Tulsa, Okla. Opens Creationism Exhibit

[sivic02]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Yeah, I couldn't deny that as a possibility. It's where creationists reject evolution that it becomes a problem, and I think most creationists do reject evolution

I think this can pretty much sum it up.
"God’s Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There’s no room for compromise."

I was bored and did a search for creationism museum...found a little "walkthrough" for one, thats what it said on page 13.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/

Maybe someone else will get a kick out of it too.


"discover that the latest images of the stars confirm an all powerful Creator"
Oh, dang, aparently NASA forgot to send me that memo!

[MagicRat]

Oh man, that site is the marvellous example of the power of propeganda and mis information.

The theory of creationism is a fairy tale. It is fiction and has as much relevance in fact as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It should not be used as a literal guide or explanation as to the origion of life. To do so leaves its adherents awash in ignorance.

The fact that so many people believe wholeheartedly in creationism is fine example of how people's minds and beliefs are subject to suggestion.

This has been seen before in history. Creationism is, these days relatively benign, (so far) but other unreasonable belief systems have been proven to he hazardous. It is similar to the fact that millions of Europeans believed in Nazi ideals and the theory of the superiority of the Aryan race. And we all know what happened to that theory.

[2strokebloke]

When you realize that niether the evolution camp, nor the creationism camp has anything really solid to back up their arguments you'll see that the whole argument for one against another is just plain silly.
Although evolution has some observation based off of pyhsical evidence going for it, when you really get down to it, both sides leave most of their work up to the imagination.
And that will never change, unless somebody was able to live for three million or so years and take note of what was happening to everything around them (which is for all intents and purposes impossible)

[lazysmurff]

this really a race on either side. a "whichever comes first" scenario.

either A) christ gets his boogey on and comes down from the heavens and takes care of this whole "end times" thing

or B) we keep records for a long enough time to prove evolution does happen.

i really could care less either way, but im casting my vote for evolution. it just makes sense.

[sivic02]

2stroke the whole thing behind a scientific theory is for it to NOT be disproven. Take for example gravity, it is an idea we cant see it we dont know it is actually here. I could say that what holds things together that you call gravity is a giant baked potato that sprinkles fairy dust that causes things to be attracted to eachother. Until that can be disproven it has as much credability as gravity does. The only way that we can say gravity doesnt exist at least as we know it is if one day you are bouncing a ball and it goes up and just keeps going. Same with evolution/creation, like smurf said...except kinda backwards. If we keep records for long enough eventually it wont PROVE evolution because it will have to be tested infinately to be proven but it will disprove creationism without evolution.

[thrasher]

Evolution does NOT specifically refer to changes in lineage, e.g. changing from an amphibian to a reptile. Evolution, in a biological sense at least, refers to changes in allele frequency in a population, which ALWAYS happens in any natural populations. It is thought that over time, accumulated allele frequency changes produce morphological and physiological changes, which has been shown to happen on a smaller scale. The only changes we haven't actually observed are large scale morphological changes, like changing from an amphibian to a reptile. But it's not that big of a stretch to imagine that over extremely long periods of time such things would happen.

[AlmostStock]

One of the most interesting things I learned from the Nat. Geo. article was about convergent evolution. This is where animals from different continents look and act very similar but have completely different DNA. They evolved into similar creatures without any close ancestor connection. They also had examples of the opposite. Animals from the same area that looked completely different but had very similar DNA and therefore much closer mutual ancestors. Way cool.

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by thrasher

The only changes we haven't actually observed are large scale morphological changes, like changing from an amphibian to a reptile. But it's not that big of a stretch to imagine that over extremely long periods of time such things would happen.

And there you have it. Your proove my point. Evolution and Creationism are similar to the extent that neither one can be prooven right nor wrong.
I think that both theories intertwine with eachother more than we lead ourselves to believe.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

<snip>
And that will never change, unless somebody was able to live for three million or so years and take note of what was happening to everything around them (which is for all intents and purposes impossible)

Since I've been around for 3.5 billion years, you can take my word that creationism and evolution go hand-in-hand...

Man has evolved to the point where he has become too enamored with "his own handywork" (spear point, lever, needle, wheel, IC engine, light bulb, integrated circuit, airplane, rocket ship, common-rail diesel, etc.) and entertains thoughts so that he begins to believe in nothing else but himself.

My nephew can prove that the theory of gravity does not exist although much "evidence" and "recordable repeated observations" support it. A centrifuge can separate different objects/matter although there is no such thing as centrifugal force (it's imaginary).

Astronauts who have ventured into space return with "feelings" of a "Creator" at work (who is willing to call these "rocket scientists" fools?).

There are many theories as to how Jesus rose from the dead. Others believe that this was a hoax, mass hypnosis or the like.

Raz pretty much said it, they are intertwined more than man realizes it, like it or not.

