The Creationism Museum

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Ok, that was a bit of rambling, but here's the thing about why I believe the Bible's literal take on a 6 day creation story.

Is that 6 earth days, or martian days or mercury days or alpha centauri days or what?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Ok, that was a bit of rambling, but here's the thing about why I believe the Bible's literal take on a 6 day creation story.

Is that 6 earth days, or martian days or mercury days or alpha centauri days or what?

To me, it doesn't matter because all the arguments that say "A ha, it couldn't have been 6 days because..." put God into a box where they assume he's bound by the same laws he created for us. I'd assume earth days, it's implied in the Bible, but even if it's not, it doesn't really matter as I understand it.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't understand why christians see the necessity of pursuing creationism. It exists solely as a counter to evolution, and no such counter is necessary. Evolution doesn't seek to disprove anything at all that christians believe, except perhaps that the bible is not to be taken literally, which many denominations already believe, including catholicism. It's just science, for christ's sake.

At the same time, I think creationists would have an easier time coming off of it if their ego's weren't insulted by people claiming that evolution explains everything, including the lack of a God. Evolution doesn't explain everything. It doesn't explain ultimate origins.

Evolution to me, on most levels, is rather boring. It doesn't explain how we got here, it hasn't even been proven to take place yet you better damn well say it's a fact if you want to work in academia. However, the way it is taught in schools, and the way it is rabidly defended as if it was as observable and demonstrable as the theory of gravity by people like eskimospy and Cerpin "Rage" Taxt is what bothers me.

evolution is boring to you simply because scientific fact conflicts with your percieved faith. stating that evolution is not observable is completely false. i suppose you think fossils are tools of the devil.

"Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...conceptions_faq.php#b6

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

You're just an agnostic then. Go look up atheist in a dictionary, meriam webster, dictionary.com, answers.com all state it pretty clearly that an Atheist denies the existence of God or Gods. Just because most people are too ignorant to know what an atheist really is, doesn't mean you have to be too, right??

No, I am not an agnostic. An agnostic is one who considers the existence of god to be unknowable and irrelevant. My only reason for saying it's not possible to prove god doesn't exist is because it's not possible to prove anything does not exist. If you look up atheist on dictionary.com, the #2 definition is 'disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings'. Disbelief does not mean a positive declaration of something not being true, it means 'not believing, incredulity, skepticism'. So yes, it would appear that some people around here are too ignorant to know what an atheist really is. Luckily for you though, now you have been educated on the matter, so we won't have this trouble again, right?

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Ok, that was a bit of rambling, but here's the thing about why I believe the Bible's literal take on a 6 day creation story.

Is that 6 earth days, or martian days or mercury days or alpha centauri days or what?

To me, it doesn't matter because all the arguments that say "A ha, it couldn't have been 6 days because..." put God into a box where they assume he's bound by the same laws he created for us. I'd assume earth days, it's implied in the Bible, but even if it's not, it doesn't really matter as I understand it.

I'm just saying it might've made things easier on god to use a day like on mercury because they're a little bit longer, thats all..

Of course god is so awesome, she probably could've done the job on Jupiter time where the days are only 10 hours long so..

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Evolution to me, on most levels, is rather boring. It doesn't explain how we got here, it hasn't even been proven to take place yet you better damn well say it's a fact if you want to work in academia. However, the way it is taught in schools, and the way it is rabidly defended as if it was as observable and demonstrable as the theory of gravity by people like eskimospy and Cerpin "Rage" Taxt is what bothers me.

Take for instance a "young" earth creationist. I hate the phrase because it implies that said creationist doesn't accept the observable science of the heavens seemingly drifting apart, denying the speed of light, etc. I've seen rabid evolutionists in this forum mock people like myself, where they accuse anyone who is skeptic of evolution as "not believing in gravity" or other such nonsense. You just can't have a real debate with these people, Cerpin Taxt is a perfect example of this, someone who is so deeply invested in Evolution being true they'll go into hissy fits the second you say something he doesn't like. Eskimospy just goes into personal attacks usually.

Others on here, quote something you said and then accuse you of some silly thing that they saw on a Family Guy joke about some dumbly portrayed Christian. It is no secret that most of the people's conception of Christians in general on this forum, and probably 90% of the agnostics and atheists, comes from the entertainment media.

