$27 million 7-day Creationism Museum set to open in KY

[jackschmittusa]

Trevelyan


Your article proves nothing to support the young earth crap.

It is not difficult at all to conceptualize how the material did not deteriorate over a long time span.

Tissue decay is the result of chemical reactions. It would appear that the bone quickly became part of a closed system. If there were no bacteria present in the sample, and it was shielded from significant energy and other chemicals kept away from it by the closed system; there would be no mechanism for decay.

We artificially create closed systems for the express purpose of preventing tissue decay all of the time. I see no valid reason why such a system could not occur naturally. Admittedly, it is not as good as the ones we create because the were some reactions among the chemicals originally present (but they were few), and we try hard to have none at all.

Applying the "young Earth" guess must be a lot easier than trying to think rationally.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

***CUT***

That said, creationists are not the only ones guilty of inappropriately attacking the other side. Recent works by scientists such as Richard Dawkins (i.e. The God Delusion) attempt to use scientific (materialistic) reasoning & evidence to disprove the existence of the supernatural, which is analogous to creationists using the supernatural to refute the natural. I myself have held similar views in the past, though I no longer accept that science can be used to disprove the supernatural.

It is a pity that so many are apparently incapable of recognizing the utility of both supernatural (religious) & natural (scientific) frameworks. There really is no contradiction, despite what fundamentalists like the AiG crew & militant atheists like Dawkins try to sell us.

Well said... but I would have to disagree with your argument about the natural and the supernatural. Dawkins' point is not so much to disprove religion as it is to show that there is no rational reason or evidence to believe what they do. That's a very important distinction.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Since we're speculating, I think the hostility comes from the facts that people are resistant to findings which challenge their basic assumptions. A pretty basic assumption is where you can from, and the answer to that question can have an impact on your whole life.

Why do I get the feeling that you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing others of doing? You're so wrapped up in the false "science" of creationism that you'd never change your mind. Never. Not if a mountain of evidence landed on your ass. Instead, you'd stand there and point out the one scientist who you think is "smart" and who happens to support your religious beliefs.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Honestly, I wasn't trying to make any point originally other than the fact that there are intelligent scientists who believe in Creation. Clearly, Damadian is an intelligent scientist.

I understand that. But there are several problems with using Damadian as an example. First of all, he is NOT an expert in a field which is in any way related to the question at hand. I am also a scientist (solid state physics) and I don't believe in creationsism, does that mean that I "cancel out" Damadian?

Being a scientist does not mean that you are more qualified than anyone else when it comes to fields of research that are NOT related to your own field of expertise. In this case even your local GP is probably more qualified from a "formal" point of view than Damadian since he/she will have at least some basic training in biology.
Secondly, as far as I know Damadian has not been able to come up with e.g. any experimental evidence that supports creationsm. What he or anyone else believes is irrelevant in science, what counts is experimental evidience and falsifiable theories.

Frankly, the "name dropping" used by creationsits is probably counter-productive, scientists tend to develop an allergy towards people who say "I am famous, therefore I am right"

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Noahs Ark? Lol. Good luck fitting millions of species into a boat... brainwashed nuts.

It only held a few.....which then evolved into the plethora of animals we see today. I wonder what happened to all the plants though?

Waidaminite...which is it? creation or evolution?
The fundy creationists seem to all claim that evolution is junk science, and that there is NO proof of any animals having evolved....
How can this museum show Adam and Eve with the dinosaurs? Does the bible mention dinosaurs?? (or is "leviathan" close enough?)

Far too many people have the mindset that "Jesus said it, and that settles it"...and don't bother to consider the many different revisions to their bible since ancient times...AND, how the hell could Jesus be a light-skinned white man when he came from that part of the world?

 

[MonkeyK]

Scientific American has a nice article explaining evolution to the creationist sceptics

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: K1052
A monument to willful ignorance and our collective delusions of self importance.

How grand.

You talkin about Washington DC?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Umbrella - No where in my topic did I mention political affiliation. Rudy Giuliani is an abortion-toting liberal for whom I'd never vote.

"libs" generally = democrats, no?

No, not by a long shot bro. I had to check your profile, you're in Michigan.

Down here in the South there are a ton of good Baptists that are Dems. Always have been, always will be.

