Creation Museum Now Open To Conform You

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

You miss my point. Yes, this is but a museum; the real danger, however, is this sort of mindset taking hold in the larger context of the educational system. It may only be one museum now, but imagine children being taught this bunk in a science classroom. Divine creation is all well and good for the study of theology, but passing this superstitious nonsense off as a plausible scientific explanation is tantamount to insanity.

Now, I won't deny the existence of a god, but no good has ever come of literalist interpretations of the bible such as this. The creationist arguement that evolution is only a "theory" holds no water, as all of modern science and technology is based upon theories. Science may not be entirely correct in all things, but, after all, it is a learning process. Newtonian physics may have been supplanted by Einsteinian, but modern science would not have progressed to its current levels without that stepping stone.

[Raptor]

I see what you mean but would you get many museums like this before that mindset had taken hold? I think they would spring up after more of the education system had slipped. In which case as Underwater Ophelia said, the problem isn't with the museum. In other words the museums are more of an indication of the problem, not the problem itself.

I agree with your views on science.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

The fact that this lunacy has gained enough credence in our society to garner a 27 million dollar museum is what worries me. For all I care we can keep the thing in future as a hall of oddities, so long as people come to realize that sola scriptorum interpretations of religious texts are foolish and dangerous.

The museum itself is, in my mind, little more than a tacky piece of roadside Americana; it's the thought process behind it that frightens me.

[Don't Look Behind You]

The evolution theory leads to pornography and abortion? RAAAAAAIIIIIGHHT. Well then Christianity leads to Crusades.
Scientific proof of Biblical theory? Wow, my head hurts. I don't think they mean the same "science" as the one that supports Darwin's theroy, right? Cool, how many "sciences" do we have?

I know a guy that once came up to me and with a serious face said: "Well humans come from monkeys right? And God made the human according to His own form, right? Well then God's a monkey!"

Damn, people are bored. These people are too stupid to take the Bible in a mataphorical sence and to look deeper into interpretation. So they just go ahead and take it literaly.
Do you know the story of the Spaghetti Monster?

[bleedingheart344]

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

It's not a crackpot theory. It's a crackpot idea. Theories have supporting evidence. (And as much as Creationists claim that they have evidence, they don't.)

Ah, thanks for the correction.

[c130]

I say let them be retards if they want to be. If they want to believe the shite they make up as they go along, so be it. If they've got a museum, at least some of them will be too busy running it to go about stopping people in the street to preach their stupidity.

[Underwater Ophelia]

That's real tolerant of you.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Toleration is a concept that religious zealots don't understand. They won't accept that creationism might be taught in theology classrooms while evolution is taught in science; they want creationism taught in science classes as well, which is fucking absurd. I'd have no problem with the former, but the latter is entirely unacceptable.

[Lapin]

(bouncing up and down in excitement)
(or rather, I was before yesterday)
(having a hard time with 'happy' right now)

Anyway, I'm going to the museum, solely for amusmant purposes. It's going to be $110 for the train and another Mother-knows-how-much for the taxi, but I am going. I just have to see this for myself.

I'll tell you all about it. I'll even post pictures.

I'm going with a few people too. One wants me to let him do an exorcism re-enactment in the lobby. (I'm his 'chaperone', as he's 16)

I'll post pictures of that too.

If I can manage to stop laughing.

[Lapin]

And guys? Stop taking this so seriously. Let's all just point and laugh until it hurts.

[Lady_Lacrimosa_Umbrae]

Maybe the museum is worth laughing at, but the website is truly scary.

[deafasadoornail]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Toleration is a concept that religious zealots don't understand. They won't accept that creationism might be taught in theology classrooms while evolution is taught in science; they want creationism taught in science classes as well, which is fucking absurd. I'd have no problem with the former, but the latter is entirely unacceptable.

