The Creation Museum in Kentucky has opened. Just saw it on the news.
Apparently the whole thing cost 27 million dollars and they are teaching the public that dinosaurs co-existed with humans and that the earth is only 6000 years old. The worst part about this is that they are presenting it as scientific fact.

This is going to far, they are corrupting the public ! :mad:

I can't believe they actually... GGGGGGGRRRRRRR :mad: :bawl:

Video of the news on it (see this at least):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc

Article, Protesters, Visitors Flock To Creation Museum:
http://www.wlwt.com/news/13399911/detail.html

Website Creation Museum:
http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Very strange indeed. They can think the way they want as long as they

don't try to use it in the classroom to teach science.

Very strange indeed. They can think the way they want as long as they

don't try to use it in the classroom to teach science.

They are !

They are !

What classrooms are they teaching it in?

I thought it was rescinded?

What classrooms are they teaching it in?

I thought it was rescinded?
Maybe not yet, but see the first 40 seconds of the movie.

This is bad, really bad... people that come there really believe in it.
Of course the motive behind building this museum is to win over more people for these ideas.
It's sickening..

When my son was in elementary school, they had to write/draw a report on dinosaurs. One girl wrote that all the dinosaurs were lost during the great flood because they couldn't fit on Noah's ark.
I don't think the teacher could correct her without a lawsuit.

This is going to far, they are corrupting the public ! :mad:


really?
the public has already been duped into believing that science has proved life comes from non life naturally.
there is no evidence that says life comes from non life but what does our young people think?
what kind of BS do you meet on this board if you mention that fact?

so, who's corrupting who here?

When my son was in elementary school, they had to write/draw a report on dinosaurs. One girl wrote that all the dinosaurs were lost during the great flood because they couldn't fit on Noah's ark.
I don't think the teacher could correct her without a lawsuit.

I think it's his duty to correct her. School isn't about perpetuating myth.

really?
the public has already been duped into believing that science has proved life comes from non life naturally.
there is no evidence that says life comes from non life but what does our young people think?
what kind of BS do you meet on this board if you mention that fact?

so, who's corrupting who here?

That is not taught, it is only presented as an hypothesis. Science is very open about stuff they are not sure about. Religion is sure about EVERYTHING !
Anyway, go on believing your fairy tail if you want. Maybe the museum is a great thing for you :rolleyes:

Everyone knows putting something in a museum makes it true.

Anyway, go on believing your fairy tail if you want.
a splendid example of the BS i was talking about.
and where did i say i believed any certain thing enmos?

Everyone knows putting something in a museum makes it true.

Exactly.. that's exactly the horror of it.

a splendid example of the BS i was talking about.
and where did i say i believed any certain thing enmos?

Quite obvious from your reaction. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

This is old news, and frankly the people that hand over money to visit the Horseshit Museum get what they pay for.

This is old news, and frankly the people that hand over money to visit the Horseshit Museum get what they pay for.

Old news ? It was on the news here today, and they said it just opened.

The sooner you realize that people and dinosaurs lived together in harmony less then 10,000 years ago the better, shame on you Enmos.

"The museum, which is said to have cost $27 million, is privately-funded through donations to the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis and opened its doors to the public on May 28, 2007."
Wikipedia

I saw various news reports here in the UK about the museum opening months ago. Anyway the point is you're right that it's an insane waste of money, but then as long as the US government isn't funding it I don't see a problem.

The sooner you realize that people and dinosaurs lived together in harmony less then 10,000 years ago the better, shame on you Enmos.

Yea, 6000 to be precise. It's a disgrace...

Quite obvious from your reaction. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.


my reaction stated facts. it's A FACT. there is no evidence that supports the claim that life comes from non life naturally.

"The museum, which is said to have cost $27 million, is privately-funded through donations to the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis and opened its doors to the public on May 28, 2007."
Wikipedia

I saw various news reports here in the UK about the museum opening months ago. Anyway the point is you're right that it's an insane waste of money, but then as long as the US government isn't funding it I don't see a problem.

Ah well, my bad then. They presented it here as if it just opened.
I do see a problem with it though but it has nothing to do with the money. The whole idea of the museum is to dupe more people into believing this shit.

Yea, 6000 to be precise. It's a disgrace...

Your a disgrace toGod and all his children... :D

look fuckhead, where did i call you any motherfucking names?

You called me names just now :mad:
And where did I call you names ?



my reaction stated facts. it's A FACT. there is no evidence that supports the claim that life comes from non life naturally.
And I didn't deny that, did I ? :bugeye:


I am very tempted to report you now.. you better not continue with these insults.

my reaction stated facts. it's A FACT. there is no evidence that supports the claim that life comes from non life naturally.

True, but the hypothesis is that since life exists and we have no evidence of anything beyond matter and energy it's fair to say that life must have come from matter and energy (the how and when is open to question).
Perhaps a debate for another thread.

What's your view on the Creation Museum?

Your a disgrace toGod and all his children... :D

Maybe I should just give in to God then... ;)

Anyway, this really pisses my off.. more than I would have thought even.

I think that it will do well, at least as a cheap ticket to a good laugh.

You called me names just now :mad:
And where did I call you names ?
post 15



And I didn't deny that, did I ? :bugeye:
nope.
you agree with me 100% don't you?



I am very tempted to report you now.. you better not continue with these insults.
knock yourself out.

Hypocrite? thats what got you all fired up. take a chill pill man

a splendid, perfect example of the nonsense one encounters on this board when they mention that science HAS NO CLUE as to how life came to be on this planet.

Hypocrite? thats what got you all fired up. take a chill pill man
i am not a hypocrite dude. far from it.

post 15

You are wrong, I didn't call you anything.



nope.
you agree with me 100% don't you?

Yes, I do agree with you on that.



knock yourself out.

Try me.. :bugeye:

a splendid, perfect example of the nonsense one encounters on this board when they mention that science HAS NO CLUE as to how life came to be on this planet.

We don't know, but we have clues.
So answer this. Are you religious ?

i am not a hypocrite dude. far from it.

NO ONE said you are a hypocrite...

try me...
okay.

i didn't call you anything
liar.

anyway, i stated my piece. anmd as usual the morons that can't handle certain things get tied all in knots about it.

i shouldn't be surprised, i've been put on ignore for stating what i've stated in this thread.

leopold has LOGGED OUT.

a splendid, perfect example of the nonsense one encounters on this board when they mention that science HAS NO CLUE as to how life came to be on this planet.

That's incorrect, there are many clues.

okay.

liar.

That's the second time you insult me.. :rolleyes:
Get a grip on yourself.

Edit: reported.