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

For the record I believe in evolution. Moreover, there?s a message to be taken from the Bible and it isn?t about creation. If you read into it and gleam more than ?Love thyself and thy neighbor? then you?ve read too much.

Additionally, if they feel the need for a Creationism Museum, who cares? It's good entertainment no? Clearly the science of evolution can stand up on its own and doesn?t require censorship to ?protect? it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Who's even talking about censorship here? No one. I can't think of anyone who thinks its a good idea to silence these people. If they wish to live in willful ignorance, but aren't otherwise hurting anyone, let them do what they wish.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Yes, this was the first argument I countered, and I will say it again: The Creation model proposes scientific arguments based on empirical evidence that are indeed falsifiable.

It's not just a matter of whether God exists, as you put it, but whether the earth is young, whether their was a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago, whether all of mankind came from two individuals, whether it is possible for a human to live 900 years, etc.

These things are most certainly falsifiable.

I'm not sure why you persist with your line of reasoning, since many would as quickly as you claim that Creation is indeed falsifiable and has been proven false. While I would disagree with the latter, at least we can make some intelligent progress here...

Some aspects may be falsifiable. But one of the basic tenets of Creation is that a divine being was ultimately responsible for it all - the flood, creating those two individuals, or allowing for long lifespans. To prove that that was possible at all requires proof of said deity's existence. The claim, "God exists" is not falsifiable. There are many definitions of "god," so that would need to be narrowed down, and then every single section, every dimension, every time period of the Universe would need to be examined in detail before anyone could say that God doesn't exist. Seeing how the Universe is effectively infinite in size, I don't see that as a feasible option.

Just the same, the religion of the ancient Greeks, with their multitude of gods is not entirely falsifiable. Burden of proof is to show that something is true or does exist. Unfortunately for science, God is a sort of wildcard. Got something you can't explain? God did it. Who can really prove that wrong? Is gravity simply a curvature of spacetime caused by mass? Or does God make things stick together? Even if we figure out precisely how gravity works, who is to say that it's not God still making it behave that way? The burden of proof says that you must prove that God is actively doing something. Until then, gravity's behavior shall be attributed to natural causes.

 

[spacejamz]

And in other news, ""A Supreme Court in Georgia ruled that high school biology teachers were permitted to continue using the term 'evolution' when teaching their classes. However as a compromise, they must now refer to dinosaurs as 'jesus horses'."

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Aisengard

The tour continues to take visitors through a series of rooms. One depicts biblical times and the prophets, the next shows Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses, the printing press, and the Scopes monkey trial of 1925. Visitors are then led through rooms depicting modern times, where exhibits imply that a lack of faith hurts the family and society.

The next part of the tour journeys through the various stories of Genesis, including the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark, and marries them with science. Adam and Eve are seen living alongside dinosaurs and Noah's Ark is used to explain why certain species went extinct.

This isn't science, it's religion. I can't even see any arguable reason for this to even be considered 'science'. The only way for someone to accept this as science is if their mind was so open everything fell out.

Thank goodness only nutcases in the laughingstock we call the Kentucky board of education consider this drivel and storytelling to be anything close to 'science'.

The scientists who believe in Creation are not simply trying to empirically prove that God created the world in 6 days... they are showing how historical events recorded in the Bible are fully compatible with empirical evidence. They are offering a framework hypothesis, a model -- like evolution does -- to explain the facts.

I'm familiar with a lot of that "scientific" work, and it's all smoke and mirrors to give religious folks at least SOME semblance of scientific argument so they feel alright trying to bring religion into the realm of science. But it all seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors, especially since nothing I've read has anything to say about the creation of the earth or the development of the species.

Creationism, from top to bottom, is bad science. To the extent that it offers a "framework hypothesis" (using sciency sounding words doesn't make it science), it does nothing to explain the facts. There are a lot of scientific facts surrounding the existence of the earth and the various species that inhabit it. The big bang theory, evolution, etc, do a respectable job of using the scientific method to explain WHY what we know happened, happened. Creationism does not...it simply offers a set of alternative facts, with no evidence to suggest they in any way reflect reality, and then offer an explanation for those new facts. If you start from a religious basis, instead of a scientific one, what comes out will almost certainly not be science.

