Creationist Museum in the US taking some heat from critics

Fair enough - I believe that, it, being a historical text, is based on something and if people choose to believe that it's based on literalism, than they should be able to do so. I don't happen to be one of these people, but I don't seek out those who do feel this way to tell them their wrong.
 
such as owning a slave from a bordering country.

murdering those who question the church/god.

beating your wife.

beating you son, killing if he dare talk back.

selling your daughter into prostitution.
 
Yeah, but what should happen when a grade school kid asks what was the Earth like 1 million years ago? These two viewpoints openly conflict, with one supported by much of the world with no formal scientific knowledge, while the other is backed by 99% of all the professors and educators in Earth and Space Sciences in the US. Which one would you tell your kid? Would they really understand it if you gave them two equal and conflicting views?

Its a rough choice, no doubt. If you chose one, you go against many of the achievements of human science and technology up until now. If you chose the other, you refute the largest religion in the world and its combined millennium of teachings. Is there room for both in the same person, or does one inevitably chose?
 
I think what is controversial here is that these Creationists are seeking out people who believe otherwise and trying to convince them that they're wrong. The museum they're building could be seen as them trying to promote their beliefs.
 
Oh, I totally agree with you on that. It is up to a parent to decide which and obviously, something needs to give; whether it's faith or science would be a tough choice to some and not difficult at all for others. I was raised religious but have a great respect for science and feel that I've found a pretty peaceful balance between the two, though this issue is always something that people wrestle with.
 
Well, of course their promoting their beliefs, but are they forcing it on others? I don't know how the publicity or marketing went for this museum but I'm hoping that they didn't force it upon people or shoving it in their faces. I see no problem with people promoting their ideas as long as it's peaceful and people see both sides - which is where I end my knowledge, as I don't know about the owners of the museum or how it works.
 
Alright, not all the rules are good to use. The Bible isn't all knowing as it was written by man, it will have mistakes... bad, bad mistakes haha.
 
Damn, forgot to finish - I'm not supporting anybody who forces ideas upon others - and these people you mentioned; if they do seek out those who don't believe and harass them, that's unnecessary and inconsiderate. I'm certainly not backing these type of people, whether they are on the side of religion or not.
 
He claimed he was an Agnostic, yet he was registered to an anglican church...but comon, lets put 2 and 2 together...do you think someone who set out to prove evolution would even consider not being affiliated?

thats a death sentence.

just da vinci...he was "catholic" but 99-1 it was just for show to avoid prosecution. (after all he was also gay)
 
YOU may know that what they say is wrong, but some people feel strongly about religion and feel that the way that THEY know is correct. If they actively teach misinformation and know it, again, that's just unacceptable. If they are teaching what they believe and there is no concrete proof otherwise, there's really nothing anybody can do except ignore if if they don't want to hear it, and hope that children hearing this information will have other influences in their life that either support this or oppose this (peacefully) and they are able to come to a decision on what they believe.
 
So... the only way to prevent a poisoning of the academic discourse is to prove a negative? Wow. The scientific community has it rough, huh? Not being able to get laid to save their lives, and now this?
 
You're talking about disallowing religion in it's entirety because it opposes scientific theories. As noble as it may seem to stop this, go ahead and try it. If you can find a way to change that, go for it.

And I'm sure they have little science geek circle jerks from time to time, so don't feel too bad for them.
 
... ...are you serious... this has to be some kind of joke.

Tell me something good sir... You saw a large lump in the back of my pants that appeared to have a blood stain on it. If I told you I had a 3rd arm sticking out of my ass, would you believe me? What about if I had a piece of paper that said that there was a 3rd arm sticking out of my ass written by a guy that was friends with a guy that supposedly saw this 3rd arm?

What if I had a finger from that arm, which had a match to my right index finger print and cells containing DNA that perfectly matched my own (given that I had still had all 10 of my normal fingers).

Based on the second bit of evidence, one would draw the most likely conclusion that there is without a reasonable amount of doubt, an arm (with only 4 fingers remaining) sticking out of my ass. Now some alternative hypothesises could be proposed. I could somehow have some clone running around that somehow lost it's finger.

The way a scientific theory works is that it is a highly supported claim (with data, evidence, things that you can feel and see ect.) and respected by nearly everyone. It has been tried and has withstood the test of time. Yes, a scientific theory does not mean that it can't be disproven. A law is something that can't be disproven. But it just isn't some idea somebody came up with about something. The

My freshman bio professor always said that he thought the scientific community should change the term "Theory" to something more concrete, because the general public doesn't grasp the concept, when they take it in context with the layman's term "theroy".

There is absolutely no Empirical evidence to support creationism. The only thing creationism has going for it is that the scienfic community is uncertain how life first originated on earth. NOW, i mentioned before... I do believe in a higher being. I realize that science only takes us so far. What is so wrong with saying that a higher being is the one that started the process of evolution? But I can assure you two magic hands did not come down and shape people out of mud... literally.

 
Obviously not. I lost all interest in debating with you after you claimed the bible is "evidence".

So, you don't know what a theory is, you don't know what evidence is, and you have yet to acknowledge the fact that there is 0 factual proof for creationism.

It's pretty obvious that your religious upbringing HAS brainwashed you, and this is the exact reason I oppose things like this godforsaken museum.
 
Well, with the exception of:

-I believe in evolution

-A theory is something that cannot be fully proven (though the evolutionary theory is good enough for me to believe in... odd eh?)

-The bible is a historical text, based on something, thus making it evidence of creationism, no matter how absurd it may seem (if the bible isn't evidence of creationism, where did the idea come from? And by the way, evidence does not always mean truth)

... you're pretty much spot on!
 
I just cant trust anything that isn't clear and relies on its vagueness to stay alive.

There are too many assumptions one has to make in order for the religious views of creation to be true. It feel like they are just grasping at anything now...
 
Well that's a pretty dramatic interpretation of what I typed. How about this: no I'm not. I'm talking about keeping religion in a religious context, and out of a pseudo-scientific one.

 
i didnt grow up with religion so i find it impossible to believe in god or any religion. its all a fairy tale to me.
 
and most of what I said last night was an overdramatic joke - I was bored as shit. I'd still like to go to the museum, though.
 
No. Some Creationists believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. However, the vast majority of religious scholars/historians/Christians believe that ancient Hebrew was not a literal or scientific language. The creation story in the Bible was written to help ancient peoples understand the beginnings of time before humans could even comprehend complex scientific theories like the big bang. Once modern science and knowledge of the Hebrew language progressed, most Christians changed their interpretation of the Biblical creation story. Most Creationists are largely uneducated and unaware of these progressions in the last century.

I think this "museum" would be interesting to visit for theological interests, just as a Scientology museum would be interesting to visit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top