I dont really see what the big fuss is honestly. If it was created to "dupe" people into beliving it well.....that game is played every day with far more important things. For example the war in Iraq, 9-11, etc....

If people really do belive man walked with dinos.....and the earth is only 6000 years old......how is that going to change gas prices? or the cost of living? Immigration problem? "War on terror"? Global Warming?......or anything that actually matters and effects people who live on the world today?

Yes, this musiem will cause confusion but what in science doesnt already do that?

I shit you not......I have a friend who belives Dinosaurs never existed at all.....and that the bones were put here by the devil to decive us......not even joking he belives this 100% and stands by it reguardless of the joking.....this warped vision of history however has no effect on his life, mine, or anyone elses.......it is harmelss......he leads a successfull life and is happy.....

guess what Im getting at is.....why the ruckus?

It's just massively stupid, and the last thing we need in society is more misguided people. Science can be confusing, but we shouldn't be adding to it.

I dont really see what the big fuss is honestly. If it was created to "dupe" people into beliving it well.....that game is played every day with far more important things. For example the war in Iraq, 9-11, etc....

If people really do belive man walked with dinos.....and the earth is only 6000 years old......how is that going to change gas prices? or the cost of living? Immigration problem? "War on terror"? Global Warming?......or anything that actually matters and effects people who live on the world today?

Yes, this musiem will cause confusion but what in science doesnt already do that?

I shit you not......I have a friend who belives Dinosaurs never existed at all.....and that the bones were put here by the devil to decive us......not even joking he belives this 100% and stands by it reguardless of the joking.....this warped vision of history however has no effect on his life, mine, or anyone elses.......it is harmelss......he leads a successfull life and is happy.....

guess what Im getting at is.....why the ruckus?

It hinders science if people believe the bible literally. They teach it to their kids etc. Now they can take their kids to this wonderful museum as well. It's wrong.

Oh heck. Crap like this is all over the internet. They listen to sermons on it on Sundays. This museum isn't showing anything they don't already believe.
I wanna go so I can laugh and point. And maybe get my pic with the man and dinosaur exhibit. Hey, I know its true cuz I saw it on the Flintstones.

Oh heck. Crap like this is all over the internet. They listen to sermons on it on Sundays. This museum isn't showing anything they don't already believe.
I wanna go so I can laugh and point. And maybe get my pic with the man and dinosaur exhibit. Hey, I know its true cuz I saw it on the Flintstones.

The thing about this museum is that it's all packaged like a fun day out for the family..
They made it very accessible for kids and that's what bothers me I guess.

Ever been to Bible Camp?

Ever been to Bible Camp?

I have...:(

I have...:(

See Enmos. There are worse thing for Christian kids than that museum.

See Enmos. There are worse thing for Christian kids than that museum.

LOL You have a point there..

My dad believes the world is only 6000 years old...I've never got a straight answer from him about dinosaurs and why they are not mentioned in the bible.

You'd think with eating machines, like T-rex running around, at least someone would have mentioned them.

what do you think it would take to make him change his mind?

they are teaching the public that dinosaurs co-existed with humans and that the earth is only 6000 years old. The worst part about this is that they are presenting it as scientific fact.I will tell you right now that most Christians don't believe this. I hope you aren't judging every religious person based on this one museum.

If you hate the museum so much, simply don't go there. Vote with your wallet. You don't have to sit there and criticize other people for what they believe. It's their choice, and it really doesn't affect you.

I will tell you right now that most Christians don't believe this. I hope you aren't judging every religious person based on this one museum.

If you hate the museum so much, simply don't go there. Vote with your wallet. You don't have to sit there and criticize other people for what they believe. It's their choice, and it really doesn't affect you.

Of course I know that, but apparently the creationists are working to get a larger audience..

Who cares if they believe in creation? Natural selection is just as dubious.

Who cares if they believe in creation? Natural selection is just as dubious.

Natural selection is not dubious :bugeye:

really?
the public has already been duped into believing that science has proved life comes from non life naturally.

Some members of the public might have the impression that scientists have solved the problem of abiogenesis. But that doesn't mean that scientists actually say they have solved that problem. As a matter of fact, they do not.

On the other hand, life had to come from somewhere. If it did not arise from non-life, then where? Did God tweak the universe just the once? Or what?


Who cares if they believe in creation? Natural selection is just as dubious.

Spoken like somebody who knows next to nothing about evolution.

my reaction stated facts. it's A FACT. there is no evidence that supports the claim that life comes from non life naturally.Yes. We have not yet put together all of the pieces of the puzzle to explain how organic matter developed from inorganic matter. No one disagrees with that.

But the Evolution Denialists equate abiogenesis with evolution. They try to use the fact that at this point abiogenesis is an unsubstantiated hypothesis as a rationale to assert that evolution is also an unsubstantiated hypothesis. That is scientific fraud and anyone who makes that assertion on SciForums is automatically guilty of the worst category of trolling: misrepresentation of science. We just finished kicking a guy out of here for that, although it wasn't about evolution. He deliberately misquoted a scientific paper to make a fraudulent point.

Let us be clear: Anyone who states that evolution has been disproven because abiogenesis is a weak hypothesis is trolling. They will be dealt with mercilessly.

Furthermore, creationism is an anti-scientific theory because it is based on the existence of a supernatural universe, which cannot be observed or tested by science. It denies the fundamental principle of science as the study of nature: The future behavior of the universe can be predicted by making logical deductions from empirical observations of its past behavior. Posting anti-scientific rhetoric in any of our science subforums also qualifies as trolling because this is a place of science. Debates about the validity of the scientific method can be held in the Philosophy subforum, where they will meet with considerably better debating skills than we're required to have here.
I am very tempted to report you now. you better not continue with these insults.Apparently he thought better of it and deleted the post in question. We do put up with a certain level of personal insults considering that most of our members are children and these days children get away with talking that way to their own parents.
My dad believes the world is only 6000 years old...I've never got a straight answer from him about dinosaurs and why they are not mentioned in the bible.What's outrageous is that they're denying a huge chunk of history in which some very important events occurred.The self-domestication of dogs ca. 15000BCE. This may have been the key experience that made civilization possible. By learning that it's possible to live in harmony and cooperation with "people" who aren't even our species, we might have begun to speculate that we could just as easily try to get along with the tribe in the next valley. The migration of the first of three waves of Paleoindians from Siberia ca. 12000BCE. They left much of their culture and technology behind to make that trek. Yet they managed to recreate it and develop two civilizations only 10,000 years later... which the Christian armies of Europe obliterated. The invention of the technology of agriculture ca. 9500BCE, which both allowed and required us to stop being nomads and build permanent settlements. The building of the first city at Jericho in 9000BCE. Just a few hundred years after the division of labor and economy of scale of village life produced the first surplus, or capital, we were ready to experiment with even larger communities to see if we could create even greater prosperity. Civilization produced such a large surplus that for the first time people could have full-time careers in teaching, inventing, exploration, art, music... and science.To erase history is to deliberately breed ignorance. And as we all know, those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. That's a pretty concise description of Christendom, they've been repeating the same evil acts for centuries.
Of course I know that, but apparently the creationists are working to get a larger audience..Judging by what some of our foreign members say, this appears to be primarily an American phenomenon. This fashionable ignorance of science and math will very likely be the downfall of our country. I'm old enough that I probably won't live to see that happen. But you younger people might be wise to start thinking about emigration. If the Religious Redneck Retards don't persecute you for being rational, they will at least destroy America's culture and economy so you will be trying to make a decent living in a vassal state of China and India.

