Creationism in Museums and Schools

Quote:

---

What do Darwinists have to do with the Age of the Universe? Surely that's Astrophysics.

---

Astrophysics is a faith , them astrophisicalists believe in the signs of the zodiac and tarot cards .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

That those are the only two postulates of evolution is incorrect. It leaves out the absurdities that evolution requires.

Evolution also requires these postulates too:

-Vastly complex working systems, biological machines, and the Universe as a whole can self-assemble by random happenstance.
- All the infinitely complex genetic information that is loaded into these biological machines just got there by random happenstance.
- Mutations - which is in actually a degenerative process which damages the genome by corrupting the information in it and/or causing it to lose information and therefore worsens organisms - is a beneficial process that causes lower forms of life to transform into better, more complex, completely different, higher forms of life with new genetic information that did not exist before, by random happenstance.
- All life shares a common ancestor, which is bacteria, that eventually transformed into all the forms of life that have ever existed.

Obviously, there is no scientific support for any of the above. These things being true can only exist as faith-based opinions as there is no observable, testable, or repeatable evidence to support them.

---

Evolution does not work on random happenstance. Evolution works on selection of traits. Yes, higher organisms are very complex, but you seem to be taking out a few billion years over which they developed.

So, mutations that cause Bactria to become resistant to anti-bionics are degenerative? No, they are not.

Evolution has been observed in microscopic organisms. The selection of traits which is the driving force of evolution has been observed. Fossils can be dated, DNA can be used to show the decent of the organisms from which the fossils came.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

All the mutants died out in the fruit flies experiments, that's what I was talking about. You are talking my quote out of context in that post.

But mutations remain a degenerative process that damages the genome even if the organism survives. Bacteria survive by mutation by losing genetic information, thus the things that used to kill it no longer can because they are no longer able to latch onto the genetic information that used to be present before the bacteria lost it; which is the method by which they used to be able to kill it. Thus the bacteria survive by devolving and becoming less complex. Which is what mutations cause to happen in all organisms. This is the opposite of evolution. Mutations are another great disproof of evolution.

---

Yes, some mutation doe lead to death, or the selection against that trait. You assumption that an organism that becomes less complex is "devolving" is incorrect. To evolve to not mean to become more complex. Perhaps you don't understand the theory very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Incorrect. That's not a fact. The fossil record shows every fossil fully-formed just as they were created. There are none of the (required by evolution) millions of transitional fossils that Darwin said would be found and indeed knew that were/are required to be found for evolution to be true, but never were found. Darwinists have at times attributed 'transitional fossil' labels to fully-formed creatures that were not really 'transitional' at all, but that always turn out to be a fabrication. Wishful thinking to support their own worldview. The fossil record supports Creation, not evolution. Here is a good new example regarding the fossil record of how the evolution story just gets rewritten around the facts whenever evolution's 'irrefutable facts' are proven wrong (and therefore the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, and therefore, unscientific):

---

You are still looking for the missing link? That is an antiquated idea. All fossils are transitional fossils. They are all organism, fully formed, that gave rise to the next evolutionary species.

You again seem to have it the wrong way around. Evolutionary theory is modified as new evidence is found. That is the wonderful think about scientific theories, they are fluid and change as our understanding increases. Creation on the other had is stagnant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

As for applying the scientific method to how God created: you can't. God spoke things into existence. This is not something any other entity in the Universe can do, and it is not something that can be repeated, observed, or tested. This being so, however, does not mean that making up an unprovable faith-based evolution story and then slapping an illegitimate 'science' label onto it is a better explanation that has more validity (contrary to popular belief).:idea2: The scientific method can no more be applied to the evolution being true point of view than it can to the Creation point of view. Both points of view require faith as they cannot be proven.

---

I've explained how the evolution has been put to test by scientific means.

I did not ask you to prove how God created, I ask you to prove God exists. If you cannot do that the very base of creation is gone, that is why creatin is not science.

......and everything we know exists can be put to the test of science, if God can't he is nothing more then fable.

