$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: dirtboy
This is no different than having a museum supporting Darwinian evolution.

Please tell me you're joking.

No.

What's to joke about?

Science hasn't proved Darwinian evolution and in fact, the more science learns about our world the more it disproves Darwinism. Of course, if you know Darwinism, you'd also know he said his theory -- granted completely full of holes then, was just that, a hunch and would hopefully someday be proven. And it hasn't, so having a museum supporting Darwinism, which is scientifically false, is no different than the more appropriately termed, Genesis museum.

Those are the wrong trousers grommet.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Any place that showcases scientific evidence behind creation is definitely a great idea. We need more of these. Too bad I no longer live in the Cincinnati area. I'd take my daughter to this.

I'd be interested in seeing some "scientific evidence" that supports the biblical story of Creationism. Something tells me there isn't much.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: dirtboy
This is no different than having a museum supporting Darwinian evolution.

Please tell me you're joking.

No.

What's to joke about?

Science hasn't proved Darwinian evolution and in fact, the more science learns about our world the more it disproves Darwinism. Of course, if you know Darwinism, you'd also know he said his theory -- granted completely full of holes then, was just that, a hunch and would hopefully someday be proven. And it hasn't, so having a museum supporting Darwinism, which is scientifically false, is no different than the more appropriately termed, Genesis museum.

As So would say, still no links?

I see the ignorant has shown up. How amusing.

 

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Any place that showcases scientific evidence behind creation is definitely a great idea. We need more of these. Too bad I no longer live in the Cincinnati area. I'd take my daughter to this.

I'd be interested in seeing some "scientific evidence" that supports the biblical story of Creationism. Something tells me there isn't much.

Scientific evidence support aspects of the creationist story? I'm sure there are incidents that validate aspects of it through proven scientific means. Creation as a whole? I would guess you're right, I doubt there is much (science stuff anyways) that supports creationism as a whole.

In terms of the museum, me thinks this won't be done well and will just cause the extreme anti-religious to bash the extreme-religious and offending everyone in the middle who was disgusted about disguising lies as knowledge. But I'm sure this has been said in the thread

 

[EGGO]

I didn't think it was going to be completed. I remember seeing the inception of this years ago.

 

[I4AT]

Haha, yeah a museum supporting Darwinism is no different from one saying T-rex was a vegetarian and lived in the garden of eden with Adam and Eve. Holeeee shiiiit.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: dirtboy
This is no different than having a museum supporting Darwinian evolution.

Please tell me you're joking.

No.

What's to joke about?

Science hasn't proved Darwinian evolution and in fact, the more science learns about our world the more it disproves Darwinism. Of course, if you know Darwinism, you'd also know he said his theory -- granted completely full of holes then, was just that, a hunch and would hopefully someday be proven. And it hasn't, so having a museum supporting Darwinism, which is scientifically false, is no different than the more appropriately termed, Genesis museum.

As So would say, still no links?

I see the ignorant has shown up. How amusing.

Instead of calling them ignorant, since supposedly there's just so much information about it, why don't you just link them to some sites supporting your viewpoint?

What are you trying to accomplish by calling them ignorant and not supporting your viewpoint?

 

[I4AT]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: dirtboy
This is no different than having a museum supporting Darwinian evolution.

Please tell me you're joking.

No.

What's to joke about?

Science hasn't proved Darwinian evolution and in fact, the more science learns about our world the more it disproves Darwinism. Of course, if you know Darwinism, you'd also know he said his theory -- granted completely full of holes then, was just that, a hunch and would hopefully someday be proven. And it hasn't, so having a museum supporting Darwinism, which is scientifically false, is no different than the more appropriately termed, Genesis museum.

As So would say, still no links?

I see the ignorant has shown up. How amusing.

Instead of calling them ignorant, since supposedly there's just so much information about it, why don't you just link them to some sites supporting your viewpoint?

What are you trying to accomplish by calling them ignorant and not supporting your viewpoint?

Information supporting his viewpoint would include things every child should've already learned in elementary school...