Actually, evolution as we know it shouldn't be taught in science classrooms either. We have plenty of evidence of microevolution (species adapting to their environment), but almost none for macroevolution (species becoming other species). Scientific theories require 4 different things -- I can't remember all of the 4, but I know one is that they must be able to be tested in a lab, which rules out creationism, and one is that they must not be contradicted by currently known science, which is gradually ruling out macroevolution. If it's not a theory, it's an idea as someone brilliantly pointed out. Evolution is not a theory.

Good science admits what it does not know. We (meaning pretty much everyone) no longer practice good science.

*steps off soap box and dons flame suit*

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by deafasadoornail

Actually, evolution as we know it shouldn't be taught in science classrooms either. We have plenty of evidence of microevolution (species adapting to their environment), but almost none for macroevolution (species becoming other species). Scientific theories require 4 different things -- I can't remember all of the 4, but I know one is that they must be able to be tested in a lab, which rules out creationism, and one is that they must not be contradicted by currently known science, which is gradually ruling out macroevolution. If it's not a theory, it's an idea as someone brilliantly pointed out. Evolution is not a theory.

Good science admits what it does not know. We (meaning pretty much everyone) no longer practice good science.

*steps off soap box and dons flame suit*

Take off the flame suit. What you said is true. Evolutionism and creationism aren't true theories, neither of them.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by deafasadoornail

We have plenty of evidence of microevolution (species adapting to their environment), but almost none for macroevolution (species becoming other species).

On the contrary, there is abundand evidence for macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Scientific theories require 4 different things -- I can't remember all of the 4, but I know one is that they must be able to be tested in a lab, which rules out creationism...

Testability in a lab is not a requirement, which should be obvious if you think about it. That would require us to throw out the entirety of astronomy and most of geology, including plate tectonics. Classic creationism and modern creationism ("intelligent design") are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

...and one is that they must not be contradicted by currently known science, which is gradually ruling out macroevolution.

You'll hear this line from time to time, especially recently since the ID propaganda engine has been going to great lengths to jam it edgewise into the consciousness of anybody unfortunate enough to cross their path. The simple fact is that it is a barefaced lie. What's more, it's not even a new lie.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Evolution is not a theory.

A claim which flies in the face of not only modern science, but common sense. Do you have anything to back that up?

Drake

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

That's real tolerant of you.

Did she say anything intolerant? She said it's stupid; that's not being intolerant.
I'm about to preach the holy words of the fecal sausage, no one that believes otherwise tan I say should be allowed to live. Do I deserve to be tolerated?

Originally Posted by deafasadoornail

one is that they must not be contradicted by currently known science

What if the 'currently known science' is wrong? By your logic, we shouldn't theorize any more about quantum physics.

Good science admits what it does not know.

And here, we have an error, which corrected becomes a contradiction. Good science admits that it might be wrong and it's only an attempt to explain or understand a phenomenon. Good science must be falsifiable. But when this is so, then your first argument of 'new science cannot conflict with old science' would be far from right (although it actually is)

[Godslayer Jillian]

Haha, I'm watching a Simpsons show about Evolution and Creation.

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Godslayer Jillian rocks my socks. Boo Hoo. Also, I'm going to have sex with some Kaveman Dinosaurs...FROM THE FUTURE.

Goth Forever

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by deafasadoornail

Actually, evolution as we know it shouldn't be taught in science classrooms either. We have plenty of evidence of microevolution (species adapting to their environment), but almost none for macroevolution (species becoming other species). Scientific theories require 4 different things -- I can't remember all of the 4, but I know one is that they must be able to be tested in a lab, which rules out creationism, and one is that they must not be contradicted by currently known science, which is gradually ruling out macroevolution. If it's not a theory, it's an idea as someone brilliantly pointed out. Evolution is not a theory.

Good science admits what it does not know. We (meaning pretty much everyone) no longer practice good science.

