Creationist Museum

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

As for this evolutionary creationism, please explain more, you have peaked my interest.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
Here is a more science based response:
.
.
.
So the question remains, can evolution answer these reasons?

First, who the fsck is David Nutting? Second, discontinuities or the absence of links of proof do not disprove anything. That is the main reason the theory of evolution is still classified as a theory, not a theorem. You still haven't provided anything that disproves it.

Google David Nutting, and the only links you'll find for that name and creationism are to the same religious nutcase sites that promote this fraud for their own reasons.

Sorry. No sale. No points. No soup for you.

 

[kage69]

I find your sig hilarious btw. I've heard many, many people (both christian and non) acknowledge that the one you call jesus was 'the original liberal.' Being christian, you strive to become more christ-like, no? Good luck on that quest for a mental disorder then, you seem to be well on your way!

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Google David Nutting, and the only links you'll find for that name and creationsism are to the same religious nutcase sites that promote this fraud for their own reasons.

I found this pretty entertaining.

So today at my school, the "Christian Philosophical Society" - a club headed by a girl I know - had a speaker in. He was Dave Nutting (ahem), who I'd never heard of. He was to give a presentation on "creationism vs. evolution".

I went with a couple of friends. Arriving, there were set out on all the chairs lists of quotations from prominent "evolutionists" - including an out-of-context quotation from Gould making it look like he believed in creation ex nihilo.

It began with the guy putting a newspaper article on the mock-up, from the Denver Post, discussing how the Columbine killers were fervent believers in evolution. "Now I'm not saying all evolutionists believe this," he said, "but under evolution, how do you determine right and wrong?"

On and on he went, blithely misquoting and misconstruing, talking of Lucy and the Piltdown man, the second law of thermodynamics and intelligent design, repeatedly putting pictures of unpleasant-looking beasts up and saying, "Evolutionists say this is your granddaddy." Repeatedly, he said "evolutionists wear rose-colored glasses."

It ended, and he began to field questions. The first was from a girl, near tears saying that she was shocked and disgusted by his having compared believers in evolution to Harris and Klebold. "Well," he said, "I didn't actually say that, I'm just telling you what the story said."

Other people - two different people, actually - asked why, even if he could prove that evolution wasn't true, why they should buy creationism. He said that "the absence of one proves the presence of the other," and inserted Pascal's wager as a back-up device.

Finally he called on me. I asked about Duane Gish, who he'd cited several times...I said something to the effect of, "ICR members are required to sign a pledge saying they'll lose their jobs if they don't subscribe to the bible as literal truth - now who did you say is wearing the rose-coloured glasses?" He told an anecdote about how he'd been fired from a university for teaching creationism. Well, I'd like to hear the rest of the story from the administrators, I thought privately, but I couldn't stay much longer, so I just said "That was one college - doesn't mean it happens at others, or that it's widespread."

I did, however, appreciate the fact that everybody who asked a question criticized some questionable aspect of his presentation. The presentation, I heard from a friend, was more or less seen as a joke in the science department; all I can say is that I hope the teachers got around to asking questions after I left.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
As for this evolutionary creationism, please explain more, you have peaked my interest.

The majority of my material is from a past professor of mine Dr. Dennis Lamoreaux. If you check out the link from my previous post that gives that basis of his/my veiwpoint. However here is some more info.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
As for this evolutionary creationism, please explain more, you have peaked my interest.

Do some research on creationism. There are several different varieties.

 

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

So now I guess I have to find more articles. By the way, i googled Nutting and he's a professor at Due University.

 

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

The problem with this discussion is, that you have two things of what many may call mutually exclusive ideologies; Religion v. Science. I personally don't think that. In many ways science proves the existence of a God, but that's an argument for another day. I know that there are scientists who disproved evolution, but I can't understand most of the things they say. So for now both sides are going to have to remain content with the fact that we are not going to convince anyone of such an oppossing point of view at 9:30PM EST. I'm getting tired, but I'll stick around a little longer.

I meant Duke U, by the way.

 

[Commodus]

Regardless of whether or not you think creationism is valid, the fact is that it still has its roots in religion, and so a museum isn't really an appropriate place for it.

If you want a museum for creationism, you already have one - it's called your local church, mosque, or synagogue - and I don't mean that as an insult.

 

[Riprorin]

The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth

DO YOU BELIEVE?

Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained scientist who has worked in both physics and biology, has emerged in recent years as one of the most popular and accessible apostles for the melding of science and religion. He first reconciled science and faith as different perspectives on a single whole in The Science of God. Now, in The Hidden Face of God, Schroeder takes a bold step forward, to show that science, properly understood, provides positive reasons for faith.

From the wisdom encoded in DNA and analyzed by information science, to the wisdom unveiled in the fantastic complexity of cellular life, to the wisdom inherent in human consciousness, The Hidden Face of God offers a tour of the best of modern science. This fascinating volume will open a world of science to religious believers, and it will cause skeptics to rethink some of their deepest beliefs.

Philosopher Antony Flew Abandons Atheism - Former Atheist Believes in God on Basis of Argument to Design

What changed Flew?s mind?

Although Flew now believes that the case for the existence of God is powerful, he continues to reject outright the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God?s existence. For Flew, it is the argument from design that shows that the existence of God is probable. He has been impressed by recent scientific developments that suggest that the universe is the product of intelligent design. ?It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design,? explains Flew. He has cited Gerald Schroeder?s work The Hidden Face of God as particularly impressive.


Atheist Becomes Theist- Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew

Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.

According to Flew, he has gone where the evidence leads.

 

[imported_brad]

from the link:
"The centrepiece of the museum is a series of huge model dinosaurs, built by the former head of design at Universal Studios, which are portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific opinion that they lived millions of years apart."

i respect people's religion and personal beliefs, but this is effing rediculous. The homo species has only been around for about 2million years, our version for about 250,000. The dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago!!.

There is absolutely nothing but a fabrication notion on a whim that can support the idea that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. To imply they lived together goes against carbon dating and any other proven methods of dating. EFFing rediculous.

*edit*
the further i read, the more rediculous it gets.

"More controversial exhibits deal with diseases and famine, which are portrayed not as random disasters, but as the result of mankind's sin. Mr Ham's Answers in Genesis movement blames the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, in which two teenagers killed 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves, on evolutionist teaching, claiming that the perpetrators believed in Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Other exhibits in the museum will blame homosexuals for Aids. In a "Bible Authority Room" visitors are warned: "Everyone who rejects his history ? including six-day creation and Noah's flood ? is `wilfully' ignorant.'' "

 

[kage69]

It all comes down to the typical creationist approach. Start at the conclusion, and work backwards to justify it. Hilarious. :laugh:

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: kage69
It all comes down to the typical creationist approach. Start at the conclusion, and work backwards to justify it. Hilarious. :laugh:

Or, like noted former atheist, Antony Flew, just go where the scientific evidence leads.

 

[illustri]

umm, rip Flew didn't endorse creationism

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: illustri
umm, rip Flew didn't endorse creationism

"At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. "

Link

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
for a system of belief, known as evolution

That is where I stopped reading that crock of sh!t. Evolution != abiogenesis.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: illustri
umm, rip Flew didn't endorse creationism

"At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. "

Link

are you dense or are you just playing semantics here?
"creationism" as described in this thread is the bible-strict/new earth/dinosaurs walked with goddamn man variety
the closest idea you might attribute to Flew might MIGHT be intelligent design - a different flavor of BS than creationism

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Atheist Becomes Theist- Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew

Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.

According to Flew, he has gone where the evidence leads.

"He has gone where the evidence leads" you say... I say bullshit. Look at an interview question:

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?

WTF does that mean? I think it means "let's see how impressive and scientific we can make this interview look to the average Joe, who has no idea what 'teleology' means.." Now let's look at the answer:

FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

Sooo...up until the last sentence, the only meaning that can be derived is that Darwin knew he didn't have all the answers when he published his findings. So what? That's what science is about, making observations and performing experimentation, and to make tangible sense of what you're observing. And the last sentence hints at why this guy changed from an Athiest to a Deist (NOT A CREATIONIST), but essentially goes nowhere, because he doesn't go into any detail.

In other words, HE DOESN'T TELL YOU what this supposed "evidence" is, that leads him in his thinking.

Sorry, Riprorin, you'll have to do better than that.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Atheist Becomes Theist- Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew

Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.

According to Flew, he has gone where the evidence leads.

"He has gone where the evidence leads" you say... I say bullshit. Look at an interview question:

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?

WTF does that mean? I think it means "let's see how impressive and scientific we can make this interview look to the average Joe, who has no idea what 'teleology' means.." Now let's look at the answer:

FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

Sooo...up until the last sentence, the only meaning that can be derived is that Darwin knew he didn't have all the answers when he published his findings. So what? That's what science is about, making observations and performing experimentation, and to make tangible sense of what you're observing. And the last sentence hints at why this guy changed from an Athiest to a Deist (NOT A CREATIONIST), but essentially goes nowhere, because he doesn't go into any detail.

