0
   

Creation Museum

 
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 02:35 am
Chumly, I think the standard answer is that they ask for (and generally receive) God's guidance to help you understand.

In practice that means that you get to keep the parts you like and reject as misguided those people who choose other parts than you.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 06:43 am
chumly said
Quote:
I ask: how do you know when to take the Bible literally, how do you know when to take the bible allegorically, and how do you know when to take the Bible in some other fashion such as untrue.
.
Since they have no evidence to support any of the Bibles teachings, it is a bit funny that they will "manufacture and fake" some just to fill a museum.At a bigfoot exhibit near Seattle they at least had a sign that said that much of the exhibit is based upon speculation. It was sorta like faith except the museum director sorta smiled when asked if he believed in bigfoot. "This was all the evidence we have and its pretty convincing Id say"
AT least he was honest , and of course , he didnt go around teaching how bigfoot died for your sins and how bigfoot made it all happen 6000 yars ago. For that he had no evidence. Sorta like Creation has no evidence , yet theres the museum, being built.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 10:25 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
Then they build a museum to it. Only in America do we even give the time of day to these people.


farmerman- And that is a downside to the freedom that we have in America. What a wonderful country where even ignorant fools may be heard!


Hi Phoenix,

Not sure why you describe that as a downside.

When Darwin's grandpa proposed his theory of evolution, and later Darwin himself went out in search of evidence to try to support it , they may have been thought of as ignorant fools.

But with persistence, they have been able convince a lot of folks ( a little over half the population in the U.S. and higher percentages in other locales ) to see it their way.

Do you really think that is a negative?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 11:08 am
Famerman & Eorl,
The principle of the Convenient Christian Smile
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 11:23 am
Chumly wrote:
Famerman & Eorl,
The principle of the Convenient Christian Smile


For most of it's existence Christianity has operated on the principle of "convenience". Textual analysis of early Christian document and the New Testament suggest that first century Christianity was a radical critique of Jewish and Mediterranean (Roman) culture of that time. Most of which was suppressed, first by Paul and then by various councils when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Most of this original critique would set the current crop of fundamentalist teeth on edge.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 11:37 am
How/why would the original critique upset the current crop of fundamentalists?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 12:15 pm
rl again spouting his "own pet Theory"
Quote:
When Darwin's grandpa proposed his theory of evolution, and later Darwin himself went out in search of evidence to try to support it , they may have been thought of as ignorant fools.


Youre posting an grand simplification to the extent that its a grand untruth, and you know it. Erasmus published a long poem "Zoonomia" which contained the lines about an evolution of animals. It was a friggin poem that was barely understandable. Besides it was L:amarkian all the way.

Charles knew of his grandfathers fame a a doctor who published nature poems and had some neat ideas. Wilbur and Orvilles father, if he were a tinketrer, you would credit with having invented the flying machine.

Charles had no such ideas to undo the sanctified beleifes of the day when he signed on to the Beagle. He was, after all , a ships naturalist in a (sort of) covert mission to which Charles was a small cover story.

The idea of the synthesis of the theory of evolution didnt even occur to him when he returned to England to discover that of all his species of birds from the galapogos, most all were finches. The ensuing 25 or so years betwen his coming home and publishing Charles was busy tring to set-up experiments to understand the mechanisms (the how of evolution).Something his grandfather merely penned out a few verses of didactic poesy(with the stunning clarity of some of spendius posts)

I dont know why you insist on these little bits of revisionism , they arent true, nor do they help your credibility herein.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 12:40 pm
Hi Farmerman,

The only reason you would deny Grandpa Darwin's role in helping Charles formulate the theory of evolution is because evolutionists like to insist that Charles examined evidence AND THEN , *ping* it dawned on him over a period of time that these critters must have evolved from ..........

When folks realize that the Darwins were believers in evolution BEFORE any evidence gathering by Charles........ well it kind of ruins the whole thing about 'evolution being firmly rooted in observation and evidence etc etc' , doesn't it? Too bad, that's actually what there is to deal with.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 12:47 pm
Typical "real life" horsie poop. In that case, how do you account for Alfred Russel Wallace, whose grandpappy wrote no tedious poetry inspired by Lamarck? Wallace, using the same area of study--morphology--came to the same conclusion from different sources of evidence. Just one of the first among millions of reasons to assert the scientifically firm foundation for a theory of evolution.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 12:47 pm
oh thats yer point, I see. Well please dont read any history about this.The 2 points that you are trying to couple
"Believers in evolution" and
"developing a full blown theory" (a synthesis on natural selection)

It has the same difference (as Mark Tawin said) as between lightning and a Lightning bug.

Have you ever read the Erasmus "zoonomia" and then try to enter a debate that this was indeed a "Theory" of evolution". If you did, you were unarmed.