Ok, that was a bit of rambling, but here's the thing about why I believe the Bible's literal take on a 6 day creation story. This is a creationist museum thread so i'm not going to apologize for bringing my "religious nut" self in here either.

1) It does not contradict any kind of real scientific knowledge we have today. It can't. God, the Creator, if he could create the world, would by definition have LITERALLY unimaginable amounts of power. I love watching The Universe because it just blows my mind how awesome the heavens are and makes me feel small each and every time. There is absolutely nothing about a 6 day creation belief that contradicts any known real science, nothing. If someone wants to ask "Well what about carbon dating, or how far away stars are and how slow light travels in relation to their distance...", there are so many ways all this is possible without contradicting a 6 day creation story, it's hardly worth debating, but if someone wants to ask, feel free. The reason people get hung on the 6 day creation in my view is that they assume that a God who created a star 10 billion light years away couldn't also make the speed of light 10 trillian times faster than it is today. I'm not going to claim i know this is the case, i'm just saying it's a possiblity.

2) Can I say for a certainty to the day, how long ago God created the world? No, of course not, not by science or by reading of the scriptures. People bring up the 6000 year mockery as part of a broader campaign as illustrated in 1). Kent Hovind, who evolutions and atheists absolutely HATE, actually has real scientific evidence of a world wide flood approx 4000'ish years ago. He has a theory, and he'll tell you it's a theory, based on his evidence that simply can't be explained by anything other than a lot of stuff getting buried extremely quickly on a massive scale. Does this prove the biblical account of the flood to the point where one should get as rabid is an evolutionist on a form? no, but it's another piece of the puzzle that each one of us has to put together for themselves.

OK. I agree, the very definition of God is that he can do anything. He could have snapped his fingers and *BAM*, Earth, the Universe, everything just popped into view. But based on this definition of God, why should we assume that this happened 6,000 years ago? Why couldn't it have happened 1 second ago? God could have created everything, the Universe, this planet, you, complete with billions of years of false history and memories, in the blink of an eye. How would we know? We can't; we take it on faith that we've actually lived the lives we think we have, and they're not just the construct of a creator who magically *POOF*ed us into existence mere seconds ago.

Do you support the teaching of the Biblical creation story alongside evolution in schools? Why? Why not tell the students God may have created them just this morning while they were having breakfast; all their memories before that never happened? It's just as likely as the Biblical story of creation. We have no evidence for either, but we know that if God exists, he could certainly do it. So why teach one possibility but not all of them?

And why couldn't God have created evolution? It's a pretty magical process. Things adapt to changing environments and become new species over time? Holy shit, that's amazing! That, to me, is as beautiful as the alpenglow on a fresh sheet of snow as the sun sets on a mountain. Imagine, species that can actually grow and adapt for survival based on ever changing conditions. How on Earth could such a process possibly have come about without an intelligent creator to manifest it? What wonders God has given us.

And as for your assertion that evolution is not observable, well that's just flat out wrong. We've observed evolution in the lab and the real world in our lifetimes, from bacteria to fruit flies to moths. We've actually seen species adapt and change over time. That's evolution. You can deny speciation, the branch of evolution that describes how adaptations within a population eventually cause new species to form, but to argue that evolution doesn't exist is 100% demonstrably false.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Ok, that was a bit of rambling, but here's the thing about why I believe the Bible's literal take on a 6 day creation story.

Is that 6 earth days, or martian days or mercury days or alpha centauri days or what?

To me, it doesn't matter because all the arguments that say "A ha, it couldn't have been 6 days because..." put God into a box where they assume he's bound by the same laws he created for us. I'd assume earth days, it's implied in the Bible, but even if it's not, it doesn't really matter as I understand it.

How long was an earth day before the earth and the sun existed?

And uh, you're the one trying to put God in a book, I mean, box. If God's reality tell us one thing and an ancient book written by men tells us another, why is it that you hold God's reality to be the one that is fallible?

 

[Vic]

If 13 billion years go by, and no conscious mind is around to observe it, does it make a sound?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
If 13 billion years go by, and no conscious mind is around to observe it, does it make a sound?

