Creationist Museum in the US taking some heat from critics

I really want to go. I think, assuming that it's well built/designed, that it would be fascinating, as there isn't anything like it.
 
i wonder if animals did evolve from lower forms but genesis is still right. it says somewhere in the bible that a breath to god is like a lifetime to us. 7 days to god could have been billions of years. but science and faith are way different. I think the scientists need to back off from this museum.
 
Yeah exactly. Being educated on both sides of an issue is only when you can make the best decision... no matter the issue. It could be very interesting to visit.
 
and I don't see any problem with it. What's wrong with showing a different opinion? Even if it's not YOUR opinion (your being a general term; not you, Ryno), you should at least be confident and secure enough to take this in without being upset.

If you don't want your kids to take in this opinion and are sheltering them from opposing views, don't let your kids go (just like you wouldn't let them go to a movie that you didn't approve of).
 
seeing an exhibit that says the earth is 2,000 years old isn't being educated. it's called being brainwashed.
 
You have got to be fucking kidding me. I've had a bad day today and this really just pissed me off even more.

I'm really glad they were able to raise 27 million dollars to fund this truely amazing project. 27 million dollars to help them feel more comfortable with themselves, and the religion that they have been following their entire lives. There are no ANDs, IFs, or BUTs about it. The earth is not 2,000 years old. Dinosaurs did not co-exist with humans. You would think that they would make it at least sound slightly believable as to not throw off people that aren't pea brains like peasants during the dark ages.

Let's take a closer look at what we're talking about.

Creationist "Evidence":

A small book, that was written in 3rd person, translated many times (in languages that dont even have the same roots), and was assembled by a 4th party (which only included and excluded things to their discretion).

Scientific Evidence:

Chemical, Geological, Archaeolgical, Anthropological, and Biological. All which work in a circle and confirm each other.

NOW... science isn't disproving christianity... it's just waving a red flag saying "Hey dumbass, theres a lot of good stuff in the bible, and it's a really great way to live your life by... but it's not a good idea to take it literally."

I just can't believe that they raised 27 million dollars to do this. I am ashamed there are people in our society that live with their head so far up their ass, to blindly live their life. 27 fucking million dollars!
 
I just thought i would post a relevant fact that I learned recently.

Most scientists studying evolution are actually Christinas. I think it was some huger percentage like 80%.

Also, John Paul (the old Pope) agreed with the theory of evolution. The new Pope have yet to make a statement.
 
No it's called being aware. Just because you read something, that doesn't mean you have to accept it as true.
 
It's fine to have a musem about opinions, and there is nothing wrong if I agree with stance A, but someone else likes stance B and makes a museuem about it, that's fine. Problem is, and this is the big problem here, evolution isn't a fucking opinion. Creationism is a fictional idea with absolutly nothing to back it up, while evolution has enough evidence to back it up that pretty much anyone who understands science and how science works takes it for a fact. So, in essence, what is being done is $27 million dollars was just spent to make a fancy museum that is nothing more then a fantasy land. That would be fine, but they're trying to pass this off as fact. Fucking people need to learn that just because science has more or less proved evolution to be true, they can still be religious and understand evolution and accept it, there is no need to keep trying to fight the blatently true. I'm stopping here, i could go on for hours.
 
um, if you equate awareness with education...then yes.

you don't need to go to a museum like that to become 'aware'. unless you're into that shit and you like to beat off to adam and eve riding dinosaurs to church.
 
I was digging through my attic last month, and I found a piece of paper that said "the earth is 200 years old"... I just want you to be aware. You're aware now that i've told you this. So you should definitely consider this.

 
Wow, have I had enough of hearing that empty rhetoric. The whole notion of "hearing both sides of an issue" is a fallacy. It only legitimizes viewpoints that really ought to be marginalized as the kooky shitshow they are. You don't give the minority 2% of scientists or theorists on a given issue 50% of the airtime any more than you allow fringe political ideas representation in your government. I don't see the communist representative from the Kentucky 8th district anywhere in congress, nor should he be there. I shouldn't have to listen to 9/11 conspiracy theorists or anti-evolutionists or global-warming-deniers any more than I should holocaust deniers, godhatesfags bigots and racists. And no, that's not a comparison of their views, so don't bother shifting the discourse by making that accusation. See, I can even see the cheap grandstanding political ripostes coming now, that's how mundane and monotonous politics has become lately. Somebody needs to smack some common sense into the public and the press.

Fuck toleration of difference of opinion. Write a fucking pamphlet if you're that into someone hearing your moronic ideas. I wouldn't though; they're embarrassing, best to just keep them to yourself.
 
It's not like we are giving them some kind of power by paying attention to them. Honestly, by attacking them you're treating them like they are some kind of threat to common knowledge. As said by Melvs, it's more of a fantasy land and I bet anyone with common sense will see that as well.
 
That's the problem, a LOT of people believe in it and shit like this gives them more legitimacy to a fictional history of the world, meaning they can tell their children it's true and show them a museum about it and bada bing bada boom, another mind is taken over. And yes, I did just make a point that religions brainwash people. And no, I am not an atheist, nor am I a member of any religion.
 
