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

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah, I'm fully aware that most religions change their beliefs over time. For instance, remember which religion it was that had trials for scientists who said the world was round? The big problem, as I see it, is that it usually takes them hundreds of years longer than it would have taken them, if it weren't for all of their outdated beliefs.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: myocardia
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?

Myocardia,

Please explain in detail
1) How you know how often I go to church, if I go at all?
2) Exactly what "thinking along the lines" means to hellokeith?
3) Scientific evidence that I do not think for myself?

You sure are making a large number of uninformed, non-scientific assumptions about someone you do not know. This puts into question whether you truly have researched evolution, geology, cosmotology, archaelogy, and the Judeo-Christian scriptures, to make an equivocal statement about your own knowledge, let alone someone else's.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Myocardia,

Please explain in detail
1) How you know how often I go to church, if I go at all?
2) Exactly what "thinking along the lines" means to hellokeith?
3) Scientific evidence that I do not think for myself?

You sure are making a large number of uninformed, non-scientific assumptions about someone you do not know. This puts into question whether you truly have researched evolution, geology, cosmotology, archaelogy, and the Judeo-Christian scriptures, to make an equivocal statement about your own knowledge, let alone someone else's.

I'm pretty sure you were the one that started off the thread with asking if scientists would evaluate the "scientific" evidence for creationism. Creationism is not science... and anyone who makes threads as if it is tends to indicate a strong probability that they are the type of person that Myocardia described. If he's wrong... then he's wrong. It's not like he didn't have reason to think that though.

Also, I dont think "equivocal" means what you think it does. Equivocal means misleading, confusing, and uncertain.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: 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.

The big problem, as I see it, is that it usually takes them hundreds of years longer than it would have taken them, if it weren't for all of their outdated beliefs.

I have absolutely no problem accepting logic and science over some belief if there is evidence to support it. It's the fundamentalists who tend to stick to their beliefs despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. To me, it's not the scriptures that are wrong, it is the interpretation that is incorrect. When presented with evidence that a certain belief is wrong, one should re-examine the interpretation that led to the belief and adjust it accordingly.

Sadly, I think the number of fundies (in all religions, not just Christianity) are rising vis a vis the normal rational folks. Either that, or it just seems that way because the wackos are louder and tend to get more coverage.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Myocardia,

Please explain in detail
1) How you know how often I go to church, if I go at all?
2) Exactly what "thinking along the lines" means to hellokeith?
3) Scientific evidence that I do not think for myself?

You sure are making a large number of uninformed, non-scientific assumptions about someone you do not know. This puts into question whether you truly have researched evolution, geology, cosmotology, archaelogy, and the Judeo-Christian scriptures, to make an equivocal statement about your own knowledge, let alone someone else's.

I'm pretty sure you were the one that started off the thread with asking if scientists would evaluate the "scientific" evidence for creationism. Creationism is not science... and anyone who makes threads as if it is tends to indicate a strong probability that they are the type of person that Myocardia described. If he's wrong... then he's wrong. It's not like he didn't have reason to think that though.

Also, I dont think "equivocal" means what you think it does. Equivocal means misleading, confusing, and uncertain.

Yes, thank you for the correction. I intended to say unequivocal.

There are quite a good number of scientists who do not think agnosticism/atheism is a job requirement. Now if you are saying that evolution does not and can never explain the origin of life, then I agree with you it would be in a different class than the study of creationism and/or intelligent design.

 

[DealMonkey]

hellokeith - where is your peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports creationism? I'm still waiting . . .

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Myocardia,

Please explain in detail
1) How you know how often I go to church, if I go at all?
2) Exactly what "thinking along the lines" means to hellokeith?
3) Scientific evidence that I do not think for myself?

You sure are making a large number of uninformed, non-scientific assumptions about someone you do not know. This puts into question whether you truly have researched evolution, geology, cosmotology, archaelogy, and the Judeo-Christian scriptures, to make an equivocal statement about your own knowledge, let alone someone else's.