I'll let you know

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Vic
If 13 billion years go by, and no conscious mind is around to observe it, does it make a sound?

A HAH! a trick question: There is no sound in space!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
If 13 billion years go by, and no conscious mind is around to observe it, does it make a sound?

I'll let you know

You're the one poster here I'd think best suited for that job, Dave.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

You're just an agnostic then. Go look up atheist in a dictionary, meriam webster, dictionary.com, answers.com all state it pretty clearly that an Atheist denies the existence of God or Gods. Just because most people are too ignorant to know what an atheist really is, doesn't mean you have to be too, right??

No, I am not an agnostic. An agnostic is one who considers the existence of god to be unknowable and irrelevant. My only reason for saying it's not possible to prove god doesn't exist is because it's not possible to prove anything does not exist. If you look up atheist on dictionary.com, the #2 definition is 'disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings'. Disbelief does not mean a positive declaration of something not being true, it means 'not believing, incredulity, skepticism'. So yes, it would appear that some people around here are too ignorant to know what an atheist really is. Luckily for you though, now you have been educated on the matter, so we won't have this trouble again, right?

Not that I actually care what you call yourself, but this just illustrates how far you'll bend something to fit your wishes.

With God or gods, there are no black and whites, He or they exist, or He or they do not exist. If you disbelieve that God exists, you by definition believe he does not exist, unless you are not sure and don't believe either way.

You are an Agnostic, unless you really believe God doesn't exist, then you're just dumber than a box of rocks.

Meriam Webster - Atheist
: one who believes that there is no deity.

Meriam Webster - Agnostic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Yep, you're an agnostic.

 

[sandorski]

aaaahhhh

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Vic
If 13 billion years go by, and no conscious mind is around to observe it, does it make a sound?

A HAH! a trick question: There is no sound in space!

"Light, in the absence of eyes, illuminates nothing."

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Ok, that was a bit of rambling, but here's the thing about why I believe the Bible's literal take on a 6 day creation story.

Is that 6 earth days, or martian days or mercury days or alpha centauri days or what?

To me, it doesn't matter because all the arguments that say "A ha, it couldn't have been 6 days because..." put God into a box where they assume he's bound by the same laws he created for us. I'd assume earth days, it's implied in the Bible, but even if it's not, it doesn't really matter as I understand it.

In engineering, it's always important to get your units straight. If I say "5," ok, great. 5 what? 5 pounds? 5 yards? 5 chickens? God has been referred to as one of the greatest engineers of all time, yet he can't keep the basics straight?

When the Bible was supposedly inspired/dictated/hallucinated from God, he knew we were limited beings. He should have known that units were important.

At the time the Bible was written, we didn't know anything about how old the Earth really was. To say it's 6000 years old, and that the world was created in 6 days, it wasn't a problem. But as science started to say, "Wow, this place is REALLY old!", we ventured back into "god of the gaps" territory. Suddenly a "day" wasn't a "day" anymore. It needed to be something different, in order to make it fit the new scientific evidence, and so that it wouldn't sound quite as loony. Religion itself has evolved over the years. How ironic.
As science keeps exposing as false what religion has held to be true, religion keeps on covering its own butt by saying, "Well here's what we really meant..." Theists also needed to become lawyers, and redefine what the meaning of the word "is" is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

You're just an agnostic then. Go look up atheist in a dictionary, meriam webster, dictionary.com, answers.com all state it pretty clearly that an Atheist denies the existence of God or Gods. Just because most people are too ignorant to know what an atheist really is, doesn't mean you have to be too, right??

No, I am not an agnostic. An agnostic is one who considers the existence of god to be unknowable and irrelevant. My only reason for saying it's not possible to prove god doesn't exist is because it's not possible to prove anything does not exist. If you look up atheist on dictionary.com, the #2 definition is 'disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings'. Disbelief does not mean a positive declaration of something not being true, it means 'not believing, incredulity, skepticism'. So yes, it would appear that some people around here are too ignorant to know what an atheist really is. Luckily for you though, now you have been educated on the matter, so we won't have this trouble again, right?