Wouldn't it have been quicker to just say "I'm agnostic"?

PS me 2 rofl@!
 
200px-Splode.jpg
 
Yeah. I'm not really agnostic though. More like non-denominational Christian. The denominations all seem to be hurting the team.
 
I don't disagree with you, but to disregard creationism because evolution has all of the scientific facts to back it up is a bit ridiculous. I don't care if you don't agree with creationism, but don't forget that the other option is still considered a theory.
 
Evolution is a theory???? nope, sorry. We have found these things called, fossils, physical proof that cannot be made up. There are fossils that are 3.5 million years old (Stralatomites sp?) in physical forms that you can touch and analyze (first known life forms that left fossils at least). Creationism has a shitty book with no proof whatsoever of anything.
 
From good old wikipedia: "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."

By that definition, I'd say that no - creationism is not a theory.

However, if you would like it to be an "unsubstantiated guess or hunch", as in everyday usage, I can give you some other theories: Women are inferior to men. If your hand is as big as your face, you have cancer. Eating poprocks and drinking a coke will kill you. Black cats are evil. Walking under a ladder will have grave consequences.

Had enough? Or perhaps you'd like to pick one of those and build the museum?

 
you must have missed the first six words of what you quoted - I don't care what you believe, but a theory, no matter how CLOSE to concrete it is, still isn't fact.
 
and why does it bother you that somebody used non-tax payer dollars to build a museum? Do you have to walk through it every day to get to work or something? People believe in things that you don't, deal with it.
 
I believe when evolution was first discovered it was called a theory just because there wasnt that much proof to back it up, but that was a long ass time ago when the theory was made. Now we are light years ahead in the science game. It's probably still called a 'theory' just because you cant force people to believe it, even though there is a shit ton of fossils, Carbon dating techniques, physical proof. They give people the option to believe what they want which kind of sucks cause religion is all based on faith, nothing else.

People are scared to die, so they hold onto their faith based religions and fuck over the advancement of the human race. Just get over it and realize that god didnt create life.
 
Thats because this devout psycho's go and get a degree in science, JUST to have leverage in there views of creationism

ex.

researcher-Evolution is fake! Darwin is the Anit!

...that is an absurd statement, science proves evolution!

reseacher-I am a biology major GODDAMNIT *sorry lord*

TO ANY ONE INTERESTED IN/QUESTIONING CHRISTIANITY/RELIGION READ

A letter to a Christian Nation Samuel Harris.

 
haha wow, did I ever say I disagree with evolution? Nope - actually, if you read through my posts in THIS THREAD, you'd see that I thought that this museum would be cool, due to the fact that it's a not my view. So, go ahead and get over YOURself and realize that some people just don't get upset over things like this and actually enjoy hearing a different opinion.

It's still called a theory because not every aspect of it has been proven, not because they were too lazy to 'convince' people that it's true.
 
How did the original cell come to be? Big bang THEORY? That hasn't been proven. Sure it's widely accepted but there's no way that one will ever be able to recreate a big bang the size of the original one.

Theories are called theories for a reason. They're widely accepted with coherent evidence, but are not 100% factual.
 
Who payed for it is not the issue. I take issue with it in the same way I'd take issue with a eugenics museum.

If it treated creationism and its followers the same way we treat the Greeks/Romans and their many gods ("Haha, this Zeus guy throws lightning bolts, get a load of what these idiots believed."), I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The problem is that it is another attack on rational, logical thought, which will sway people in the wrong direction. These people become voters, and influence MY life. Scientific reason lead us out of the dark ages, and into the age of enlightenment. This is a step BACKWARD.
 
Origin of the first cell

An editor has expressed a concern that the tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.

If life is viewed from the point of view of replicators, that is DNA

molecules in the organism, cells satisfy two fundamental conditions:

protection from the outside environment and confinement of biochemical

activity. The former condition is needed to maintain the fragile DNA

chains stable in a varying and sometimes aggressive environment, and

may have been the main reason for which cells evolved. The latter is

fundamental for the evolution of biological complexity. If freely-floating DNA molecules that code for enzymes

are not enclosed into cells, the enzymes that benefit a given DNA

molecule (for example, by producing nucleotides) will automatically

benefit the neighbouring DNA molecules. This might be viewed as "parasitism by default." Therefore the selection pressure

on DNA molecules will be much lower, since there is not a definitive

advantage for the "lucky" DNA molecule that produces the better enzyme

over the others: All molecules in a given neighbourhood are almost

equally advantaged.

If all the DNA molecule is enclosed in a cell, then the enzymes

coded from the molecule will be kept close to the DNA molecule itself.

The DNA molecule will directly enjoy the benefits of the enzymes it

codes, and not of others. This means other DNA molecules won't benefit

from a positive mutation in a neighbouring molecule: this in turn means

that positive mutations give immediate and selective advantage to the

replicator bearing it, and not on others. This is thought to have been

the one of the main driving force of evolution of life as we know it.