While I would certainly like to hear about the Creation postulates you are referring to that are simply "smoke and mirrors", since you didn't mention any, I'll just move on to your other points.

You say that Creation "does nothing to explain the facts"... really? Care to defend that point? Let me give you a specific example. Creation's worldwide catastrophic flood hypothesis explains the presence of porphyrin molecules in crude oil deposits better than current evolutionary thoughts.

Now, to your next point, that Creation starts "from a religious basis, instead of a scientific one". What exactly is the current "scientific basis" we start from with evolution? It is a presuppositional, philosophical belief in naturalism, that there absolutely must be a natural explanation for the origin of life, the origin of the earth, and the origin of the universe. So all possibility of Creation being true is ruled out, a priori. So while Creation models predict all sorts of things, and many arguments are made, and much evidence is produced in support of specific hypotheses within the Creation framework, you will simply dismiss them as "unscientific", regardless of whether they are true.

Again, 'evolution' doesn't try to describe the origin of anything. The origin of oil, say, falls under geology.

And while that article makes a nice story, it is unscientific simply because it is trying to fit something into a book some people wrote a long time ago. It doesn't observe the evidence and come up with testable theories, it already has a conclusion, and then uses bits of evidence (ignoring many others) to say it happened. Its ultimate goal is not seeking out knowledge, but manipulation of facts to fit already (unscientifically) pre-determined conclusions. That is the opposite of science.

EDIT: This is a perfect example of the 'smokes and mirrors' that other guy was talking about.

Thank you, that was exactly what I was talking about with my "smoke and mirrors" comment. The existence of a world-wide flood neither proves nor disproves ANYTHING, and has nothing to do with evolution vs creationism. Proving or disproving the existence of a world-wide flood furthers neither argument, as neither theory is proven or disproven whether or not such a flood occured. It's, by definition, smoke and mirrors. The argument is, apparently, that the exitence of ANYTHING mentioned in the Bible proves that ALL of it is true, and that's shoddy enough science it doesn't even bear debunking.

You hit exactly on my problem with creationism, it starts with a conclusion and then twists the evidence to support that conclusion. That is not science, no matter what the conclusion or the topic.

 

[Rainsford]

Here is a very quick reason why creationism can NEVER be real science. The entire validity of the theory rests on the existence of a creator, something that can never be proven or disproven. All supporting "evidence" for creationism rests on this requirement, and since the basics of creationism cannot stand on their own without this unprovable postulate, the entire theory only works if it is taken on faith...something that's not really part of real science.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Aisengard

The tour continues to take visitors through a series of rooms. One depicts biblical times and the prophets, the next shows Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses, the printing press, and the Scopes monkey trial of 1925. Visitors are then led through rooms depicting modern times, where exhibits imply that a lack of faith hurts the family and society.

The next part of the tour journeys through the various stories of Genesis, including the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark, and marries them with science. Adam and Eve are seen living alongside dinosaurs and Noah's Ark is used to explain why certain species went extinct.

This isn't science, it's religion. I can't even see any arguable reason for this to even be considered 'science'. The only way for someone to accept this as science is if their mind was so open everything fell out.

Thank goodness only nutcases in the laughingstock we call the Kentucky board of education consider this drivel and storytelling to be anything close to 'science'.

The scientists who believe in Creation are not simply trying to empirically prove that God created the world in 6 days... they are showing how historical events recorded in the Bible are fully compatible with empirical evidence. They are offering a framework hypothesis, a model -- like evolution does -- to explain the facts.

I'm familiar with a lot of that "scientific" work, and it's all smoke and mirrors to give religious folks at least SOME semblance of scientific argument so they feel alright trying to bring religion into the realm of science. But it all seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors, especially since nothing I've read has anything to say about the creation of the earth or the development of the species.

Creationism, from top to bottom, is bad science. To the extent that it offers a "framework hypothesis" (using sciency sounding words doesn't make it science), it does nothing to explain the facts. There are a lot of scientific facts surrounding the existence of the earth and the various species that inhabit it. The big bang theory, evolution, etc, do a respectable job of using the scientific method to explain WHY what we know happened, happened. Creationism does not...it simply offers a set of alternative facts, with no evidence to suggest they in any way reflect reality, and then offer an explanation for those new facts. If you start from a religious basis, instead of a scientific one, what comes out will almost certainly not be science.

