Creationism Museum

You cannot prove God anymore then you can disprove him.

I don’t give a shit whether someone has faith that God exists or not, I just don’t want them passing God and religion off as scientific fact.

In fact, I think religion is pretty damn important. It has a lot of evils, and needxs some serious fixing, but overall, a religionless world wouldn’t be all that different.

We’d just find something else to fight over (ala South Park).

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

OK…and so your point is what?

He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.

Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.[/quote]

first, let me say that i know evolution to be true and the real expalanation for biological diversity on earth.

however, what’s wrong with a museum exploring creationism? it is quite an influential religious perspective. think of how much impact the belief in creationism has had on society since its creation. it’s influenced other religons, other religious outlooks on the origin of man/creatures/earth, even contemporary legislation in western nations.

now, if this museum is used as a tool to help muddy the ‘debate’ between evolution and creationism/intelligent design, then that is unfortunate. but if it really is used as an objective information source about the origins of this religious perspective and its impact on society, then that’s cool, too.

i just hope the museum isn’t being used a front to try to discredit evolution. that would be unfortunate.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

So does evolution, but there are plenty of museums dedicated to that very unscientific “theory.”[/quote]

can you please elaborate on this statement? do you know what the scientific method is? evolution as a theory qualifies as good science in thousands of ways through countless findings, a ridiculous amount of research, and an insane amount of peer review.

evolution is very ‘scientific’.

do you know what a theory is? clearly not, because if you did, you’d understand that evolution has qualified again and again as a valid scientific theory.

or maybe you simply don’t understand the theory of evolution… either way, it is clear you do not know what you’re talking about when you label evolution as an ‘unscientific theory’.

it is clear that you have no grasp of science and/or the theory of evolution.

again, you clearly do not know what a theory is or the difference between science and faith/relgion.

evolution simply describes the process in nature that has lead to biodiversity on earth. that’s all evolution does. nothing more, nothing less.

evolution does not attempt to explain how the world was created, religion does. evolution is NOT related to the big bang theory. evolution does NOT have a position on the existence or non-existence of god, religion does. evolution does NOT have an opinion on which religion is the ‘true religion’, religions does. evolution does not attempt to explain the meaning of life, religion does. evolution does not tell you how to live your life, religion does. evolution does not have an opinion on whether or not there is such a thing as life after death/afterlife, religion does. evolution does not postulate on the existence or non-existence of supernatural forces, religion does. evolution does not impose moral structure on its ‘members’, religion does. to accept evolution or be considered an ‘evolutionist’, one does not have to undergo rituals/ceremonies such as a baptism or a bar mitzvah, religion requires these cermonies. evolution evolves constantly through new discoveries, while religons do not <religious beliefs are static, and rarely, if ever, change over time>.

if i ask someone, ‘what religion are you?’, will anyone announce that they are an evolutiuonist?

here’s a great few quotes:

[b]Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.

Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.

[/b]

[quote]Creation = God made it all with His purpose in mind. Therefore, we are God’s creation and are accountable to Him.

Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.

So, why do you have a problem with a museum dedicated to Creationism when you have no problem with those who tout evolution?
[/quote]

incorrect. evolution does not speculate about the existence or lack of supernatural forces or an omnipresent god. evolution does not disprove god, nor does it have any interest in examining whether or not the is a god. evolution simply explains the origins of biodiversity on earth.

yes, evolution does postulate that random mutations within a given species that lend an advantage for survival tend to become dominant mutations over time, hence natural selection. however, god could be orchestrating these mutations. evolution does not know nor does it want to know how these mutations come about. all evolution does is explain the phenomenon of biodiversity on earth through observation.

it is up to the individual to decide whether or not god exists, and if he/she/it does exist, then possibly this god is intentionally causing these mutations. or maybe god is more of a laissez-fair type of benevolent entity. who know? evolution doesn’t care.

please, for everyone’s sake and for at least the purpose of not making any more of a fool out of yourself, STOP talking about evolution. you don’t know anything about it. you don’t know what the scientific method is. go educate yourself on these topics before speaking on them.

then, apply these rules to everything else in life.

in response to steve’s false claim that evolution must be accepted on faith, here is another great quote:

[b]The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This “seeing is believing” basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.

The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples’ set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay. [/b]

[quote]toughcasey wrote:
long, but interesting reading:

5 reasons for the existence of God

"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. "

Thomas Aquinas[/quote]

i’m just wondering if i’m the only person who didn’t read a word of that long long long post.

