believe in Evolution.
Are we to that point in the argument where we use the personal insults?
It appears so for Capnamerica and Apophis.
Is this all the Evolution crowd has to offer is belittlement and name calling?
The more we question evolution the more you resort to 2nd grade bully tactics of name calling.
Either your precious Evolution can stand up on it’s own or it can’t.
You shouldn’t have to resort to name calling.
It’s not very scientific
Other scientific claim in the Bible includes the notion that the flat Earth is firmly planted on pillars. The science deniers could simply say that God uses his powers to create a dampening field around the planet to bend light to give the appearance of a spherical Earth and hide the pillars.
Why not? It’s not like the creationists ever actually rely on science as every thread on this subject has proven.
Doug,
I didn’t realize that simple comparisons were the type of solid proof science relied on in making such bold theories like Evolution.
There are many things in this world which are similar in nature, it doesn’t prove a common ancestry.
You can draw a crowd……….just introduce the topic of creationism/evolution or abortion and the crowd will come. Seems to me that this topic is more than played out….its beating a dead horse(or whatever you choose)at this point.
Survival of the fittest is a form of evolution for some. Animal species adapt to the conditions around them such as climate change. I have a strong belief in science and think it should be strongly emphasized in educating our children. But as cap just demonstrated when Nathan hit him with facts he could refute the name calling started. That is why I think those who are deriding this museum are running from a subject they can’t expain and are just a little afraid that there might be some truth in ID.
Where would they be then?
Do you feel personally insulted Nathan? If you do, too damned bad! This just reinforces that your “creationism” is just another belief, creating an emotional reaction. Evolution is just plain science, totally lacking of any emotional attachment.
I’ve already provided evidence on a genetic level but you simply denied the existence of DNA Nathan. So any insult is perfectly justified.
Turning and turning in the widening gyreThe falcon cannot hear the falconer;Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhereThe ceremony of innocence is drowned;The best lack all convictions, while the worstAre full of passionate intensity.
So, Nathan, you want to make this a discussion strictly based on merit - so, for the hundredth time…..
Where is the scientific evidence of ID or Creationism or Young Earth?
You have yet to produce anything other than criticism of evolution or evidence that Creationism “could have happened.”
So what gives - you rail against name calling etc, but you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim that Creationism is science.
Nathan, if evolutionary theory states that there is common ancestry then you’d expect to find similarities that aren’t found in other species. That’s the entire point. But if you weren’t so blind to science you’d see that. How else do you look for similarities without comparing two things? Your attempt to run away from the facts have just made you look more dense than ever.
Hey mike……………I can go on for hours and hours “beating this dead horse”. If we don’t continually challenge the creationists, they will not stop until THEIR belief system is the only legal belief system.
“Similarities in genetic code do not prove ancestry.”
Actually, Nathan, they do. Because it’s not just any old similarity, they are similar in a very specific way. The similarities trace out a phylogenetic tree (nested hierarchy). The same phylogenetic tree derived from other, independent, sources of data (cladistics, fossils, endogenous retroviruses, etc…)
This constitutes multiple independent lines of empirical evidence supporting evolutionary theory (specifically the theory of common descent).
Mike you are probably right. But when assertions like that last statement made by Doug are posted don’t we owe him the respect of trying to straighten out his confused mind.
“Other scientific claim in the Bible includes the notion that the flat Earth is firmly planted on pillars.”
Posted by: Doug | May 30, 2007 at 01:16 PM
Doug could you tell me scripture and verse where this is in the bible? I don’t remember seeing it but know you wouldn’t throw in something that didn’t have a source.
Thanks
Apophis, that’s why they have to use the courts, politicians and deception to get their religion taught as science. They can’t actually use their millions of dollars for scientific research because they already know their position isn’t supported by science. Creationists are deceptive liars, every one of them and their actions prove it.
If I’m wrong then any creationist is free to present scientific evidence as we’ve been asking for for years.