While I would certainly like to hear about the Creation postulates you are referring to that are simply "smoke and mirrors", since you didn't mention any, I'll just move on to your other points.

You say that Creation "does nothing to explain the facts"... really? Care to defend that point? Let me give you a specific example. Creation's worldwide catastrophic flood hypothesis explains the presence of porphyrin molecules in crude oil deposits better than current evolutionary thoughts.

Now, to your next point, that Creation starts "from a religious basis, instead of a scientific one". What exactly is the current "scientific basis" we start from with evolution? It is a presuppositional, philosophical belief in naturalism, that there absolutely must be a natural explanation for the origin of life, the origin of the earth, and the origin of the universe. So all possibility of Creation being true is ruled out, a priori. So while Creation models predict all sorts of things, and many arguments are made, and much evidence is produced in support of specific hypotheses within the Creation framework, you will simply dismiss them as "unscientific", regardless of whether they are true.

I'll say it again, creationism basically ignores fundamental facts of the existence of our planet and our species, and instead substitutes its own set of "facts", of which there is absolutely no evidence.

The easiest example is the age of the earth. There is a lot of evidence suggesting the earth is extremely old, with advanced dating techniques finding fully developed, complex species hundreds of millions of years ago. There is no evidence, on the other hand, to suggest earth is only a few thousand years old or that all species that ever were once existed at the same time. Until creationism explains the former, and does not simply reject it in favor of the alternative reality of the latter, I don't see how you can keep defending it as science.

 

[BoomerD]

So, if dinosaurs existed with Adam & Eve, were their real names Fred & Wilma?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
So, if dinosaurs existed with Adam & Eve, were their real names Fred & Wilma?

So the Flintstones are nothing but creationist propaganda? Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Thank you, that was exactly what I was talking about with my "smoke and mirrors" comment. The existence of a world-wide flood neither proves nor disproves ANYTHING, and has nothing to do with evolution vs creationism. Proving or disproving the existence of a world-wide flood furthers neither argument, as neither theory is proven or disproven whether or not such a flood occured. It's, by definition, smoke and mirrors. The argument is, apparently, that the exitence of ANYTHING mentioned in the Bible proves that ALL of it is true, and that's shoddy enough science it doesn't even bear debunking.

You hit exactly on my problem with creationism, it starts with a conclusion and then twists the evidence to support that conclusion. That is not science, no matter what the conclusion or the topic.

It's already been disproven that there was ever a worldwide flood. Sure, alot of the different portions of the earth have flooded from time to time, but there are in fact quite a few that have never flooded.

 

[PokerGuy]

The stupidity and ignorance of those wackos building and funding the museum would be funny, if it wasn't for the fact that they'll drag even more impressionable youngsters into the murky depths of ignorance with them.

Here's what always puzzles me. One can easily show in a simple petri dish experiment that evolution happens. How do the fundie wackos try to refute this simple fact? I mean, you have bacteria in a petri dish, you put some antibiotic in there, most of the bacteria die off, but the ones that do not will multiply and bingo, you soon have bacteria in your petri dish that are all immune to the antibiotic. How does one explain that if not for evolution/mutation?

For the record, I am a Christian. I don't think being a Christian is in any way in contradiction with evolution or science. Science is about figuring things out and discovering things. None of that contradicts the existence of a supreme being, a God. That belief in God is clearly not science and anyone who wants it to be treated that way is a complete moron. It's faith. Duh. To each his own as far as believing in any religion or not, but it's fundie wacko idiots like the people behind this museum that give real Christians a bad name......

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Since I know this question will be raised, I thought I'd go ahead and answer it with an article:

Can creationists be scientists?

It has been often said that ?creationists cannot be real scientists.?

...

Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.

Additionally, ... [t]he MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian who has been featured twice in Creation magazine.