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Any place that showcases scientific evidence behind creation is definitely a great idea. We need more of these. Too bad I no longer live in the Cincinnati area. I'd take my daughter to this.

I'd be interested in seeing some "scientific evidence" that supports the biblical story of Creationism. Something tells me there isn't much.

Actually you'd be surprised. There is a ID movement in the scientific community. Top doctorate level people in their fields are moving away from the Darwinisic view and to the ID view. The common response when interviewed, when asked why they changed their mind, and they say when all the evidence supporting a view (being how things came to be) points to something, you have to accept it. Simply, when the evidence points away from Darwinism and points to complex design, the logical conclusion is that there is a creator.

What is more interesting, is when faced with this changing view, many of them look to towards the various religions to find out which one best explains ID, which is nearly every time Christianity.

There are plenty of books and materials out there written by scientists explaining what they learned that lead them to change their views. Furthermore, how advances in science have show Darwinism can't be true and nor does it's view explain how things arrived where they are at. Regardless if you believe in a higher power or not, if you are an ardent supporter of Darwinism, you will find that not even modern day Darwinists fully believe in it.

Even more so, scientists are saying that Darwin's theory fails to meet the basic test of the definition of a theory, since it can't explain things properly. What's amusing to me, is if people study Darwin, they'd know he knew his ideas weren't based on scientific fact and he hoped that someday science would eventually prove his view, but so far the more we learn the further way science gets from matching up with Darwin.

The material is out there, all you have to do is open your mind and go looking for it.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: dirtboy
This is no different than having a museum supporting Darwinian evolution.

Please tell me you're joking.

No.

What's to joke about?

Science hasn't proved Darwinian evolution and in fact, the more science learns about our world the more it disproves Darwinism. Of course, if you know Darwinism, you'd also know he said his theory -- granted completely full of holes then, was just that, a hunch and would hopefully someday be proven. And it hasn't, so having a museum supporting Darwinism, which is scientifically false, is no different than the more appropriately termed, Genesis museum.

As So would say, still no links?

I see the ignorant has shown up. How amusing.

Instead of calling them ignorant, since supposedly there's just so much information about it, why don't you just link them to some sites supporting your viewpoint?

What are you trying to accomplish by calling them ignorant and not supporting your viewpoint?

1. He's called me ignorant in the past, 2. He's a troll, and 3. I don't really care what he thinks about the issue.

This thread is about a museum, not how many trolls like him can show up and post.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Actually you'd be surprised. There is a ID movement in the scientific community. Top doctorate level people in their fields are moving away from the Darwinisic view and to the ID view. The common response when interviewed, when asked why they changed their mind, and they say when all the evidence supporting a view (being how things came to be) points to something, you have to accept it. Simply, when the evidence points away from Darwinism and points to complex design, the logical conclusion is that there is a creator.

That is certainly not the scientific process. When you have enough evidence to dismiss Darwinism, as a scientist you are obligated to properly discount it. But if you see there is complex design, you can't immediately jump to a conclusion, such as there being a creator. The correct default is to admit "we don't know".

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: dirtboy
This is no different than having a museum supporting Darwinian evolution.

Please tell me you're joking.

No.

What's to joke about?

Science hasn't proved Darwinian evolution and in fact, the more science learns about our world the more it disproves Darwinism. Of course, if you know Darwinism, you'd also know he said his theory -- granted completely full of holes then, was just that, a hunch and would hopefully someday be proven. And it hasn't, so having a museum supporting Darwinism, which is scientifically false, is no different than the more appropriately termed, Genesis museum.

As So would say, still no links?

I see the ignorant has shown up. How amusing.

Instead of calling them ignorant, since supposedly there's just so much information about it, why don't you just link them to some sites supporting your viewpoint?

What are you trying to accomplish by calling them ignorant and not supporting your viewpoint?

I'm accomplishing the same thing Darwinists do when they call other people ignorant and uneducated.