[quote]hueyOT wrote:

i’m just wondering if i’m the only person who didn’t read a word of that long long long post.

[/quote]

haha, no im sure there are many more, its a bit advanced for most canadians anyways :wink:

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

OK…and so your point is what?

He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.

Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.

first, let me say that i know evolution to be true and the real expalanation for biological diversity on earth.

however, what’s wrong with a museum exploring creationism? it is quite an influential religious perspective. think of how much impact the belief in creationism has had on society since its creation. it’s influenced other religons, other religious outlooks on the origin of man/creatures/earth, even contemporary legislation in western nations.

now, if this museum is used as a tool to help muddy the ‘debate’ between evolution and creationism/intelligent design, then that is unfortunate. but if it really is used as an objective information source about the origins of this religious perspective and its impact on society, then that’s cool, too.

i just hope the museum isn’t being used a front to try to discredit evolution. that would be unfortunate.
[/quote]

From what I can gather the museum is there as the source for the “true” creation of the earth. Basically assuming that their position is the correct one and all others are wrong.

Now if the facility was more in the way of say, a virtual Bible, then I would have less of a problem with it. But their basic claim is that what the Bible says is absolute fact, and this is the museum to share that with the world.

Huey, thx for your informative posts.

I tend to get pissed off about 2 things,

First that 90% of creationist/ intelligent design advocates have absolutely no basic understand of what a scientific theory is and entails,

and 2nd, that alot of them are unable to reconcile the concept of evolution with an omnipotent God. Apparently being all powerful does not include the ability to design a process such as evolution to fill a planet with organisms.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

You are simply wrong. Evolution is not fact and it has not been proven. Even scientists don’t dare call it the “Law of Evolution.” If it were proven it would be a law, not a “theory.”
[/quote]

theories don’t graduate to become facts. becoming a theory is harder than you think. just because a theory doesn’t graduate to become a fact doesn’t make it untrue.

the ‘just a theory’ argument has been defeated countless times.

here are some quotes:

[b]The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin’s theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
The fact is that you cannot point to anything that proves evolution, because you simply weren’t there. Nobody was there and there is no evidence – bones or otherwise to prove it. In fact, you cannot even prove the “millions and billions of years.” [/b]

do you know what the first and second laws of thermodynmamics are? clearly not.

please explain how the theory of evolution contradicts these laws, and i will address your concerns.

[quote]Either way, Evolution is a religion since it is based upon faith. Creation is the same thing – faith.

Period.
[/quote]

as i explained earlier, evolution is clearly not a religion. being an evolutionsist does not denote a personal faith in the supernatural. your attempts at trying to degrade the validity of the theory of evolution to the validity of creationism as a valid explanation of the biological mechanisms behind biodiversity on earth will not work here.

i’m looking forward to your responses.

[quote]Ren wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:

And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!

OK…and so your point is what?

He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.

Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.

first, let me say that i know evolution to be true and the real expalanation for biological diversity on earth.

however, what’s wrong with a museum exploring creationism? it is quite an influential religious perspective. think of how much impact the belief in creationism has had on society since its creation. it’s influenced other religons, other religious outlooks on the origin of man/creatures/earth, even contemporary legislation in western nations.

now, if this museum is used as a tool to help muddy the ‘debate’ between evolution and creationism/intelligent design, then that is unfortunate. but if it really is used as an objective information source about the origins of this religious perspective and its impact on society, then that’s cool, too.

i just hope the museum isn’t being used a front to try to discredit evolution. that would be unfortunate.

From what I can gather the museum is there as the source for the “true” creation of the earth. Basically assuming that their position is the correct one and all others are wrong.

Now if the facility was more in the way of say, a virtual Bible, then I would have less of a problem with it. But their basic claim is that what the Bible says is absolute fact, and this is the museum to share that with the world.[/quote]

if that’s the case, that’s unfortunate. that would be using the guise of a ‘museum’ as a front to falsely undermine evolution with the standard creationist arguments… probably connected with religious factions in the US who seek to legitimize creationism as a valid explanation to the root of biodiversity on earth… and to eventually teach it in public classrooms as the ‘opposing theory’ <LAF!> to evolution.

that would be sad. but i’m sure steve is cool with that. it’s not like steve cares about the truth.