I'm pretty sure you were the one that started off the thread with asking if scientists would evaluate the "scientific" evidence for creationism. Creationism is not science... and anyone who makes threads as if it is tends to indicate a strong probability that they are the type of person that Myocardia described. If he's wrong... then he's wrong. It's not like he didn't have reason to think that though.

Also, I dont think "equivocal" means what you think it does. Equivocal means misleading, confusing, and uncertain.

Yes, thank you for the correction. I intended to say unequivocal.

There are quite a good number of scientists who do not think agnosticism/atheism is a job requirement. Now if you are saying that evolution does not and can never explain the origin of life, then I agree with you it would be in a different class than the study of creationism and/or intelligent design.

Evolution is not, nor has it ever tried to be, the explanation for the creation of life. Evolution is what happened after life came to existence.

Evolution isn't what got the ball rolling, it's what kept it rolling.

And you're absolutely right, science doesn't mean you must be an atheist or agnostic. Take for instance Kenneth Miller. The name might not ring a bell, but he is quite important. He's been an expert at many intelligent design/creationism/anti-evolution trials. He's an expert on evolution and has been instrumental on making sure evolution is taught and that the others are not. He's also a practicing Catholic.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeithOr will they try to shut down this place because it offers scientific evidence for God and Creationv?

Excuse me, but there is no - and cannot EVER be - "scientific evidence for God." I defy you to even imagine a mind experiment with any set of invented results you want that could possibly constitute "evidence" for the existence of God.

Using the terms "science" and "religion" in the same sentence shows deep ignorance of what science is. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. Science by definition strives to come up with natural explanations for observable phenomena. Therefore, nothing in science could possibly arrive at supernatural explanations.

Hint: Proving that a scientific theory is false merely leads real scientists to find alternative, natural explanations; the supernatural is NEVER a valid alternative.

By the same token, science can NEVER disprove anything outside the physical. God and articles of religious faith are immune to scientific inquiry.

Given the foregoing, the fact that museums such as this one claim that they are engaging in science in order to bolster religious conclusions just demonstrates the intellectual fraud they are perpetrating.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Well, you may be surprised to find out that there are a lot of Evolutionists out there who think if you believe in Creation you can't do any type of scientific work at all...

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist." Where did this term arise? Its a thinly veiled disguise at "discrediting" scientists that support evolution.

 

[sunzt]

only in America...

 

[JulesMaximus]

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

How grand.

Agreed. Stupidity is clearly running rampant in our country.

 

[dmcowen674]

5-29-2007 Bible-based Creation Museum opens

A museum that tells the Bible's version of Earth's history ? that the planet was created in a single week just a few thousand years ago ? attracted thousands to its opening as protesters rallied outside.

The privately funded museum had more than 4,000 guests on opening day, said Mark Looy, a co-founder of the $27 million facility 20 miles southwest of Cincinnati. The parking lot was filled with license plates from dozens of states.

Some exhibits show dinosaurs aboard Noah's Ark and assert that all animals were vegetarians until Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Some exhibits show dinosaurs aboard Noah's Ark and assert that all animals were vegetarians until Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden.

They have been trying to push textbooks saying the same thing into schools.

Look people, there is light just reaching Earth now that was emitted MILLIONS of years ago.

We can estimate a stars distance to Earth, we know the speed of light, the Earth was not created thousands of years ago, nor was the universe.

None of this is in dispute but I would think even the least educated among us could grasp time and distance.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Some exhibits show dinosaurs aboard Noah's Ark and assert that all animals were vegetarians until Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden.

They have been trying to push textbooks saying the same thing into schools.

Look people, there is light just reaching Earth now that was emitted MILLIONS of years ago.

We can estimate a stars distance to Earth, we know the speed of light, the Earth was not created thousands of years ago, nor was the universe.

None of this is in dispute but I would think even the least educated among us could grasp time and distance.

You would think that...but you'd be wrong.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Some exhibits show dinosaurs aboard Noah's Ark and assert that all animals were vegetarians until Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden.