Not that I actually care what you call yourself, but this just illustrates how far you'll bend something to fit your wishes.

With God or gods, there are no black and whites, He or they exist, or He or they do not exist. If you disbelieve that God exists, you by definition believe he does not exist, unless you are not sure and don't believe either way.

You are an Agnostic, unless you really believe God doesn't exist, then you're just dumber than a box of rocks.

Meriam Webster - Atheist
: one who believes that there is no deity.

Meriam Webster - Agnostic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Yep, you're an agnostic.

It's like it's PRATT-day and somebody forgot to warn me.

Look, there are two subsets of atheism. All atheists do not believe a god exists. Some of those atheists believe with confidence that no god exists. If a person does not believe a god exists, but does not believe with confidence that no gods exist, he is still an atheist. He is simply an agnostic atheist, or weak atheist. Agnosticism and atheism are not dichotomous. Theism and atheism are dichotomous. Gnosticism and agnosticism are dichotomous. The two dichotomies are orthogonal. Fuck dammit, you're dumb.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Ok, that was a bit of rambling, but here's the thing about why I believe the Bible's literal take on a 6 day creation story.

Is that 6 earth days, or martian days or mercury days or alpha centauri days or what?

To me, it doesn't matter because all the arguments that say "A ha, it couldn't have been 6 days because..." put God into a box where they assume he's bound by the same laws he created for us.

No, it merely assumes that if your god were to exist, it would not deceive us by creating a world which appears older than it really is.

Are you saying your god has deceived us? That the world only appears to be old, when in fact it is not?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

You're just an agnostic then. Go look up atheist in a dictionary, meriam webster, dictionary.com, answers.com all state it pretty clearly that an Atheist denies the existence of God or Gods. Just because most people are too ignorant to know what an atheist really is, doesn't mean you have to be too, right??

No, I am not an agnostic. An agnostic is one who considers the existence of god to be unknowable and irrelevant. My only reason for saying it's not possible to prove god doesn't exist is because it's not possible to prove anything does not exist. If you look up atheist on dictionary.com, the #2 definition is 'disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings'. Disbelief does not mean a positive declaration of something not being true, it means 'not believing, incredulity, skepticism'. So yes, it would appear that some people around here are too ignorant to know what an atheist really is. Luckily for you though, now you have been educated on the matter, so we won't have this trouble again, right?

Not that I actually care what you call yourself, but this just illustrates how far you'll bend something to fit your wishes.

With God or gods, there are no black and whites, He or they exist, or He or they do not exist. If you disbelieve that God exists, you by definition believe he does not exist, unless you are not sure and don't believe either way.

You are an Agnostic, unless you really believe God doesn't exist, then you're just dumber than a box of rocks.

Meriam Webster - Atheist
: one who believes that there is no deity.

Meriam Webster - Agnostic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Yep, you're an agnostic.

Well then you should probably strike dictionary.com from the list of sources you gave me, as their definition disagrees. Of course other people have already beaten you down on this subject, but... whatever. If you look at the definition of atheism objectively and rationally you will see I am very much an atheist.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
To me, it doesn't matter because all the arguments that say "A ha, it couldn't have been 6 days because..." put God into a box where they assume he's bound by the same laws he created for us.

No, it merely assumes that if your god were to exist, it would not deceive us by creating a world which appears older than it really is.

Are you saying your god has deceived us? That the world only appears to be old, when in fact it is not?

[/quote]It obviously only appears old to evil scientists who are caught up by their own pride and ignorance, and want to discredit God. So they lie to everyone in order to make God appear unlikely.

:laugh:

 

[jackschmittusa]

I think of myself as an atheist, which comes from Greek a- (without) and theos (god). So, I am a godless person, just like a person without a home is homeless. But I've never heard a homeless person deny that homes exist. But unlike homes, I see no reason to even assume that there may actually be any gods. I am also a complete person and can see no benefit from having a god of my own, let alone bothering to look for one.

As for those that feel that they have already found a god suitable to their daily needs, good for you. I'll just take a daily vitamin.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: jonks
What exactly do you think his quote meant?

I think this quote meant like I said earlier, that segregation today is nothing compared to the segregation of the 60s when he made the comment. Meaning, the segregation of the 60s was forced on people who attended church, while today, the segregation in churches is voluntary.