Some members of the public might have the impression that scientists have solved the problem of abiogenesis.
some? the real problem i have with this situation is that this isn't really stressed in our high schools. teachers do not stress the fact that science regards evolution and abiogenesis as two separate things. how many times have you personally pointed out to posters here that abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing?

But that doesn't mean that scientists actually say they have solved that problem. As a matter of fact, they do not.
you are correct.
as a matter of fact they stay completely mum on the subject, they do not mention that the origins of life and evolution are not the same things, and they teach only evolution in our schools. so, what are students going to assume james?

On the other hand, life had to come from somewhere. If it did not arise from non-life, then where?
read my posts james.
i stressed that there is no proof that life came from non life naturally.

Did God tweak the universe just the once? Or what?
again, read my posts.
i did not say anything about a god did i.
all i stated is that science has no proof that life arose naturally on this planet and the place becomes thoroughly unglued. amazing isn't it.

some? the real problem i have with this situation is that this isn't really stressed in our high schools. teachers do not stress the fact that science regards evolution and abiogenesis as two separate things. how many times have you personally pointed out to posters here that abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing?

you are correct.
as a matter of fact they stay completely mum on the subject, they do not mention that the origins of life and evolution are not the same things, and they teach only evolution in our schools. so, what are students going to assume james?

read my posts james.
i stressed that there is no proof that life came from non life naturally.

again, read my posts.
i did not say anything about a god did i.
all i stated is that science has no proof that life arose naturally on this planet and the place becomes thoroughly unglued. amazing isn't it.

Excellent posts James and Fraggle, thanks ! :)

Leopold, I don't know what teachers you had but mine did stress that abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing. Furthermore when learning about evolution abiogenesis isn't even included, so I don't know why anybody would assume they are the same thing even if their teacher didn't expressively tell them.

Life must have come from non-life.. if not what did it come from ?
I suspect that you are going to say that God made life from non-life. So it is, in your view, a process that is naturally possible (the materials didn't change, carbon form non-life material is still the same carbon in the alive material).
If the emergence of life from non-life is naturally possible then why couldn't it have taken place naturally. To assume that God did it is a far bigger assumption than the assumption that it arose naturally.

If the emergence of life from non-life is naturally possible then why couldn't it have taken place naturally. To assume that God did it is a far bigger assumption than the assumption that it arose naturally.This point isn't even relevant, because religion and science answer different questions. Science answers the "what", whereas religion answers the "who" (or "what motive"). Things that are natural happen by the will of God, and things that God does are natural (he doesn't break the rules of the universe, because he causes the universe to be that way).

Many people think that Christians can't believe in evolution. This isn't true at all. Educated Christians believe that evolution occurs, and that it is made possible by God. Likewise, we believe that abiogenesis occured in some way or another (because like you said, if not from non-life, then from where?).

We simply believe this happened because God wanted it to, through natural processes (i.e. by setting up the chain of circumstances making it possible). This doesn't go against Christianity, since the bible is an allegory, and it doesn't go against science, because it doesn't deny any known scientific occurrence.

In other words, you don't have to get so mad when someone uses God to explain a natural event. Nobody is contradicting you, or science. (The only exception to this is by people who don't believe in an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, which is a relatively small portion of Christians - and a portion I don't agree with).

All I stated is that science has no proof that life arose naturally on this planet and the place becomes thoroughly unglued. Amazing isn't it.No it's not amazing at all. The fundamental thesis of science is that the natural universe is a closed system that can be understood and predicted by logically deriving theories from empirical observation of its past behavior. To throw one's hands up in the air and say that there must be a supernatural universe merely because we have not yet learned enough about this one to understand its more elusive phenomena is to give up on science! It is more egregious than the people who postulated that the sun revolves around the earth, or that earth, air, fire and water are the four elements, or that the earth is flat, because those theories were within the bounds of the natural universe as it had been observed up to that point.

If you're saying that organic matter cannot arise naturally from inorganic matter, then there are only two ways to interpret your statement. The first deals with your first word "arise." Perhaps you're saying that life has always existed in the universe, that there has always been organic matter. This is unscientific because we know enough about the early microseconds of the universe to know that there was no solid matter, much less organic matter. The second deals with your second word "naturally." If life has not always existed in the universe, and it cannot arise from inorganic matter, and there was a time in the history of the universe when only inorganic matter existed, we have a paradox and the natural universe does not allow paradoxes. You carefully avoid using the word "god," but if you're not hypothesizing a supernatural force, then how indeed do you resolve this paradox? This is no longer an exercise in science, whose theories can never be proven true, but in logic, which is pure abstraction and therefore delivers incontrovertible truth. The truth is that there are no paradoxes in nature, so the only resolution of the paradox is to postulate a supernatural universe.

Either way you're being at best unscientific and at worst antiscientific, and in either case your argument has no place in a scientific discussion. Take it to the Religion subforum, our ghetto for the superstitious, or the Philosophy subforum, where you'd better sharpen your debating skills to survive, or the Pseudoscience subforum, where there are no rules. But in General Science and Technology this is trolling and trolling is forbidden.
This point isn't even relevant, because religion and science answer different questions. Science answers the "what", whereas religion answers the "who" (or "what motive"). Things that are natural happen by the will of God, and things that God does are natural (he doesn't break the rules of the universe, because he causes the universe to be that way).To speak of a "motive" implies that nature isn't enough for you. That is human hubris. Are these lumps of protoplasm that have evolved the ability to think so gol-danged important that the entire universe must be modeled after us, with a "motive" for everything? That there just has to be a caretaker tweaking things here and there to make them perfect, the way we prune and rake our gardens? That a universe without conscious control could not possibly exist, at least not in this exalted state in which Homo sapiens happens to exist?