You know what I don’t understand?

Why would somebody who doesn’t believe in contemporary science, who doesn’t believe in basic things like carbon dating, for example… why would they hang around a website dedicated to scientific training?

I wonder if Steveo understands that adaptation to training is something that reinforces the evolution theory?

What about the difficulty in getting shredded… Was it a result of centuries of evolution, as man lived through famines and droughts, and the body adaptd by tenaciously holding on to bodyfat? Or is the difficulty in getting shredded just God’s will?

Wouldn’t Steveo feel more at home at
http://www.14thcenturybodybuilder.com

I agree with the poster (OT I think?) who said that evolution does not attempt to address the beginnings of life… and evolution is totally non-religious. You can believe in both God AND evolution too, and millions of people do. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, and millions of people do. The only people who really have trouble with evolution are those who think that every single word of the Bible is to be taken literally… a pretty extreme position.

I like the idea of a Creation Museum!

Best place for it.

I’d like to toss in a reminder. Not all christian sects subscribe to a “Young Earth” view. The largest christian sect is comfortable with both evolution, and it’s faith in God.

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
i’m just wondering if i’m the only person who didn’t read a word of that long long long post.
[/quote]

Thomas Aquinas is very interesting to read. His Summa Theologica is freely available at various sites (translated in many languages, as the original is in latin).

I haven’t read it all (the thing is over 4000 pages…) but, contrasted to the Bible, most arguments are very well argued and logically presented.

If the topics of religion, faith, theology, and the various reasonings to “prove” the existence of God interest you, you should have a look at it.

It sure beats any of the loony rantings from our “most faithful” T-Nation members.

[quote]TQB wrote:
I like the idea of a Creation Museum!

Best place for it.[/quote]

If they were building a Creationism Scrap Yard, or a Creationism Garbage Dump, I’d agree.

Although I’d wager that spending an afternoon there asking questions could be very amusing. Where’s that Ark?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d like to toss in a reminder. Not all christian sects subscribe to a “Young Earth” view. The largest christian sect is comfortable with both evolution, and it’s faith in God.[/quote]

The problem lies in that these are the least vocal groups, since they have the least amount of problem with evolution.

So I will pose this question to you, is it more impressive that God created the world in six days exactly as per Genesis, or that the Genesis story is merely a story for biblical man to understand the amazing complexity and diversity of a creation that he set in process billions of years ago (and if you want to believe so, has guided to completion throughout the ages).

I’d pick the second one myself, I mean, what good is it if we were created by some omnipotent being but not giving the ability to understand the world around us? Its kind of insulting in a way that you don’t want to uncover that knowledge.

Unfortunately there will always be those people who look at anything that goes against their overly religious viewpoint as an attack on their religion, when it is merely an attempt to understand the world around us. Some people would just prefer to live in the dark ages I guess.

[quote]pookie wrote:
TQB wrote:
I like the idea of a Creation Museum!

Best place for it.

If they were building a Creationism Scrap Yard, or a Creationism Garbage Dump, I’d agree.

Although I’d wager that spending an afternoon there asking questions could be very amusing. Where’s that Ark?

[/quote]

Sorry, I forgot you still have them. They went extinct in Europe fifty years ago…

How about a “the evolution of creationism” museum?

I think my biggest issue with people who blindly follow religion is the fact that they are so closed minded and take such offense that you have a different view than them that they get loud and start to yell. I was explainning to this girl at work about how vegitarianism(sp) wasn’t good for weightloss and how it was actually the consumption of meat and fish that helped develop our higher brain functions and evolve into “modern man”, at no time to I belittle religion or gods or anything else, at which point one of our other co-workers starts yelling and swearing, and where did I come up with this where’s my proof etc etc, I directed him to the Smithsonian online. He then says that he only believes in what the bible said etc. I must say his reactions and the comments on this thread by the religious people really leaves a bad taste in my mouth about religion in general. I wonder what Jesus would think if he read or heard some of the hate spewing from his people.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
I wonder if Steveo understands that adaptation to training is something that reinforces the evolution theory?
[/quote]

Adaption and evolution, though related, are not the same thing. One can adapt to external stimulus and it is not evolution. It is only evolution if the external stimulus results in a genetic change in the progeny.

If you want a real world example, cabbage and broccoli are gentically linked. The changes from cabbage to broccoli were not from “natural selection” but from cultivation.