*steps off soap box and dons flame suit*

Where is this four point checklist for qualification as a theory coming from? Have you ever looked up the word "theory"?

theory |????r?; ??i(?)r?| noun ( pl. -ries) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained


Based on supposition. Don't make me look up "supposition" for you as well. For a scientific theory to be accepted as FACT it must have results replicable in a laboratory environment, but, as Drake pointed out, we can't exactly replicate billions of years worth of climatic change in a lab.

Darwin's theory wasn't perfect, but neither was Newton's, and that proved integral to the development of physics. Pioneering thought makes scientific advances possible. While the forward march of technology is, indeed, a double edged sword, that is another debate altogether. Saying that the planet was designed as is by an "Intelligent creator" is no different than saying Gaia is the mother of the earth, or that Osiris guards the underworld.

Honestly, Drake made the most salient points on the topic. I just felt the need to sound off in support. This is, after all, a message board.

Still, though, if you're going to cite some damning evidence (like a four point checklist), it's helpful to remember what the fuck it actually is that you're talking about.

[c130]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

That's real tolerant of you.

That's not what tolerance means. I don't have to agree at all with something to be tolerant of it.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by c130

That's not what tolerance means. I don't have to agree at all with something to be tolerant of it.

Well, maybe tolerant wasn't the right word, but I think what you said was fucked up.

[badteccy]

Eeeeeeeeh, I mean...I certainly do not agree with this, and it does seem rather...silly I guess, but it's their freedom so more power to 'em I guess.

[c130]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Well, maybe tolerant wasn't the right word, but I think what you said was fucked up.

Thank you. ^_^ I don't agree with sugar-coated political correctness.

[deafasadoornail]

There is a very good explanation of the difference between scientific laws, hypotheses and theories at http:wilstar.com/theories.htm. Most of the things people think are theories are actually hypotheses. Yes, theories have to be tested and the tests have to be reproducible by someone else following the same data. There are ways to test for geological and astronomical phenomena, through observation and radioactive dating and so on.

Testability in a lab is not a requirement, which should be obvious if you think about it. That would require us to throw out the entirety of astronomy and most of geology, including plate tectonics. Classic creationism and modern creationism ("intelligent design") are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

The concept of falsifiability just means that you can test for how something is NOT true. It's true that you can't test creationism in this manner. You CAN test evolution in this manner. The problem is that we get different results with different tests. For instance, how old is the earth? If you go by geological samples, it's pretty damn old -- billions of years. If you go by astrological phenomena, it's pretty young -- thousands to maybe millions of years. Furthermore, many of the tests for the earth's age come out with different results. We have no workable theory for how old the earth is, only hypotheses.

You'll hear this line from time to time, especially recently since the ID propaganda engine has been going to great lengths to jam it edgewise into the consciousness of anybody unfortunate enough to cross their path. The simple fact is that it is a barefaced lie. What's more, it's not even a new lie.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Actually, that's not true. Science discards or modifies theories all the time, for instance, people used to believe all swans were white because that was all that was observed. Then black swans were discovered in Australia and the white swan concept had to be modified. In this case, we've observed that species can adapt to fit their environment. However, species do not turn into other species. Sharing body parts doesn't make dinosaurs and birds the same. Internal organs and body composition are what tell us, for instance, that a chihuahua and a wolf are the same species. They have a different frame, but their bones are more or less the same shape in the same places, etc. So we have ancient ancestors for our modern dogs and horses, ancient humans that correspond to us, but no evidence of any interspecies transference. If we were descended from the great apes, we should have internal organs that are similar. We don't, except for the brain and the opposable thumbs. Our hearts are closer to pigs and our lungs closer to dogs.

A claim which flies in the face of not only modern science, but common sense. Do you have anything to back that up?