(Note. This is more a metaphor given for simplicity than complete

accuracy since the earliest molecules of life, probably up to the stage

of cellular life, were most likely RNA molecules that acted as both replicators and enzymes: see RNA world hypothesis. However, the core of the reasoning is the same.)

Biochemically, cell-like spheroids formed by proteinoids are observed by heating amino acids with phosphoric acid as a catalyst. They bear much of the basic features provided by cell membranes.

Proteinoid-based protocells enclosing RNA molecules could (but not

necessarily should) have been the first cellular life forms on Earth.

Another theory holds that the turbulent shores of the ancient

coastal waters may have served as a mammoth laboratory, aiding in the

countless experiments necessary to bring about the first cell. Waves

breaking on the shore create a delicate foam composed of bubbles. Winds

sweeping across the ocean have a tendency to drive things to shore,

much like driftwood collecting on the beach. It is possible that

organic molecules were concentrated on the shorelines in much the same

way. Shallow coastal waters also tend to be warmer, further

concentrating the molecules through evaporation.

While bubbles comprised of mostly water tend to burst quickly, oily

bubbles happen to be much more stable, lending more time to the

particular bubble to perform these crucial experiments. The Phospholipid

is a good example of a common oily compound prevalent in the prebiotic

seas. Phospholipids can be constructed in one's mind as a hydrophilic head on one end, and a hydrophobic

tail on the other. Phospholipids also possess an important

characteristic, that is having the function to link together to form a bilayer

membrane. A lipid monolayer bubble can only contain oil, and is

therefore not conducive to harbouring water-soluble organic molecules.

On the other hand, a lipid bilayer bubble [1]

can contain water, and was a likely precursor to the modern cell

membrane. If a protein came along that increased the integrity of its

parent bubble, then that bubble had an advantage, and was placed at the

top of the natural selection

waiting list. Primitive reproduction can be envisioned when the bubbles

burst, releasing the results of the experiment into the surrounding

medium. Once enough of the 'right stuff' was released into the medium,

the development of the first prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multi-cellular organisms could be achieved. This theory is expanded upon in the book, The Cell: Evolution of the First Organism by Joseph Panno Ph. D.

Same thing with the Big Bang. We cant go back in time to actually see these things happening so if people called them facts, then religous people would freak out cause there is no proof.

 
You're grasping at straws here. Nothing is "100% factual". How do I know that what I perceive as red, you don't perceive as blue?

Is gravity 100% factual? Can you really prove that it exists?

The difference between creationism, and gravity, or the big bang theory, is that one of the three has 0 bits of evidence supporting it. Not one bit.
 
so why do you have issues with a religious person questioning the big bang if you question their belief of a higher being as responsible for the original creation (not creationism, as in God BEING the 'big bang')? Stop quoting wikipedia, I can look that up just as well as you can. I post on here to hear other people's opinions, not to use ns as a search engine.
 
God forbid I question something. I'm not disagreeing with any of you on the facts, I'm just raising questions to what hasn't been proven. If this was a thread on an anti-gravity museum and gravity was a theory, I'd probably question that too. I'm not in here to support creationism (whether I do or not in my actual life isn't the issue), I'm posting because people are disregarding religion because of it's intangibility and lack of evidence, yet you all get upset when somebody questions a theory. It's ridiculous.
 
But that's 100% the issue: There is nothing to question about creationism, because there IS no evidence.

If you say "The moon is made of cheese" there's no point in me even pointing out that you are wrong, because you have nothing to back up the claim with.
 
Cool? Maybe.

A museum? No. More like a amusement park. Put scientifically inaccurate displays and spreading misinformation to kids is awful. Telling someone that the Earth has no pre-biblical history is worse than a crime. You could be brainwashing the next great mind in geology or biology by doing so.

More and more often I see people disagreeing between truth and Truth. Its hard to believe some of the people in the testimonials off that site, but I guess I dont spend enough time in the midwest...
 
the bible IS evidence, though. Whether that evidence is legitimate, rational, or even believable is a completely different issue. I don't care if you believe in the bible or not, millions of people did not all come to this 'creationism' idea by themselves and somehow, coincidently, all come up with the same idea. I don't want to argue about the reality of the bible because you obviously don't believe in it and I don't care to discuss that.
 
Just because a lot of people believe something doesnt mean is a proven fact or even acceptable. History has given us a lot of 20th century leaders and nations that exemplified this pretty well.

Besides that, people didnt wake up one day and all instantly know about creationism. Its taught to every Christian kid via the bible. Speaking of which, I do believe there is probably an element or two of truth in the bible. However, its really not like any other text we have on Earth, simply due to its extreme age and it being so intertwined with a worldwide following for so many years.
 
I know that, but that's the evidence for creationism and it can't be debunked just as it can't be proven. It may very well be a crock of shit - I don't know.
 
The bible isn't "evidence" of anything beyond its own existence. Its usefulness as a historical text is roughly on par with Aeschylus' Persians. It is a religious text which contains many useful cogent principles to be understood within the context of a religion.
 
Back
Top