Read "Zoonomia" then well talk like we both know what were saying
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 12:53 pm
real life wrote:
When folks realize that the Darwins were believers in evolution BEFORE any evidence gathering by Charles........ well it kind of ruins the whole thing about 'evolution being firmly rooted in observation and evidence etc etc' , doesn't it? Too bad, that's actually what there is to deal with.
Even if true, personal beliefs and biases are not relevant to objective scientific methodology. No doubt there are numerous examples of concepts and ideas having sway prior to substantiation by objective scientific methodology, big deal.

So whether the Darwin's were or were not believers in evolution before evidence gathering does not change the end result of the underlying scientific objectivism.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 12:53 pm
good point set.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 12:56 pm
real life has an issue with all that "irrelevant evidence" chumly. Hes back on the "critical analysis" horse.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 01:29 pm
Chumly wrote:
How/why would the original critique upset the current crop of fundamentalists?


The issue is what is known among biblical scholars as the Q text. Links below will take you to the text itself
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm

and an Atlantic Monthly article with links that can explain it better than I

http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/jesus.html
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 03:09 pm
Much thanks Acq

Farm, I would be interested in hearing how real life rationalizes "critical analysis" by exempting scientific objectivism.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 06:40 pm
chumly said
Quote:
Even if true, personal beliefs and biases are not relevant to
His point is untrue, Im not going to let him get away with an "even if it were true" cause that just opens the door to more of real life's "theories'
Chum, the term "critical thinking" is preently a code word for "lets try to get something by the rubes of the ed boards"
The Creationists have no desire for anything that approaches critical thinking,cause they have no equally hard evidenced alternative. Theyve got story book tales from which they try to derive evidence.

Scientific evidence supporting a theory like nat selection is fact based the world around. Creation myths are changeable every couple of thousand kilometers of the planet.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 07:15 pm
Re: Creation Museum
Chumly wrote:
The Creation Museum is an outreach of Answers in Genesis, a non-profit ministry located near the Cincinnati International Airport, in northern Kentucky, USA. This 50,000 square foot facility will proclaim to the world that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice and in every area it touches on. Scheduled to open in 2007, this "walk through history" museum will be a wonderful alternative to the evolutionary natural history museums that are turning countless minds against the gospel of Christ and the authority of the Scripture.

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

Woe is me!


It's just too good to believe Smile

Dr. Dino is also quite a trip through wonderland.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 07:32 pm
Who needs comedians?

"serving the Lord " "rationally"

"mobs of angry evolutionists"

"Creation Science Evangelism"

"there is no other Savior than He."

"multi-award-winning seminar series that everybody loves has now been discounted 25%"

"scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant"
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 07:50 pm
Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
When folks realize that the Darwin's were believers in evolution BEFORE any evidence gathering by Charles........ well it kind of ruins the whole thing about 'evolution being firmly rooted in observation and evidence etc etc' , doesn't it? Too bad, that's actually what there is to deal with.
Even if true, personal beliefs and biases are not relevant to objective scientific methodology. No doubt there are numerous examples of concepts and ideas having sway prior to substantiation by objective scientific methodology, big deal.

So whether the Darwin's were or were not believers in evolution before evidence gathering does not change the end result of the underlying scientific objectivism.
Do you mean he is arguing that because there is no scientific justification for Creationism *yet*, that it still must be meritable, because at some point there will be? In the same token that he claims that the Darwin's asserted their views on Evolution before the science of it was established? If you buy that argument, you must then accept that anything that has yet to be proven scientifically is just as valid, which would mean *everything* is true!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 11:34 pm
Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
When folks realize that the Darwins were believers in evolution BEFORE any evidence gathering by Charles........ well it kind of ruins the whole thing about 'evolution being firmly rooted in observation and evidence etc etc' , doesn't it? Too bad, that's actually what there is to deal with.
Even if true, personal beliefs and biases are not relevant to objective scientific methodology. No doubt there are numerous examples of concepts and ideas having sway prior to substantiation by objective scientific methodology, big deal.

So whether the Darwin's were or were not believers in evolution before evidence gathering does not change the end result of the underlying scientific objectivism.


Yeah it just kinda spoils the Charles Darwin legend of the objective gatherer of evidence who then *ping* realized what the evidence was telling him ---

*clears throat, speaks into a large tin can* 'Everything has evolved!'

Charles was familiar with the family's belief in evolution which preceded his trip to the Galapagos by decades. (Whether his Grandpa was Lamarckian or not is really beside the point) Darwin's familiarity with Grandpa's idea of evolution is inescapable, and rather embarrassing to most evolutionists who try never to mention it.

Generally, it is insisted that Charles formulated his theory of evolution only on the basis of scientific evidence that he gathered starting in the islands. They like to forget that the Darwins believed it BEFORE the trip on the Beagle.

When you go out to gather evidence to bolster a theory which as of yet has been proposed without evidence, that's not objectivity.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Creation Museum
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 02:07:10