They have been trying to push textbooks saying the same thing into schools.

Look people, there is light just reaching Earth now that was emitted MILLIONS of years ago.

We can estimate a stars distance to Earth, we know the speed of light, the Earth was not created thousands of years ago, nor was the universe.

None of this is in dispute but I would think even the least educated among us could grasp time and distance.

You assume the speed of light has always been constant, of which there has been scientific doubt for some time now.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: sunzt
only in America...

Ken Ham is from Australia.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: sunzt
only in America...

Creationism Museum in Canada

Alberta will soon have a museum filled with "scientific evidence" that the flood in the Book of Genesis and other biblical events actually happened, and that people walked the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs.

Canada's first creationist museum will open June 5 in Big Valley as "a scientific and biblically based alternative to the evolutionary view of Earth history" put forward by the Royal Tyrrell Museum 60 kilometres to the south, said Harry Nibourg, founder of the Big Valley Creation Science Museum.

...

It uses fossils, displays, models, charts and videos to put forward the view, held by many fundamentalist Christians, that the Earth was created only 10,000 years ago.

...

A genealogy display traces King Henry VI back to Adam and Eve.

Scary... creationists interbred with royalists.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: sunzt
only in America...

Creationism Museum in Canada

Alberta will soon have a museum filled with "scientific evidence" that the flood in the Book of Genesis and other biblical events actually happened, and that people walked the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs.

Canada's first creationist museum will open June 5 in Big Valley as "a scientific and biblically based alternative to the evolutionary view of Earth history" put forward by the Royal Tyrrell Museum 60 kilometres to the south, said Harry Nibourg, founder of the Big Valley Creation Science Museum.

...

It uses fossils, displays, models, charts and videos to put forward the view, held by many fundamentalist Christians, that the Earth was created only 10,000 years ago.

...

A genealogy display traces King Henry VI back to Adam and Eve.

Scary... creationists interbred with royalists.

LOL, leave it to COW to bring the Canadians and English into this thread:laugh:

 

[GoPackGo]

What you don't know is that dinosaurs actually had oil for blood....

 

[manowar821]

What a waste of money. I thought these stupid fundies were all about giving, yet they spend millions to make a monument of fairy tale lies, to further spread their influence.

WASTE OF MONEY.

Do you know how much this money could help people? These people are selfish delusional sickos.

And this is not science, it's 100% made up.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What you don't know is that dinosaurs actually had oil for blood....

Sweet! All the more reason for making a Jurassic Park, except make it a Feedlot and hook then up to hoses connected to a pipeline!!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
hellokeith - where is your peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports creationism? I'm still waiting . . .

Hello? Bueller? You know I'm half-disappointed you didn't try and defend yourself ... I guess you'd prefer to look like a complete tool.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
hellokeith - where is your peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports creationism? I'm still waiting . . .

Hello? Bueller? You know I'm half-disappointed you didn't try and defend yourself ... I guess you'd prefer to look like a complete tool.

Please provide me with a link to where I said I had "peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports creationism".

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
hellokeith - where is your peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports creationism? I'm still waiting . . .

Hello? Bueller? You know I'm half-disappointed you didn't try and defend yourself ... I guess you'd prefer to look like a complete tool.

Please provide me with a link to where I said I had "peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports creationism".

You claimed there was evidence for creationism. Where? Everything presented by the ID crowd (Discovery Institute comes to mind) has been proven wrong through peer review.

Oh, and then there's this:

Will libs respect the freedoms of speech and religion, and engage students in mindful discussions on the scientific evidence presented there? Or will they try to shut down this place because it offers scientific evidence for God and Creation? Give it bad press in the lib media?

What exactly do you think peer review is?

 

[PokerGuy]

Or will they try to shut down this place because it offers scientific evidence for God and Creation? Give it bad press in the lib media?

No 'scientific evidence' for God and Creation is provided, just a bunch of psuedo-scientific sounding BS to convince idiots.....