Quote:

---

A Muslim creationist has succeeded in having Richard Dawkins’s website banned in Turkey, after complaining that its atheist content was blasphemous.

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4791175.ece

I wonder what he's frightened of? People thinking for themselves, perhaps.

From tuesday:

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Quote:

---

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.


Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

[...]

---

This implies that humans have not always been humans; heh.. Either way, the Vatican is on the right track on this one. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4791175.ece

I wonder what he's frightened of? People thinking for themselves, perhaps.

---

Definately.

:fainting:

Is this a joke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican


This implies that humans have not always been humans; heh.. Either way, the Vatican is on the right track on this one. :smash:

---

Creationism is not a Catholic problem. It is an American fundamentalist problem.

Quote:

---

Creationism is not a Catholic problem. It is an American fundamentalist problem.

---

That goes back to Augustine doesn't it , well apart from that crazy stuff with telescopes when they insisted that the lens was the devils work and the bible was really definitive on that sort of thing .

As an agnostic, I must say I get a good laugh whenever the curch has to admit being wrong...

Yet, the idiots hold firm to their belief.. "Ok, so THAT part of the bible was wrong, but THIS part is still ok"

I mean, c'mon... If there was a christian god, wouldnt he be able to put his message across more clear than this?

I mean, if god walked the earth one day, and said "bow down, worship me" then I sure would..

But basing a faith on a 1700 year old book?
*Before I get complaints, no the bible is not 2000+ years old, it has been revised by humans since then... a couple of times, to fullfill the political situation at the time*

Again, don't get me wrong... I am agnostic, not an atheist.

If I saw ANY (what-so-ever) proof of Gods existance I would abide his law...

Just, there is no proof... Only some wierd americans who have been brainwashed by their parents / society.

:sweden::sweden::sweden::sweden::sweden:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4791175.ece

I wonder what he's frightened of? People thinking for themselves, perhaps.

---

Did they not ban youtube because it had a video that was offensive about their hero Ataturk?

Quote:

---

That goes back to Augustine doesn't it , well apart from that crazy stuff with telescopes when they insisted that the lens was the devils work and the bible was really definitive on that sort of thing .

---

I think He means that it isn't a problem, Now.

Whereas those fundies are still in the dark ages of their evolutionary stage :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

As an agnostic, I must say I get a good laugh whenever the curch has to admit being wrong...

Yet, the idiots hold firm to their belief.. "Ok, so THAT part of the bible was wrong, but THIS part is still ok"

I mean, c'mon... If there was a christian god, wouldnt he be able to put his message across more clear than this?

I mean, if god walked the earth one day, and said "bow down, worship me" then I sure would..

But basing a faith on a 1700 year old book?
*Before I get complaints, no the bible is not 2000+ years old, it has been revised by humans since then... a couple of times, to fullfill the political situation at the time*

Again, don't get me wrong... I am agnostic, not an atheist.

If I saw ANY (what-so-ever) proof of Gods existance I would abide his law...

Just, there is no proof... Only some wierd americans who have been brainwashed by their parents / society.

:sweden::sweden::sweden::sweden::sweden:

---

Unfortunately for you, you're Swedish, and apparently God hates Sweden, which means you're damned if you do. That'd make me half damned as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

If I saw ANY (what-so-ever) proof of Gods existance I would abide his law...

---

I'm an agnostic too, but I have to sayl even if there was definite proof of the christian god, I would never, ever bow down to him, simply because I see him as evil, nothing more, nothing less. And I won't ever submit to evil.

Swedishfish, it's not so bad, god apparently hates gays and communists even more... I guess I'd end up in "limbo".

HoreTore, Are you kidding me? IF (big if) God would actually walk the earth and command people, I'd be scared like hell, and just do whatever he said. I mean, I can stand up to tough guys and stuff... But here we talk about BIBLICAL proportions of violence he can inflict.








ON A SIDENOTE: I must say i have more respect for christians now I thought about it.... I never understood these fanatical idiots claiming to do stuff in Gods name.. But then I thought: "Hey, if Optimus Prime would tell me to gack someone, that ******* would be going DOWN!"