In any case, this is the old Cosmic Watchmaker theory. The C.W. carefully built a universe with Euclidean geometry, a lightspeed limitation, four basic forces, and the other natural laws (if that's not already a complete set). Then he set it in motion and here we are. This theory even allows for the C.W. to have created fossils, suspiciously similar DNA patterns, lightwaves in transit, and galaxies moving away from each other, making the universe appear to be billions of years old when in fact he actually pushed the Start button six thousand years ago.

This makes for a nice story and of course it cannot be disproven, so it is not a scientific theory. Nonetheless it does not resolve the paradox of abiogenesis. The C.W. is alive. Where did he come from? Is the proscription against abiogenesis just one of the rules he created for our natural universe, but it doesn't apply to the much larger supernatural universe he inhabits?

Well ain't that just special?
Many people think that Christians can't believe in evolution. This isn't true at all.Uh dude, you must not be writing from America. A majority of our population (a slim majority or a substantial one, depending on the poll, but a majority nonetheless) are evolution denialists. Politicians are falling all over each other to avoid saying they accept the validity of the theory of evolution, because to do so would be to alienate more than half of the electorate. You can bet these people are not the Jews and the atheists.
Educated Christians believe that evolution occurs, and that it is made possible by God. Likewise, we believe that abiogenesis occured in some way or another (because like you said, if not from non-life, then from where?).As I say, you can't be an American. Our universities are cranking out graduates who deny evolution and they are not the Jewish and atheist students.
In other words, you don't have to get so mad when someone uses God to explain a natural event. Nobody is contradicting you, or science. (The only exception to this is by people who don't believe in an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, which is a relatively small portion of Christians - and a portion I don't agree with).Once again, in America it is the majority of Christians. This is probably the main reason I coined the term Religious Redneck Retard Revival. And the reason I counsel young people to keep their options open in case it gets so bad they have to emigrate.

some? the real problem i have with this situation is that this isn't really stressed in our high schools. teachers do not stress the fact that science regards evolution and abiogenesis as two separate things. how many times have you personally pointed out to posters here that abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing?

I suspect that the reason abiogenesis is not taught in schools is the same reason that string theory is not taught in schools. Both areas of knowledge are not settled - they are controversial among cutting-edge scientists. What we teach schoolchildren is things we're fairly sure are correct.


as a matter of fact they stay completely mum on the subject, they do not mention that the origins of life and evolution are not the same things, and they teach only evolution in our schools. so, what are students going to assume james?

Why should they assume anything?


i stressed that there is no proof that life came from non life naturally.

Why are you avoiding the issue?

If life did not come from non-life, where do you think it came from?

You must have some alternative idea.

To throw one's hands up in the air and say that there must be a supernatural universe merely because we have not yet learned enough about this one to understand its more elusive phenomena is to [i]give up on science!
where have i said life must have arisen by supernatural means?


I suspect that the reason abiogenesis is not taught in schools is the same reason that string theory is not taught in schools. Both areas of knowledge are not settled - they are controversial among cutting-edge scientists. What we teach schoolchildren is things we're fairly sure are correct.
thank you james. at least you are man enough to admit it.

Why should they assume anything?
because that is what people do when they don't have all the pieces.
it's also why you must continually tell new posters that there is a difference between evolution and abiogenesis.


Why are you avoiding the issue?
i am not avoiding anything. i made a simple statement and everybodys brains just oozed out of their heads.


If life did not come from non-life, where do you think it came from?

You must have some alternative idea.
i never said life didn't come from non life.
i said "science has no proof that life came from non life naturally"
the meaning behind that statement is that every scenario and every experiment performed to test abiogenesis has failed. period.
frankly i find it amazing that fraggle rocker would get as stupid as he did in his last post over a simple observation.

fraggle,
do not put any more words in my mouth.

To speak of a "motive" implies that nature isn't enough for you. That is human hubris.To be humble? To think that there is a force more powerful than me? That's hubris? I'd better call up the folks at Merriam-Webster, ASAP.


This theory even allows for the C.W. to have created fossils, suspiciously similar DNA patterns, lightwaves in transit, and galaxies moving away from each other, making the universe appear to be billions of years old when in fact he actually pushed the Start button six thousand years ago.Straw man. That's completely not what I'm claiming.


This makes for a nice story and of course it cannot be disproven, so it is not a scientific theory. That's EXACTLY my point. Religion is NOT scientific theory. It should never be used to answer scientific questions. That was my whole point about science and religion being completely unrelated.


And the reason I counsel young people to keep their options open in case it gets so bad they have to emigrate.Yes, I see, because a different person's belief has so much bearing on your own existence. You teach kids to be so intolerant to what other people are so much as thinking.

i said "science has no proof that life came from non life naturally"
the meaning behind that statement is that every scenario and every experiment performed to test abiogenesis has failed. period.

This is a fact.

Yes, I see, because a different person's belief has so much bearing on your own existence. You teach kids to be so intolerant to what other people are so much as thinking.
More to the point I think is that unsupportable opinion is being offered and propounded as fact, somehow on the same level as scientific evidence and analysis.

This is a fact.
thank you.

This is a fact.

No, it is not. Much of the supporting evidence of these theories has been tested in lab. There have been no tests that prove the theory entirely, though. That may have been what was meant by you, but leopold's words were 100% false.

That may have been what was meant by you, but leopold's words were 100% false.
your opinion until backed up by relevant links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/dea220456fe7ae9d?fwc=1
http://unmaskingevolution.com/4-abiogenesis.htm
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis/

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1642934&postcount=34

Hm, last time you linked me supporting evidence I had about a quarter of one hundred thousand words of text to read and only find it was off topic.

And I will not be backing up something so well known and easy to find for you. Unlike people such as Enmos, I am content to let others wallow in their ignorance.

And I will not be backing up something so well known and easy to find for you.
anyone can pay lip service exhumed.

i said "science has no proof that life came from non life naturally"
the meaning behind that statement is that every scenario and every experiment performed to test abiogenesis has failed. period.

Even if every scenario and every experiment performed to "test abiogenesis" had created living beings right in the jar in five minutes, science would have no proof that life came from non-life "naturally".

What you call the "meaning" is only indirectly related.

Science has no proof the sky was blue over North America in the Middle Ages. But the hypothesis seems to fit a lot of the facts.

The "tests" of abiogenesis provide info and argument about certain aspects or steps in hypothetical chains of event that might have been involved in abiogenesis. They have all succeeded in supplying such info, and therefore have none of them failed.