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0405lead.asp

Wow, who's gonna carry on the Darwin Research? Great, is that all you can come up with? So, what that someone religious can do some research.... Look at all the research carried on by the REAL scientist? I guess 99% vs 1%... Yes I believe that religion does influence ones ability to be creative. Heck, look at Einstein, Carl Sagan, Steven Hawkins and thousands of others... They may not have created much, but they open up the mind the creative spark... Look at how many "REAL" scientists the Right wanted to burn at the stakes for suggesting the earth is round or the that the earth is not the center of the universe... OR GASP, Global Warming is man made!!!

Sorry, the christain science monitor is a joke.... Just like bushes science team that spew out BS on a regular basis and basically made the Credibility of the USA scientist a laughing stalk of the entire world...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Thank you, that was exactly what I was talking about with my "smoke and mirrors" comment. The existence of a world-wide flood neither proves nor disproves ANYTHING, and has nothing to do with evolution vs creationism. Proving or disproving the existence of a world-wide flood furthers neither argument, as neither theory is proven or disproven whether or not such a flood occured. It's, by definition, smoke and mirrors. The argument is, apparently, that the exitence of ANYTHING mentioned in the Bible proves that ALL of it is true, and that's shoddy enough science it doesn't even bear debunking.

You hit exactly on my problem with creationism, it starts with a conclusion and then twists the evidence to support that conclusion. That is not science, no matter what the conclusion or the topic.

It's already been disproven that there was ever a worldwide flood. Sure, alot of the different portions of the earth have flooded from time to time, but there are in fact quite a few that have never flooded.

I know...my point was that it's really inconsequential to the overall debate of creationism. Even if there WAS a worldwide flood, that wouldn't further creationism even a little bit.

But that's actually another interesting point...how selective "proof" is to the creationists. Clearly large areas of the earth have been flooded at one time or another, sometimes LARGE areas have flooded. The existence of these floods is taken as proof that there was a worldwide flood which is taken as proof that the story of Noah was accurate which is taken as proof that creationism is true. The logical leaps are quite impressive...but only if you buy the end conclusion.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoomerD
So, if dinosaurs existed with Adam & Eve, were their real names Fred & Wilma?

So the Flintstones are nothing but creationist propaganda? Is that what you're suggesting?

Hmmm, well, I guess that's always possible...but more than likely, it's one of the building blocks for their theory...
"Man walked the earth with dinosaurs...it has to be true...I saw it on television"

 

[Mean MrMustard]

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I know...my point was that it's really inconsequential to the overall debate of creationism. Even if there WAS a worldwide flood, that wouldn't further creationism even a little bit.

But that's actually another interesting point...how selective "proof" is to the creationists. Clearly large areas of the earth have been flooded at one time or another, sometimes LARGE areas have flooded. The existence of these floods is taken as proof that there was a worldwide flood which is taken as proof that the story of Noah was accurate which is taken as proof that creationism is true. The logical leaps are quite impressive...but only if you buy the end conclusion.

Yeah, that was obvious to anyone with a frontal lobe, by what you were saying in your post. I just used it as a means to bring out the fact that it has already been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that portions of the earth have never flooded, that's all. Sorry, didn't mean to make you think I was picking on you/arguing with you.

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
For the record, I am a Christian. I don't think being a Christian is in any way in contradiction with evolution or science. Science is about figuring things out and discovering things. None of that contradicts the existence of a supreme being, a God. That belief in God is clearly not science and anyone who wants it to be treated that way is a complete moron. It's faith. Duh. To each his own as far as believing in any religion or not, but it's fundie wacko idiots like the people behind this museum that give real Christians a bad name......

Wow, PokerGuy, I'm astonished. No offense (really), but I didn't realize that anyone who calls themselves a christian could think rationally, the way you obviously do. Not that it shouldn't be possible, it just seems that the vast, or at least vocal, majority of people who spend their time in churches seem to think more along the lines of Trevelyan and/or hellokeith. Are there more of you that think for yourselves, or are you the seemingly lone dissenter?

 

[dennilfloss]

There are many more, for example we Catholics are theistic evolutionists i.e.

believe that God created the universe in such a way that what He desires will occur through natural processes, and that abiogenesis will probably be fully understood by science one day.

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm
http://www.meta-library.net/evo-brf/evo-brf-print.html
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

A little blurb on the beginnings of American fundamentalism as a reaction against modernism.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Fundamentalism.html