Why do I need to prove my viewpoint to him? I don't. I really don't care what he thinks. If he chooses not to study science and learn the facts, then that is his choice to believe as he sees fit.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused
What a sad waste of money. They should have been like most televangelists and just built a big mansion, got a lot of nice cars and hired high price hookers.

These guys know how it's done:

One of the best ones going

The Prayer Palace has a devoted congregation. Most worshippers believe in tithing, the practice of donating 10 per cent of one's income to the church, and each year they give a reported $3 million. "The people love (the Melnichuks)," Houghron says. "Pastor Paul ... loves the Lord. He does God's work."

In fact, the church's most recent financial statements show that only $9,443 was spent on "benevolent and charity" activities in 2005.

Meanwhile, the three white pastors ? Paul Melnichuk and his 40-year-old twin sons, Tim and Tom ? lead lavish lives in contrast to the mainly working-class black families that make up the bulk of the church.

Between them, the pastors have amassed a real estate fortune worth about $12 million. Each owns a multi-million-dollar country estate north of Toronto (Tim's is worth as much as $5.5 million), they share a Florida vacation villa, and the pastors and their wives drive luxurious cars ? among them a Porsche Cayenne SUV, a Lexus RX 330 SUV and a Mercedes-Benz CLK 320 convertible.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Actually you'd be surprised. There is a ID movement in the scientific community. Top doctorate level people in their fields are moving away from the Darwinisic view and to the ID view. The common response when interviewed, when asked why they changed their mind, and they say when all the evidence supporting a view (being how things came to be) points to something, you have to accept it. Simply, when the evidence points away from Darwinism and points to complex design, the logical conclusion is that there is a creator.

That is certainly not the scientific process. When you have enough evidence to dismiss Darwinism, as a scientist you are obligated to properly discount it. But if you see there is complex design, you can't immediately jump to a conclusion, such as there being a creator. The correct default is to admit "we don't know".

Maybe if you did the research and read it, you'd understand why scientists are making those claims. I'm guessing you haven't based on your response.

Mind you none of them just said, we don't know so it must be ID. Of course they went through mountains of evidence and have shown scientifically how science supports their view.

After all, Darwin didn't have evidence to support his view and people over time claimed it as fact. How is believing in something that science can't prove, the scientific process? It's not.

Your response to this post should be, you don't know, not that they don't know. And yes, it is part of the scientific process. Perhaps you don't understand the scientific processes that they went through, but that is what it is.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: dirtboy
This is no different than having a museum supporting Darwinian evolution.

Please tell me you're joking.

No.

What's to joke about?

Science hasn't proved Darwinian evolution and in fact, the more science learns about our world the more it disproves Darwinism. Of course, if you know Darwinism, you'd also know he said his theory -- granted completely full of holes then, was just that, a hunch and would hopefully someday be proven. And it hasn't, so having a museum supporting Darwinism, which is scientifically false, is no different than the more appropriately termed, Genesis museum.

As So would say, still no links?

I see the ignorant has shown up. How amusing.

oh, a personal attack. how does it feel to admit defeat in such a public manner?

Originally posted by: dirtboy

1. He's called me ignorant in the past, 2. He's a troll, and 3. I don't really care what he thinks about the issue.

This thread is about a museum, not how many trolls like him can show up and post.

first, a false accusation, then a personal attack. would you like ketchup with your defeat?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Maybe if you did the research and read it, you'd understand why scientists are making those claims. I'm guessing you haven't based on your response.

Mind you none of them just said, we don't know so it must be ID. Of course they went through mountains of evidence and have shown scientifically how science supports their view.

After all, Darwin didn't have evidence to support his view and people over time claimed it as fact. How is believing in something that science can't prove, the scientific process? It's not.

Your response to this post should be, you don't know, not that they don't know. And yes, it is part of the scientific process. Perhaps you don't understand the scientific processes that they went through, but that is what it is.

ID isn't a theory. It's a motivated and contrived 'fall-back' position for every stupid argument against darwinism.

 

[Kristi2k]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how can it be literal if the noah's ark story makes no mention of dinosaurs?