We don't know the biochemical mechanisms involved in living beings' appearance on earth. On the other hand, we didn't even have a biochemical mechanism for evolutionary change in bacteria until 1960, something which was happening right in our test tubes at twenty minute intervals, so maybe it's a little early to give up as failed the elucidation of a sequence of events that took place more than 3 billion years ago.

(The only exception to this is by people who don't believe in an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, which is a relatively small portion of Christians - and a portion I don't agree with).

Which is what this thread is about. Did you read the OP ?? :bugeye:

"The museum, which is said to have cost $27 million, is privately-funded through donations to the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis and opened its doors to the public on May 28, 2007."
Wikipedia


Yeah…that’s definitely what Jesus would want people spending $27 million on – a museum with pictures of cave men riding around on dinosaurs. Not something silly like, you know, giving shelter to the homeless, food to the starving, or medical care to the sick. I'm sure that if Jesus were here he would totally pat you on the back and compliment you on your priorities. :rolleyes:

I just love how Christians make a huge deal out of believing that the Earth is 10000 years old and that life arose by magic when god clapped his hands, but them conveniently ignore most of the actual explicit instructions from Jesus in the New Testament.

Where have i said life must have arisen by supernatural means?You did not. I'm responding to your actual statement:
All i stated is that science has no proof that life arose naturally on this planet and the place becomes thoroughly unglued.. . . by pointing out that the fundies "become thoroughly unglued" when we say that life (like absolutely everything else in the universe) must have arisen by natural means. It is the fundies who throw their hands up in the air and give up on science because we haven't solved all the riddles of nature yet. Forgive me for appearing to misquote you, that was not my intention. Pointing out that we have not yet proven that abiogenesis is possible is usually the first salvo in an attack on the theory of evolution. We are understandably tired of having to constantly fend off the forces of darkness in a website that is supposed to be a place where people come to learn and discuss science. As a Moderator, my approach to the problem is to define "trolling" in more detail so that we can delete their posts and toss them out on their butts, instead of having to repeat the same response fifty times to people who aren't going to read it anyway, in order to serve the people who do come here looking for science. Most of the offenders truly are trolls who are not interested or capable of scientific discussion.
To be humble? To think that there is a force more powerful than me? That's hubris? I'd better call up the folks at Merriam-Webster, ASAP.There already is a force more powerful than you. Four of them actually: Gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. It's human hubris to insist that the universe cannot possibly be ruled by these soulless, mindless, compassionless natural forces, but must instead be ruled by a supernatural being that is so very much like a giant Homo sapiens.
Yes, I see, because a different person's belief has so much bearing on your own existence. You teach kids to be so intolerant to what other people are so much as thinking.Sorry, I've posted my advice about emigration so often that I've apparently condensed it beyond the point of comprehension. I'm not urging people to leave America because they can't tolerate religion. If that were all of it, I would urge them to stay and fight for rationality. My point is that the anti-science, anti-rationality program of the Religious Redneck Retard movement is very likely to destroy our economy. Who would want their children to live in a place that was not only ruled by RRR's, but also abjectly poor, possibly a vassal state of China?

Not to mention, the mutual intolerance of the two leading cults of Abrahamism is leading to the resumption of the Crusades. I don't want to be collateral damage in that war and die for a cause I despise.

Which is what this thread is about. Did you read the OP ?? True, but when everyone was accusing leopold of being religious, it got off topic, and turned into a hate-fest. Even though I was agreeing with the OP, but all I got was a whole slew of hatred by Fraggle Rocker.

ya know.....I was awe-struck today.....I brought up the creationist musiem to a few people I work with and meet throughout my normal day........

almost HALF of them.......belived the world was only 6,000 years old......

needless to say my jaw dropped and I asked each and every one of them......."WHY??!!!"

among the various replies all of which were illogical and flew in the face of every day common knowledge KNOWN science......I could do nothing.....I was speechless.......


I didnt know this belief was that common........I had no idea until I asked.....

That'll larn ya fact checkers. Meh

james,
this is a part of what i was saying earlier:

Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution11.htm

as you can see abiogenesis and evolution are treated as the same theory.
personally i've never heard the word abiogenesis before i started posting here.

as you can see abiogenesis and evolution are treated as the same theory. As I can see they are not, not even close:
Two representative quotes from your link:

In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying That clearly separates ordinary Darwinian biological evolution from abiogeneses, and the site goes one to retail a common creationist error, confusing the matter:
These examples do simplify the requirements for the "original cell," but it is still a long way to spontaneous generation of life. Perhaps the first living cells were completely different from what we see today, and no one has yet imagined what they might have been like. Speaking in general terms, life can only have come from one of two possible places:

Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living cell.

Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell. That second statement is not true - instead of "random" chemical processes, evolutionary accumulation of complexities is possible.

I agree with you, Enmos. And they never should be able to even make a museum like that in the first place without making it very clear to anyone that visits that none of it is based on fact and is merely a suggested view.

Why should they have to make that clear? Private businesses have no obligation to educate the public.

They're presenting it as truth in a museum purposely intending to get more people to believe something they have no basis for claiming.

How is this any different than an alien museum in Roswell (http://www.roswellufomuseum.com/) or a Bigfoot museum (http://www.bigfootmuseum.com/)?

The people who already believe it go there, everyone else goes there for entertainment.

There's no proof against either of those things. There is plenty against what they're claiming the age of the Earth is.

They're presenting it as truth in a museum purposely intending to get more people to believe something they have no basis for claiming.
and you don't think our schools are doing anything even remotely similar?

There's no proof against either of those things....

LOL. And there is no proof FOR them either.

I do. I didn't say I thought that was right either.

Hmmm.... so from what I read here and there, this museum is mostly just to bring the bible into the halls, correct?

I do support the notion of "why the fuss?" in this matter.... best consider it a bible visual show than an actual scientific museum (although the founder dubbing it a museum is quite a wrong thing to do indeed). Although bringing dinos while I don't specifically remember if they are even mentioned in bible sounds pretty stupid, I admit.....

and you don't think our schools are doing anything even remotely similar? Not the ones who stick to science in the science classes.

LOL. And there is no proof FOR them either.

There are "photos" that claim to depict UFOs and Bigfoot. What they are actually of is up to the viewer. What would they fill a museum with? Theories with no evidence at all? And you're right curiocity, it should not be called a museum.

Look, unless you believe in mystical nonsense or that some supreme alien intelligence is behind life, the universe, and everything, then abiogenesis clearly happened.

leopold99 seems to be saying that there is no proof of abiogenesis from purely natural means, and that is a fact.

I am highly certain that natural abiogenesis happened. But has it been proven? No. Leo is simply stating a fact.

Abiogenesis has zero to do with evolution by natural selection (which is well proven).