Drake

Science should NEVER be about common sense, only about facts. There are people who still think the earth is flat because that's their experience, regardless of the facts. I am unconvinced by the variety of results in evolutionary experiments so I still think evolution is a hypothesis, not a theory and if we teach hypotheses in science, we'll have to leave room for every crackpot out there. Crick of Watson and Crick (the guys who got credit for discovering DNA) believed that we evolved somewhere else and were brought here by little green men. That seems as plausible to me as anything else.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by deafasadoornail

There is a very good explanation of the difference between scientific laws, hypotheses and theories at http:wilstar.com/theories.htm. Most of the things people think are theories are actually hypotheses.

I'm not as enamored with that explanation as you are, but in any case nothing in it contradicts what I have said. In fact, it explicitly states that "Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt." (emphasis added)

Yes, theories have to be tested and the tests have to be reproducible by someone else following the same data. There are ways to test for geological and astronomical phenomena, through observation and radioactive dating and so on.

That is accurate. A theory does not have to be lab-testable. It satisfies the testability criterion as long as it makes predictions about observable phenomena. Like astronomical and geological theories, the theory of evolution is testable.

The concept of falsifiability just means that you can test for how something is NOT true. It's true that you can't test creationism in this manner. You CAN test evolution in this manner.

Correct. Creationism is not falsifiable. Ergo not a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is falsifiable. Ergo scientific. End of analysis.

The problem is that we get different results with different tests.

Without touching the factuality of that rather broad claim, I'll simply point out that it is irrelevant. The falsifiability criterion does not require that the testing be easy from a practical standpoint. It simply requires that it be possible in principle.

For instance, how old is the earth? If you go by geological samples, it's pretty damn old -- billions of years. If you go by astrological phenomena, it's pretty young -- thousands to maybe millions of years. Furthermore, many of the tests for the earth's age come out with different results. We have no workable theory for how old the earth is, only hypotheses.

The U.S. Geological Service does not appear to think there is any difficulty with this.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

The people at NASA, who presumably know something about astronomy (astrology is, of course, irrelevant), are in total agreement.

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect2/Sect2_1b.html
http://universe.nasa.gov/press/2003/030103a.html
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/faq/inde...egory=SolarSys

Online encyclopaedic resources also show a perfect consensus on this issue:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142-planetEarth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

I searched for any kind of dissent from the astronomical community, and found nothing. I did find a number of people within the astronomical community affirming the consensus estimate for the age of the earth. In particular, there are a lot of class outlines, class notes, and the like at university sites which can be found using google. They all agree that the Earth is billions of years old.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/.../deeptime.html
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/.../lecture2.html
http://www.aip.de/People/MSteinmetz/...Lecture_10.ppt

I could not find anything to indicate that any serious scientists think the Earth is "thousands to maybe of millions of years" old. I did, however, find numerous creationist sites arguing (badly) for a "young Earth", without even trying to conceal their religious agenda. The people at talkorigins.org can, as usual, help you debunk this kind of trash.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

In this case, we've observed that species can adapt to fit their environment. However, species do not turn into other species.

I have already provided a link to as much evidence for "macroevolution" as anybody could ask for, and more than most people will have the patience to wade through. Here it is again, with a couple of other ones from the same source directly addressing the issue of speciation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

If we were descended from the great apes, we should have internal organs that are similar.

It is very, very difficult for me to remain patient when I see this comment. Let me say this once for the record. Humans are not descended from the apes. Nobody is claiming that they are. Modern apes and modern humans are descended from a common ancestor. Apes are our evolutionary cousins.

We don't, except for the brain and the opposable thumbs. Our hearts are closer to pigs and our lungs closer to dogs.

I think I will do us both a favor, and pretend you didn't say that.

I am unconvinced by the variety of results in evolutionary experiments so I still think evolution is a hypothesis, not a theory and if we teach hypotheses in science, we'll have to leave room for every crackpot out there.

Your personal convictions are beside the point, and before you set them in stone, you should consider informing yourself about the relevant topics. The theory of evolution is not "crackpot". It is a time-tested fixture of the scientific landscape, and provides a fundamental basis for entire fields of study.

Drake

[dark_dragon_of_ice]

In Soviet Russia evolution proves YOU!!