[lazysmurff]

you people are saying things like they are the truth. period. end of discussion. and thats just simply not the case. noone here in this forum has any idea. at least not any more of one than anyone else does.

on one side, you've got people clinging to a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of privileged men seeking to explain why they followed a hippy around in the desert for a few years.

on the other, youve got people clinging to a bunch of books written by a bunch of modern priviledged men (and a few women this time) seeking to explain why, although they nearly unlimited funding and resources, and years of experience and guidence, they have yet to find anything that brings us any closer to proof of evolution that darwin was. pitiful.

i think its time to bring this discussion to a close.

[AlmostStock]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

you people are saying things like they are the truth. period. end of discussion. and thats just simply not the case. noone here in this forum has any idea. at least not any more of one than anyone else does.

Isn't AF the leading authority on all issues? Certainly we know more than all the scientists and bible scholars.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

on one side, you've got people clinging to a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of privileged men seeking to explain why they followed a hippy around in the desert for a few years.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

on the other, youve got people clinging to a bunch of books written by a bunch of modern priviledged men (and a few women this time) seeking to explain why, although they nearly unlimited funding and resources, and years of experience and guidence, they have yet to find anything that brings us any closer to proof of evolution that darwin was. pitiful.

Although your good choice of words makes this sounds funny too, if you do any research you'll find out that we are finding more proof everyday.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

i think its time to bring this discussion to a close.

Or open it up even more!

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by lazysmurf

on the other, youve got people clinging to a bunch of books written by a bunch of modern priviledged men (and a few women this time) seeking to explain why, although they nearly unlimited funding and resources, and years of experience and guidence, they have yet to find anything that brings us any closer to proof of evolution that darwin was. pitiful.

Not meaning to be an ass, but you don't know what you're talking about. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time studying biology has seen the absolutely staggering amount of evidence that macroevolution occurs. Evolutionary theory permeates absolutely everything in biology, and the evidence just keeps piling up. Evolution IS regarded as fact in the biological community, and it's insulting to say that no more "proof" exists than when Darwin was alive.

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Not meaning to be an ass, but you don't know what you're talking about. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time studying biology has seen the absolutely staggering amount of evidence that macroevolution occurs. Evolutionary theory permeates absolutely everything in biology, and the evidence just keeps piling up. Evolution IS regarded as fact in the biological community, and it's insulting to say that no more "proof" exists than when Darwin was alive.

And in the religious community, creationism is regarded as fact because of the Holy Book/s.
If you can proove that humans evolved from a singular cell into what we are now then I will give up my religion, because not even the top scientists are able to proove that theory right. You must understand that the theory is HIGHLY PROBABLE in humans but it is still not PROOVEN.

[SnoopisTDI]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

on the other, youve got people clinging to a bunch of books written by a bunch of modern priviledged men (and a few women this time) seeking to explain why, although they nearly unlimited funding and resources, and years of experience and guidence, they have yet to find anything that brings us any closer to proof of evolution that darwin was. pitiful.

Not only that, but how often are these people wrong? "Experts" used to say the Earth was flat. In the 19th centrury, they said man would have a heart attack if he exceded 35mph. I'm still alive. In the middle of the 20th century, the "sound barrier" was impenetrable. In the 19th century, they thought bumps on your skull determined intelligence and psychology(phrenology). They used to say sunlight caused cancer, now they say it can help prevent cancer. They used to say you were born with a fixed number of brain cells, now they say it's possible to grow more. Cholesterol was bad, mmkay. Now they say there is good cholesterol. Saccharin caused cancer, now it doesn't. In the 70s, we were worried about "global cooling." Now it's "global warming." MTBE was put in gas to reduce emissions, now it's a carcinogen. The EPA strictly regulates NOx emissions because it causes smog, but some recent studies think it can actually help eliminate smog in certain situations.


I'm athiest, so I don't believe in creationism, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly agree with a handful of scientist "experts" either. Not that I'm saying anyone else is blindly agreeing. I think in most situations, both creationism and evolution should be covered in general theory, and the option of doing further research is up to you.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Not meaning to be an ass, but you don't know what you're talking about. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time studying biology has seen the absolutely staggering amount of evidence that macroevolution occurs. Evolutionary theory permeates absolutely everything in biology, and the evidence just keeps piling up. Evolution IS regarded as fact in the biological community, and it's insulting to say that no more "proof" exists than when Darwin was alive.

oh dear god. your right, i dont know what im talking about when it comes to evolution. i am biologically disinclined. but im not stupid. im well aware of the "staggering amounts of evidence" biologists have witnessed under the microscopes in their labs. and i didnt say any "more proof" i said "closer to proof". a small difference in writing, but a huge difference in meaning.

i was just trying to not to sound too onesided in my last post. (take a look in past threads and such if youve got the time. its pretty easy to discern what side of this argument im on)