They're presenting it as truth in a museum purposely intending to get more people to believe something they have no basis for claiming.Again, private businesses have absolutely no responsibility or obligation to educate the public.

If this were a government-funded museum, I might have a problem. But this is a private business, and they should have the right to claim whatever they want to. It's up to the consumer (museum-goer) to make the decision of what's fact and what's not.

There are "photos" that claim to depict UFOs and Bigfoot. What they are actually of is up to the viewer. What would they fill a museum with? Theories with no evidence at all? And you're right curiocity, it should not be called a museum.

You would fill it with all the crap that is currently in the museum. And in the creationist museum you can actually saw its gvmt sanctioned teaching (Kansas was it??) where these other museums can't say that.

leopold99 seems to be saying that there is no proof of abiogenesis from purely natural means, and that is a fact. Leopold is saying somewhat more than that. He is drawing conclusions, from the lack of "proof", about what should and should not be taught in science classrooms, and the legitimacy of excluding certain other hypotheses from these classrooms.

I am highly certain that natural abiogenesis happened. But has it been proven? No. Leo is simply stating a fact. If that's all he were doing, the fact would be irrelevant here. There is no "proof " of anything, in science, let alone events of the distant past.


Abiogenesis has zero to do with evolution by natural selection (which is well proven). But the opposite direction - evolution by selected variation has a great deal to do with abiogenesis - supplies at least one possible mechanism for the creation of reproductive complexity from simpler precursors. Without such a mechanism, abiogenesis would have a different kind of mystery at its theoretical foundation.

That doesn't mean it is the correct mechanism - the one actually involved. It just provides something necessary for the practical consideration of abiogenesis, and in doing so suggests routes of inquiry - the hallmark of a fruitful hypothesis.

Otherwise, the common assertion that we have only two (and not realistically distinguishable) choices - wildly improbable random event, designed intervention - would carry more weight.

Leopold is saying somewhat more than that. He is drawing conclusions, from the lack of "proof", about what should and should not be taught in science classrooms, and the legitimacy of excluding certain other hypotheses from these classrooms.
If that's all he were doing, the fact would be irrelevant here. There is no "proof " of anything, in science, let alone events of the distant past.

But the opposite direction - evolution by selected variation has a great deal to do with abiogenesis - supplies at least one possible mechanism for the creation of reproductive complexity from simpler precursors. Without such a mechanism, abiogenesis would have a different kind of mystery at its theoretical foundation.

That doesn't mean it is the correct mechanism - the one actually involved. It just provides something necessary for the practical consideration of abiogenesis, and in doing so suggests routes of inquiry - the hallmark of a fruitful hypothesis.

Otherwise, the common assertion that we have only two (and not realistically distinguishable) choices - wildly improbable random event, designed intervention - would carry more weight.
Alright then. I can't really argue with that, since I agree with it. I've had this debate long ago with leo.

How is this any different than an alien museum in Roswell (http://www.roswellufomuseum.com/) or a Bigfoot museum (http://www.bigfootmuseum.com/)?

The people who already believe it go there, everyone else goes there for entertainment.

Those themes are not perceived as religion. An important characteristic of religion is that you 'spread the word', in other words as a religious person it's your duty to win souls.
Not so with UFO and Bigfoot believers.

Why should they have to make that clear? Private businesses have no obligation to educate the public.Freedom of speech is sacred in America. The only curbs are:Advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force. The government takes great care to protect itself. Inciting a riot. This is sort of a baby version of the first one. Basically you're not allowed to abuse your freedom of speech to cause a breakdown of civilization, even just locally. Fraud. You can't deliberately lie to someone for the purpose of manipulating him into doing something he would not otherwise do. This applies to claiming that your swamp land in Florida is actually valuable real estate in order to manipulate him into buying it. But it could just as well apply to the classic example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded darkened theater in order to manipulate the crowd into panicking and entertaining you with their confused actions. Libel and slander. In my view this is just a special case of fraud: Telling lies about one person to manipulate other people into thinking less highly of him and changing the way they deal with him. Conspiracy. This is a more recent law. You can't sit around with one or more other people and make plans to commit a crime. This is the way they catch mobsters, who are often too skilled at avoiding being linked to the actual crime itself. It has been suggested in fiction that it could be used to prosecute people who comspire to commit acts which might not be prosecuted in other countries but would be here. E.g., you and your brother-in-law plotting to send your adulterous wife on a vacation to visit your family in Crapistan, where they can get away with murdering her as punishment for adultery. Hate speech. This is the newest law and one we libertarians are uncomfortable with. If you honestly hate someone then why should you be prohibited from saying so? As Homer Simpson put it, "What kind of a country is this when I can only hate somebody if he's white?" Talking publicly about such things has to be better than forcing the people to discuss it with other like-minded folks in a basement. As I always say, we need to keep the cockroaches on top of the linoleum. Otherwise they will go off and have a Holocaust Denial Festival in Tehran, where they won't be picketed by tatooed concentration camp survivors and people whose grandparents were murdered every time they step out of their hotel. SciForums prohibits racial hate speech and as a Moderator I do my duty and enforce it, but I don't like it. If it's not laced with obscenities, not directed at an individual member, and does not flout the scientific method, for example by being illogical or unsubstantiated, I think such discussions need to be held. I would much rather ban a racist because his argument is irrational or because his data is fraudulent; this would be much more educational to the other members.Other than that growing list, Americans are free to lie to each other and they're even more free to express their sincere beliefs.

As Joseph Campbell wisely put it, how can you explain the difference between a lie and a myth? Not everyone understands the concept of metaphor.

This is the newest law and one we libertarians are uncomfortable with. If you honestly hate someone then why should you be prohibited from saying so? As Homer Simpson put it, "What kind of a country is this when I can only hate somebody if he's white?" Talking publicly about such things has to be better than forcing the people to discuss it with other like-minded folks in a basement. As I always say, we need to keep the cockroaches on top of the linoleum.

I really like that.

Leopold is saying somewhat more than that. He is drawing conclusions, from the lack of "proof", about what should and should not be taught in science classrooms, and the legitimacy of excluding certain other hypotheses from these classrooms.
i have not drawn any conclusions. every thing i have posted in this thread is a fact. if you doubt any of it then read the links i provided or supply evidence to support your side of the argument.

a lie of omission is still a lie.

every thing i have posted in this thread is a fact. So ?

I mean, that isn't true - some of your posted links, at least, contained counterfactual assertions (I highlighted a couple above). and this
the meaning behind that statement is that every scenario and every experiment performed to test abiogenesis has failed. period. is directly false, as explained above also,

but even if it were, so what?