:weirdthread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm an agnostic too, but I have to sayl even if there was definite proof of the christian god, I would never, ever bow down to him, simply because I see him as evil, nothing more, nothing less. And I won't ever submit to evil.

---

That's right. If He existed, He would be man's worst enemy.

We would have to nuke the sucker. :smug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Yet, the idiots hold firm to their belief.. "Ok, so THAT part of the bible was wrong, but THIS part is still ok"

---

The exact point that ultimately made me an Atheist.

Really? I'm an agnostic, and to be honest I find Atheists as deluded as Theists. There's no compelling evidence in either direction, so a position of uncertainty seems the most sensible position.

A 2,000ish year old almac which has been rewritten many times is neither here nor there.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Really? I'm an agnostic, and to be honest I find Atheists as deluded as Theists. There's no compelling evidence in either direction, so a position of uncertainty seems the most sensible position.

A 2,000ish year old almac which has been rewritten many times is neither here nor there.

~:smoking:

---

read my earlier post where I explained the difference between "strong atheism" and "weak atheism"....not every atheist states that he knows for sure there is no god.

Where does "weak" Atheism end and Agnosticism begin?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Really? I'm an agnostic, and to be honest I find Atheists as deluded as Theists. There's no compelling evidence in either direction, so a position of uncertainty seems the most sensible position.

A 2,000ish year old almac which has been rewritten many times is neither here nor there.

~:smoking:

---

How about this: if we cannot know, cannot gain evidence, then why bother? I like to call myself an agnostic atheist as I don't want anything to do with religion, and I don't find the question whether there is a god or not relevant for anything. Do not claim to know, only find the question irrelevant until serious evidences are put forth.

Ultimately, we're walking in a mine field made out of definitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Where does "weak" Atheism end and Agnosticism begin?

---

I have posted it before but I'm happy to do it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectru...ic_Probability

Quote:

---

Dawkins' formulation
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7.Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7". Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Yet, the idiots hold firm to their belief.. "Ok, so THAT part of the bible was wrong, but THIS part is still ok"

---

Indeed, that is one of the biggest problems with many churches today. Some are of course more guilty than others ... *cough* Anglicans *cough*

I respect agnostics, even though I do not agree with them, but I cannot bring myself to see the reasoning behind todays liberal churches. I suppose it's part of the Great Tribulation or falling away. Oh how fundamentalist of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

How about this: if we cannot know, cannot gain evidence, then why bother? I like to call myself an agnostic atheist as I don't want anything to do with religion, and I don't find the question whether there is a god or not relevant for anything. Do not claim to know, only find the question irrelevant until serious evidences are put forth.

Ultimately, we're walking in a mine field made out of definitions.

---

you mind friend sound like an apatheist

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?

The absolute arrogance of the idea that we, with our puny intellects, deceiving/unreliable sensory systems, and penchant for knee-jerk fear and cowardice towards things we cannot understand, presume to know anything beyond our own base desires - is staggering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?

The absolute arrogance of the idea that we, with our puny intellects, deceiving/unreliable sensory systems, and penchant for knee-jerk fear and cowardice towards things we cannot understand, presume to know anything beyond our own base desires - is staggering.

---

That reminds me of when i was five. I had an ant farm back then. A rather big one, tens of thousands of ants.

I build them their house, I fed them, gave 'em space to drill their tunnels.

Every day I looked at them. And looked. But nope, the bastards wouldn't erect big statues in honour of me. So I shook their tunnels, gave them little earthquakes in their main cities. Created floods with cups of water. I couldn't get the message across that I needed worshipping. Then in the end I destroyed it in seven plagues. That tought the little buggers.


I suggest we, humanity, take heed. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?

The absolute arrogance of the idea that we, with our puny intellects, deceiving/unreliable sensory systems, and penchant for knee-jerk fear and cowardice towards things we cannot understand, presume to know anything beyond our own base desires - is staggering.

---

I have to disagree strongly.

If there is a god, all the evidence provided by him/her/them is that they are frantic that humans believe. Divinities from time immemorial have been "jealous gods" dependent on their creations for worship.