In other words, HE DOESN'T TELL YOU what this supposed "evidence" is, that leads him in his thinking.

Sorry, Riprorin, you'll have to do better than that.

his evidence was that he was never going to find his answer (in his lifetime) so he took the only one that worked with his learning and ran with it. he "knows" the answer now.


BTW I hope mr ataturk stays around for a while. He's hilarious :thumbsup:

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ELP
It's in Kentucky. What can I say...

Go Wildcats?

Off topic, but...

when was the last time a 'wildcat' was scene in Kentucky?

<- from the Hoosier state

And before anyone asks, there are plenty of "hoosiers" around here. However, they not only reside here in Indiana, there are mass quantities found throughout, but not solely contained, in Middle America.

 

[dmcowen674]

So sad

I cannot even come up with words to express the dissapointment in Humanity in the U.S.

Originally posted by: cobalt
Museum of Creation

The new multi-million-dollar Museum of Creation, which will open this spring in Kentucky, will, however, be aimed not at film buffs, but at the growing ranks of fundamentalist Christians in the United States.

Adam walked side by side with the Dinosaurs

The centrepiece of the museum is a series of huge model dinosaurs, built by the former head of design at Universal Studios, which are portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific opinion that they lived millions of years apart.

Other exhibits in the museum will blame homosexuals for Aids. In a "Bible Authority Room" visitors are warned: "Everyone who rejects his history ? including six-day creation and Noah's flood ? is `wilfully' ignorant.''

The museum's opening will reinforce the burgeoning creationist movement and evangelical Christianity in the US, which gained further strength with the re-election of President Bush in November.

In 1987, the US Supreme Court reinforced that position by banning the teaching of creationism in public schools on the grounds of laws that separate state and Church.

Since then, however, many schools ? particularly in America's religious Deep South ? have got around the ban by teaching the theory of "intelligent design", which claims that evolutionary ideas alone still leave large gaps in understanding.

"Since President Bush's re-election we have been getting more membership applications than we can handle,'' said Mr Ham, who expects not just the devout, but also the curious, to flock through the turnstiles.

"The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call."

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call."

Haha! I guess I'm a card-carrying member of the "evolutionary elite"...

 

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

To me, Gods' existence can be proved with one question. If he doesn't exist, what is the point to living? If you're into science, you believe everything has a reason that it's the way it is, right?

If you look at this, it seems like I'm the only, believer in an intelligent being around here. My logic in God is fullproof, but I still don't see the logic in atheism and why everyone who doesn't believe that is automatically a cook, which is the feeling I'm getting from the idiot. I still can't believe someone who names themselves the idiot insulted me.

 

[imported_brad]

Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
To me, Gods' existence can be proved with one question. If he doesn't exist, what is the point to living? If you're into science, you believe everything has a reason that it's the way it is, right?

If you look at this, it seems like I'm the only, believer in an intelligent being around here. My logic in God is fullproof, but I still don't see the logic in atheism and why everyone who doesn't believe that is automatically a cook, which is the feeling I'm getting from the idiot. I still can't believe someone who names themselves the idiot insulted me.

Couple of notes that struck me on that. If you can prove in your own mind God's existence by simply denying the negative, your reasoning for faith is simply pascal's wager...which is not true belief.

Second, those of us "into science" hardly negate religious ideas. The two can co-exist. For example, being raised catholic, i was taught that the bible was full of symbolism...ie Adam+Eve may be symbols for the first tribes of mankind, the creation in 1 week may symbolize the billions of years it took to get the universe ready. Our scale is based on the earth and the sun. God's scale may not be.

Dont be so confrontational and black and white in regards to the issue. The world isnt made up of strict interpretists of the bible and athiestic biologists.

Finally, could you define "fullproof" for me? And if you think you're the only "intelligent being", how come you dont know how to spell "fool proof".

 

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

If you read it right, I said the "only believer in AN intelligent being." I didn't say I was the only intelligent being here.

Also, while I was at Mass today, I remembered something I learned at CCD. There are two separate time measurements, on, Chronos, is what we use on earth. The other, Chyros, is used in heaven. Up there, one second equals a milenia on earth. Perhaps that gives credence to some of this. Still don't believe in evolution though.