But this is a private business, and they should have the right to claim whatever they want to. It's up to the consumer (museum-goer) to make the decision of what's fact and what's not. I think msot of us agree that these people have the right to put up a creationist "museum". And the rest of us have the right to say perfectly true and if possible funny things about it, them, and their apparent delusions - and warn the unwary.

So ?

I mean, that isn't true - some of your posted links, at least, contained counterfactual assertions (I highlighted a couple above). and this is directly false, as explained above also,

but even if it were, so what?
I think msot of us agree that these people have the right to put up a creationist "museum". And the rest of us have the right to say perfectly true and if possible funny things about it, them, and their apparent delusions - and warn the unwary.
i am not going to argue this point with you any longer.
i've made my claims and backed them up.
you have made your counter claims but have failed to provide any links.
see ya later.

Dinosaurs are still living with us. They keep crapping on my car.:shrug:

I find it funny that this museum would be attacked for it's fictional account of history. There should be no doubt that it is fiction. The facts will never get though to people that believe here is something that can override common sense.

But that does not make the Darwin fans right either. They are partners in crime with the creationists. The banner of truth and fact is often waved by the "scientific" side of the argument. Yet the "crime" of telling people of lies in the name of fact has a new name; "science". I am not talking about the entire body of "science", without a doubt, much of it is fact. But people did not come from a goo. What did they come from? Who knows, but there are no facts at all that support evolution from goo as the cause. Far from it.

Did God do it? Not in my opinion, but at least such an opinion is creative on the order of magnitude of what it would take. While goo is not even creative. There are trillions of things that most all happen at once and in exact ways for life to get started.

The religions of history have a stained record of bad behavior. Yet the high and mighty "Scientific World" has mist something. The religions had some sensible things about them, and that it was men at exact times in history that perverted it into the subject that deserves the scorn it now gets. But today these men of perversion are now working for the sciences. And so too do the facts slide away from truth and into lies that should not be questioned.

I say it is funny that this museum would be put down by men that are guilty of the same thing they scorn. Solid belief in what they were told was true and never questioned. Did it even occur you personally (I am talking to anyone scientific or religions creationists) that man has had a pattern of turning back and forth from religion to science and back to religion and so on because he has a tendency to blur the truth? Religion cleans itself up and says some right answers and people go for it. Then becomes corrupt and people can't help but see it. So they go to science, a subject with the purpose of pulling out of the lies religion holds so dear. But soon becomes corrupt with the lies of "too complex for you to undrstand" and money (the same thing that corrupts religion) and soon becomes evil. Then comes the religion talking of the evil science that perverts men. Back and forth, new names, new places but the same habits.

At this time religion deserves to be tomatoes and boos it is getting. "Religion is faith" is a joke because you are not a joke. You are a fact. Thus faith need not apply. And "science" claims your brain gives you life. This is scientific garbage. It is fact that the brain is not capable of sustaining the phenomenon of life. They have known this for over a hundred years. Yet it is still "fact". Do I mean that you should all turn to god for this? No, of course not. But fact is fact.

You want to know what has been proven about the brain? The brain could be thought of as a dashboard in a car. It registers how much fuel it has, the temp, everything you would want to know, it also has controls to make the body do all the things you can do. But not a trace of the higher functions. Only limited reactions when a higher functions is active but not enough for the function. THAT is a fact. If questioned as where these higher functions are taking place you will get the run around with scientific names and that you "just need to take my word for it". The "I would never tell you something that was not true" is where it all goes wrong. Because they are. Missing form it all is the driver. Who or what is driving? Billions spent on the brain could tell you how to change a persons thinking from clear to fuzzy and change behavior (of course, I mean try to drive with basic functions missing from the car) but not a single thought. Only where thoughts register. (you know, where the steering wheel is was easy for them)

So, where is the truth? The brain, God, or none of the above? I have no answer for you. It is neither. Yet people are logical, or at least try to be. And hear in is the problem. All men will try to make sense of the world around them. Yet you need facts and data to think with something. You can't think with the unknown. That is the trap that locks these two subjects in place. If you are offered the Brain or God at least that is something. But both are wrong without question because either can not stand simple observation.

Until a better answer is offered, people will gives their lives in the name of what they believe. They will gladly stand before an executioner, stuffed with lies, because to ask them to see what is right infront of them is worse then dieing without a clue. At least they believe in something and they can think with life and why they are being executed. You can't do that when you have no information at all.

Let them have their museum. Let them say where they came form. It is all a lie, but until you have a better answer to give them, until you can get a crowbar in there between their own common sense and what they believe, the two will be bound with superglue, nails, bolts, welding, iron clamps and allot of hope and faith. The missing facts will fill the moment the person sees them with the very best answers the guy could come up with.

But that does not make the Darwin fans right either. They are partners in crime with the creationists. The banner of truth and fact is often waved by the "scientific" side of the argument. Yet the "crime" of telling people of lies in the name of fact has a new name; "science". I am not talking about the entire body of "science", without a doubt, much of it is fact. But people did not come from a goo. What did they come from? Who knows, but there are no facts at all that support evolution from goo as the cause. Far from it.

Until you understand evolutionary theory, you will only be able to parrot ridiculous strawman versions of it. May I suggest http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ ?

Until you understand evolutionary theory, you will only be able to parrot ridiculous strawman versions of it. May I suggest http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ ?

First I am not a creationist. And from your link:

"1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all."

Err... no I didn't.

"2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life."

no... I didn't do that either. have you ever seen how a cell works? I mean at the nano level? Forget complex proteins. Just look at the stuff moving around! I have never calculated proteins into this. I have no idea how many their are. But the cell is not made up of 1 or 2 parts. It has many more. Take away just one and it all fails! Even simple proteins will fail at the level I am talking about. It works because IT ALL WORKS! take one part out and that is it. We could not make one of those machines if we tried. And that is with trying!

"3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials."

Lol, I don't care if they clocked-in and clocked-out. Sequential trials would be worse. You need MANY parts all going at the same time in an exact way for it to work. You have the odds of each part forming AND that they form close enough to function/combine with the correct part. In a few cases there needs to be restraints to hold other functions in place. These odds STACK UP BIG TIME! how life got more complicated after that I don't care about. There is a base on which all this functions. The odds of stuff moving around by itself are even worse then what I said.

"4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation."

Right, I bet they tell everyone that. "You suck! You can't count!". No, it is easy to see that this is nothing more than a losers attempt at undermining the integrity of the numbers. But I am not that stupid. I have seen that the parts work. I have made machines before. They simply do not fall together like that. I wish they did!