We might be talking past each other. Who do you think I meant above when I said "his"? MLK or alien?

going by "segregation of the 60s when he made the comment" i would say he is talking about MLK, not me.

Yeah, I agree. But here's a longer clip of MLK's speech:

We must face the fact that in America, the church is still the most segregated major institution in America. At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing in Christ there is no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation. This is tragic. Nobody of honesty can overlook this. Now, I?m sure that if the church had taken a stronger stand all along, we wouldn?t have many of the problems that we have. The first way that the church can repent, the first way that it can move out into the arena of social reform is to remove the yoke of segregation from its own body. Now, I?m not saying that society must sit down and wait on a spiritual and moribund church as we?ve so often seen. I think it should have started in the church, but since it didn?t start in the church, our society needed to move on. The church, itself, will stand under the judgement of God. Now that the mistake of the past has been made, I think that the opportunity of the future is to really go out and to transform American society, and where else is there a better place than in the institution that should serve as the moral guardian of the community. The institution that should preach brotherhood and make it a reality within its own body.

He's ticked off at the church for not taking the lead on ending segregation within its own purview, and if he came back today and saw the churches still 95% segregated he would express the same displeasure. In all likelihood it would probably depress him further, that even now when people have the free choice where to worship, they are just as divided as they were back when such division was mandated.

So now that you two believe you have made your point, would you care to explain what any of this has to do with the Creationist Museum?

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
I'm sure this has been posted before, but I was inspired to post it again by the ignorant fools in the creationism vs evolution thread. How they managed to find idiots willing to throw 25 million at them to create this fairy tale center is absolutely fucking amazing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
http://www.creationmuseum.org/

This is troll to say the least. Why do you care if the creationists do this? Doesn't bother me, they're entitled to their opinion.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Ok, that was a bit of rambling, but here's the thing about why I believe the Bible's literal take on a 6 day creation story.

Is that 6 earth days, or martian days or mercury days or alpha centauri days or what?

To me, it doesn't matter because all the arguments that say "A ha, it couldn't have been 6 days because..." put God into a box where they assume he's bound by the same laws he created for us. I'd assume earth days, it's implied in the Bible, but even if it's not, it doesn't really matter as I understand it.

In engineering, it's always important to get your units straight. If I say "5," ok, great. 5 what? 5 pounds? 5 yards? 5 chickens? God has been referred to as one of the greatest engineers of all time, yet he can't keep the basics straight?

When the Bible was supposedly inspired/dictated/hallucinated from God, he knew we were limited beings. He should have known that units were important.

At the time the Bible was written, we didn't know anything about how old the Earth really was. To say it's 6000 years old, and that the world was created in 6 days, it wasn't a problem. But as science started to say, "Wow, this place is REALLY old!", we ventured back into "god of the gaps" territory. Suddenly a "day" wasn't a "day" anymore. It needed to be something different, in order to make it fit the new scientific evidence, and so that it wouldn't sound quite as loony. Religion itself has evolved over the years. How ironic.
As science keeps exposing as false what religion has held to be true, religion keeps on covering its own butt by saying, "Well here's what we really meant..." Theists also needed to become lawyers, and redefine what the meaning of the word "is" is.

The flaw in the argument against a 6 day creation is they purposefully confuse God taking 6 days to create the earth, approx 6000 years ago with the Bible saying everything is and will appear 6000 years old.

As I said, there is no contradiction in a 6 day creation, the amount of time God used to create the universe or what the finished product looks like has nothing to do with what the finished product will look like to our perception.

I do take your point though, and why I believe the Bible is literally true when it says God created the earth and the heavens in 6 days. There is a lot of ridicule in the world over this, but there is no logical or scientific evidence that contradicts the BIble. What you do see is man gaining more knowledge about the world around him and becoming more and more prideful.

 

[Babbles]

One of the days the fiancee and I am going to check out that Creationism Museum to see the craziness for ourselves.

 

[ohnoes]

Since we're declaring things by fiat, I'd like to declare that I am the first mover behind the first mover. In other words, I created God. I will now answer all your questions.