Regardless of origin, we are a species imbued with the noblest of qualities - mercy, love, art. That we are also drawn to the ignoble does not change our destiny - to know ourselves and to be ourselves.

That is not remotely arrogant - indeed, in the face of such an extraordinary universe of possibilities, where every single human existence is at the same time an infinite universe unto itself and a spitball of dust that barely troubles eternity, all we have is ourselves and our own journey.

To live, and to understand how to create a life that makes whatsoever a difference, is not arrogance, but beauty. Curiosity is our most precious gift. The evil that men do cannot diminish it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?

The absolute arrogance of the idea that we, with our puny intellects, deceiving/unreliable sensory systems, and penchant for knee-jerk fear and cowardice towards things we cannot understand, presume to know anything beyond our own base desires - is staggering.

---

Well, according to the Bible, the Koran and other holy books; God does indeed care, and has even bothered to put up hell and heaven for us.

Also, you say that we have a puny intellect; but who's to say that we are not the smartest specie in the entire universe?

Well yes, humans are not perfect creatures and do not understand everything there is to understand. History is full of stories that can prove that (or just the fact that even today two people might hold the opposite views on a question and die of age in disagreement. At least one of them was wrong no matter how convinced and devoted); something which I would view as a strengthening of the agnostic argument. If there was a divine right, why does not all humans naturally reach it through logical reasoning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Why would god, if she exists, care whether humans "believe in" her?

---

inferiority complex??? :laugh4:

No human can ever hope to understand God by his own intellect or reasoning.

God does not care whether or not people "believe in" Him, not that on its own. Satan believes in God, but he isn't going to Heaven. What he does want us to do is put our trust in Him.

We had our chance at a perfect world, and we blew it. We abused the free will that we were given, and which God never questioned. We rejected God, and so we are now in this fallen world. Not as punishment, we simply decided we didn't need him or his laws. As can be seen from comments here, the base of all sin is pride. People think they don't need God, so they reject him. This isn't in its own right an evil thing to do, in that it doesn't harm anybody else. But if you reject God, then you no longer have his protection and so Satan will take you when you die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

No human can ever hope to understand God by his own intellect or reasoning.

God does not care whether or not people "believe in" Him, not that on its own. Satan believes in God, but he isn't going to Heaven. What he does want us to do is put our trust in Him.

---

you just wrote that we can´t understand god in one line....and on the following line proceeded to tell us what god wants...

just wanted to point out that "tiny" inconsistency....:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

I have posted it before but I'm happy to do it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectru...ic_Probability

---

Thanks for that. I must have missed it. I'd rate myself a 4 on that scale

~:smoking:

If no human believed in the "real" god, would she, like Tinkerbell, die? Or does she exist independent of what we believe?

My statement above about arrogance has been interpreted as a scathing rebuke of it. But I don't mean that. I do not rebuke or condemn human arrogance in the face of our instinctual fear or cowardice - rather I celebrate it. It is the overcoming of our natural fear, in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds that we arrogantly walk through fire, organize sounds into music, assemble sights into an abstract of perceived reality known as 'art', use our gift of language to spin stories to speculate about why things are, and how they are, and what we ought to do about that. We seem to have a need to do those things, to satisfy some deep craving of ours.

I'm not an atheist, I think. But I also cannot accept the two major ideas of many established religions: 1) that a mistake, or 'sin' (which I don't believe was either a mistake or sin) by some ancient ancestor dooms my existence now and forever, and 2) that even if 1) were true, that I need the help of a savior, or leader-man, or half-man-half-god, to do what? Make me God, or more human, or more perfect?

Sorry, with all the evidence to the contrary staring me in the face, I nevertheless assert with confidence: I am already perfect; I was born that way, and I'll die that way. But just because I'm statistically certain to stop breathing someday, doesn't mean I must live my life in dread of that final hour. I am both a puny little insignificant human, and the god-like ultimate reason for the universe to exist.

Sez I, of my own free will.

-edit-
p.s. And the same, of course holds for you, every one. :)