You want to know the odds? Take a computer of yours and tell it to generate at least a few billion random numbers. Then have it execute those numbers. Count the number of times it tries. The count ends when your computer comes to life with a real program that will continue itself and adapt, in other words it must live. You can up the random number count to a trillion if you like but remember we are not going for higher intelligence. If you have such faith in the origins of life, you should enjoy this. It is your holly grail. The number of tries that failed will not matter as each attempt is random. If it works you will prove everyone right. It needs allot going at once in the correct sequence. This is the same as what we are talking about. The living program will give you the odds you are looking for.

You need MANY parts all going at the same time in an exact way for it to work. You have the odds of each part forming AND that they form close enough to function/combine with the correct part.

Ok. You are using the word 'odds' here a lot. This is not what evolutionary theory is built upon. You are clearly a fan of 'irreducible complexity'.

No one claims that the functional subparts of a cell just 'fell' together by chance. Chance plays a role in the following forms:

- Environmental variation
- Mutation

But what evolution by natural selection says is that from the offerings made by the environment and mutation, organisms will be deterministically selected for or against.

So, you can probably look up the articles that explain how a simple cell (or a human eye - that's another favorite example) can form from increasingly complex parts that served previously independent functions.

Will you believe the explanations? Probably not. Your loss.

"But people did not come from a goo."
"I have made machines before. They simply do not fall together like that."


Until you understand evolutionary theory, you will only be able to parrot ridiculous strawman versions of it. May I suggest http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ ?

...(or a human eye - that's another favorite example) can form from increasingly complex parts that served previously independent functions. ...Eye is a particularly good development that illustrates how evolution developes very complex organs as all of the prior stages still exist. A simple amoeba is able to sense heat radiation and tends to avoid it. The Pit vipers have concentrated these heat sensors of Electromatic Magnetic radiation much to the regret of a warm-bodied mouse foolish enough to wander out on a cool night in the desert. These pits have become deeper in some other animals and in the Chambered Natulus the photo senstive surface is larger than the opening, which lets light in to the "deep nearly-circular pit." {I.e. its "eye" is a crude "pin hole" camera, but the opening has not yet formed any transpairent covering so the interior of its eye is filled with sea water.} Next came that tranpairent covering, which then thicked in the center to form a sharper image, etc. and finally the fully developed eye with distinct lense that mussels could distort to adjust some distance for maximiumally good focus.

BTW this happened more than once. I.e. the octopuss is obviously God's preferred creatures as it not only has much bigger eyes (good for both collecting light and higher resolution) but also they are intelligently designed - not like the human eyes where the light sensitive retina cells are behind a shaddow casting net of blood vessels, two layers of data processing nerves - the light senstive cells of the octpus's retina are "up front" - the first thing the light fall upon. - clearly a parallel evolution path, only a better one than the one humans came from.

The number of different paths and eye types that evolution has developed is quite large and some are very strange. One tiny organism has a single light senstive cell in each eye, but it is held by some fibers and can be moved around so it scans the full 2D "picture" much like the eletron beam in a Cathode Ray tube TV "paints" the picture on the screen.* I forget the name of this creature but there is a micro photograph of its eye in the book [i]The Eye and the Brain.[/b] (one of he bests introductory books for anyone interested in vision).
----------------------
*A good system for tiny slow moving creature. Why move the whole eye ball, just to look in another direction? Reduces brain requirements also as only process one pixel after another, not 100,000 or more in parallel.

Let them have their museum. Let them say where they came form. It is all a lie. . .A lie is deliberate deceit. The problem with evolution denial, and the reason it's been given a respectable-sounding name that makes it appear to be a proper theory, is that people really do believe it. This isn't a cabal of psychotic Christian leaders desperately trying to shore up a Stone Age philosophy by hiding the truth from people. This is a breakdown of civilization in America.

Of course we have to let them have their museum. Even if suppression of religion weren't a nasty thing to do, as a practical matter it never works. But since the government effectively nationalized the education industry, the American adults it turns loose have lost their power of critical thinking and they will not be able to spot the flaws in the museum's approach to science. Ironically, some of the church-run universities like Occidental College turn out better critical thinkers than the government's bureaucratic diploma mills.

But people did not come from a goo. What did they come from? Who knows, but there are no facts at all that support evolution from goo as the cause. Far from it. There are a great many "facts" that support the hypothesis that people evolved, eventually, from goo. Including the fact that people are made of goo, of a kind that has been shown to evolve.

There are trillions of things that most all happen at once and in exact ways for life to get started. That is false.

Who knows, but there are no facts at all that support evolution from goo as the cause.
yet another one comes.
what do you make of this james? fraggle?

more evidence that science "lies" to our students.
and you can't deny it, it's right there in black and white.


Did God do it?
come on guy, the concept of god is for children.
i'm just not as rabid and fanatical about it as fraggle is.

A lie is deliberate deceit. The problem with evolution denial, and the reason it's been given a respectable-sounding name that makes it appear to be a proper theory, is that people really do believe it. This isn't a cabal of psychotic Christian leaders desperately trying to shore up a Stone Age philosophy by hiding the truth from people. This is a breakdown of civilization in America.

Of course we have to let them have their museum. Even if suppression of religion weren't a nasty thing to do, as a practical matter it never works. But since the government effectively nationalized the education industry, the American adults it turns loose have lost their power of critical thinking and they will not be able to spot the flaws in the museum's approach to science. Ironically, some of the church-run universities like Occidental College turn out better critical thinkers than the government's bureaucratic diploma mills.Good observations, but although I agree that "critical thinking individuals" are an endangered specise in the USA, I think their decline started with TV, not the government. Most Americans (and perhaps most others where entertaining TV is available) no longer are cazpable of thinking independantly. They are now so passive that effectively they are "brain dead." They are filled with opinions and gradually these opinons come to have much in common and fall into a few distinct groups. Thus most people can be characterized by a few adjectives, like liberal, capitalist, Luthern, Republican, socialist, etc. and they do not really think but only repeat the "party line" of their group.

Pre TV people wrote each other thoughful letters and discussed significant things in them. Now, in addition to family news, about the only thing you will find in letters (and dam few ever write any) is some comments on the latest turn of some soap opera. I am active here, in part, as a few of this vanishing species, like you, do still survive, and post more than one line quips that reflect some thought capacity and ability to discuse an issue rationally instead of just repeat the "party line" of their group.

Why do you blame the government for this sad turn of events?

i'm a huge fan of this museum...

by it's mere existence it reveals so much about the 'secular' and the 'scientific' community... it's fascinating to watch...

that's what i like most about it...

the unnatural fixation it draws from those who present themselves as logical and rational and unconcerned with things of the spirit or religion...

they actually teach dinosaurs and man, and 6000 years?... lol...

AWESOME!!!