The word Dinosaur was coined nearly a hundred years ago, the Bible does make mention of great beasts such as Leviathen and Behomoth.

An interesting read: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

For the people that make mention of fossils and carbon dating, no one has proved that carbon dating is accurate. I read a study that when there are catostraphic weather events such as flooding and or volcanic ash down poor that it actually accellarates the "age" of rocks, bones, etc.

I'm so tired of non-"Christians" stating that Science disproves God and that "Christians" don't believe in Science. Science only proves that God does exist.

 

[Kristi2k]

As for T-Rex being a vegitarian, yes it was as were all animals before the "fall of man" were Adam and Eve first sinned, afterwards the that all changed where some animals started to eat flesh.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Kristi2k

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how can it be literal if the noah's ark story makes no mention of dinosaurs?

The word Dinosaur was coined nearly a hundred years ago, the Bible does make mention of great beasts such as Leviathen and Behomoth.

An interesting read: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

For the people that make mention of fossils and carbon dating, no one has proved that carbon dating is accurate. I read a study that when there are catostraphic weather events such as flooding and or volcanic ash down poor that it actually accellarates the "age" of rocks, bones, etc.

I'm so tired of non-"Christians" stating that Science disproves God and that "Christians" don't believe in Science. Science only proves that God does exist.

Carbon dating isn't used for fossils.

Why would a dinosaur be have all the characteristics of a carnivore, yet be a herbivore?

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: Kristi2k

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how can it be literal if the noah's ark story makes no mention of dinosaurs?

The word Dinosaur was coined nearly a hundred years ago, the Bible does make mention of great beasts such as Leviathen and Behomoth.

An interesting read: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

For the people that make mention of fossils and carbon dating, no one has proved that carbon dating is accurate. I read a study that when there are catostraphic weather events such as flooding and or volcanic ash down poor that it actually accellarates the "age" of rocks, bones, etc.

I'm so tired of non-"Christians" stating that Science disproves God and that "Christians" don't believe in Science. Science only proves that God does exist.

Leviathan and behomoth the entire bibles account of dinosaurs... What a joke. Millions of fossils. Animals that make today's most ferocios look like gerbils. You would think that if such animals existed before written or for that matter lithographic history we would have vastly VASTLY more detailed destriptions in every religious text on the planet as well as drawings in caves but NOPE nothing. Instead we have oh but the word's Leviathan and behomoth must now mean dinosour, Eureeka! of course that is what the bible means. YAY problem solved. LOL

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Kristi2k

Science only proves that God does exist.

no, it doesn't. science has nothing to say about the matter. science cannot prove or disprove god in the same way that science cannot prove or disprove what happened before the big bang.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Kristi2k
As for T-Rex being a vegitarian, yes it was as were all animals before the "fall of man" were Adam and Eve first sinned, afterwards the that all changed where some animals started to eat flesh.

Why what a fine and well-supported case you have made for this.

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Kristi2k

Science only proves that God does exist.

no, it doesn't. science has nothing to say about the matter. science cannot prove or disprove god in the same way that science cannot prove or disprove what happened before the big bang.

The religions reject science because of that. What science can do is disprove religious claims such as being able to fit 2 of every animal on the ark, etc. With or without the dinosaurs the biomass would crush noah's ark into a pile of saw dust.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
After all, Darwin didn't have evidence to support his view and people over time claimed it as fact.

Do you honestly think all scientists just arbitrarily decided to accept Darwin's theory as fact? There are literally tens of thousands of experiments that support evolution.

Originally posted by: dirtboy
How is believing in something that science can't prove, the scientific process? It's not.

Evolution is unprovable?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Kristi2k

Science only proves that God does exist.

no, it doesn't. science has nothing to say about the matter. science cannot prove or disprove god in the same way that science cannot prove or disprove what happened before the big bang.

The religions reject science because of that. What science can do is disprove religious claims such as being able to fit 2 of every animal on the ark, etc. With or without the dinosaurs the biomass would crush noah's ark into a pile of saw dust.

But even all that biomass couldn't crush the power of prayer.