Creation Museum

Setanta wrote:

I like that turn of phrase, Ros . . . i'll likely think of the creationists as antique dealers from now on . . .

I've been seeing the same creationist arguments pop up since the late 80's when we used to see them on bulletin boards (remember those). As you can see from the dates of many TalkOrigins articles, these things have been thoroughly debunked and tossed aside years ago. But still people keep dusting them off and trying to sell them. One of these days maybe they will be valuable just for their nostalgia.

0 Replies

Its interesting that talk origins doesnt even update. When all this new research is going on now in China and the new genomics discoveries, as well as works on RNA polymerization .

Most of the reason is that the Discoveries and the ICR's are more political than scientific anymore.

Another area that RL may want to know that we dont have "all the answers" is the function of the intron and "non coding" parts of genomes and what their functions are in preserving the evolutionary histories of organisms.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Another area that RL may want to know that we dont have "all the answers" is the function of the intron and "non coding" parts of genomes and what their functions are in preserving the evolutionary histories of organisms.

I suspect that some of this stuff doesn't fit their patter or their audience. Most creationism efforts seem to be focused on preaching to the choir who have no interest in the real details. Therefor, the most popular creationist arguments appeal to arguments of "common sense", even though common sense is not always correct.

0 Replies

What we should do is open museums that espouse the early Christian ways such as their holy wars, incest, murders, polytheism and polygamy, now that would put the fun in dysfunctional!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

What we should do is open museums that espouse the early Christian ways such as their holy wars, incest, murders, polytheism and polygamy, now that would put the fun in dysfunctional!

Let's start with the first 1000 years of the Christian era, Chumly (that should cover 'early' Christian ways)

What SPECIFICALLY are you referring to in this time period?

0 Replies

I am far from a Christian wiz but parallels between Christianity and ancient Pagan religions might be fun
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

0 Replies

and art

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/comment/story/0,,1691445,00.html

0 Replies

I would imagine that the" Creation museum" would be full of posters, directionals, and computer graphic displays. I cant recall any field evidence that even remotely support Creationism. Maybe someone can think of one. I would imagine tat the museum would be light in the specimen department

0 Replies

Lots of recreation (pun)

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I would imagine that the" Creation museum" would be full of posters, directionals, and computer graphic displays. I cant recall any field evidence that even remotely support Creationism

Actually, everything supports creationism; poof there's a planet, poof there's a fish, poof there's a frog. You can explain everything with magic. The problem is that magic doesn't *explain* anything.

The challenge for creationists is to explain why the evidence shows clear signs of evolution and no signs of magic. The problem is not to explain particular species or events, but all the patterns. Nature is cohesive and elegant, not isolated and erratic.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
I would imagine that the" Creation museum" would be full of posters, directionals, and computer graphic displays. I cant recall any field evidence that even remotely support Creationism

Actually, everything supports creationism; poof there's a planet, poof there's a fish, poof there's a frog. You can explain everything with magic. The problem is that magic doesn't *explain* anything.

The challenge for creationists is to explain why the evidence shows clear signs of evolution and no signs of magic. The problem is not to explain particular species or events, but all the patterns. Nature is cohesive and elegant, not isolated and erratic.

How are genetic mutations by random high energy particles "cohesive and elegant" and not "isolated and erratic"?

How would a massive meteor strike wiping out mankind be "cohesive and elegant" and not "isolated and erratic"?

Since you say "everything supports creationism" how does the red shift support creationism?

Since you claim that "The challenge for creationists is to explain why the evidence shows clear signs of evolution and no signs of magic" and since the creationists claim the underlying impetus is the literal interpretation of the Bible in a religious sense how do you reconcile your assertion?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

How are genetic mutations by random high energy particles "cohesive and elegant" and not "isolated and erratic"?

How would a massive meteor strike wiping out mankind be "cohesive and elegant" and not "isolated and erratic"?

My reference to cohesive and elegant relates to the patterns we see in nature, evolution being a major cohesive and elegant process as an example.

Chumly wrote:

Since you say "everything supports creationism" how does the red shift support creationism?

The red shift was caused by magic; poof. See, I can explain everything by magic.

The point of my post is that creationsts (and people who do not restrict themselves to naturalistic explanations) can "explain" everything. They just assume magic.

But to me, that's not really an explanation.

Many creationists will argue their point about alternate views of fossils and geological events, but those arguments are all based ultimately on magic.

Chumly wrote:

Since you claim that "The challenge for creationists is to explain why the evidence shows clear signs of evolution and no signs of magic" and since the creationists claim the underlying impetus is the literal interpretation of the Bible in a religious sense how do you reconcile your assertion?

How do I reconcile my assertion with what?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

My reference to cohesive and elegant relates to the patterns we see in nature, evolution being a major cohesive and elegant process as an example.

Part of my point, evolution does not have to take place in a cohesive and elegant manner and can in fact be isolated and erratic I suggest you look into the dynamics of small groups as one example.

rosborne979 wrote:

The point of my post is that creationists (and people who do not restrict themselves to naturalistic explanations) can "explain" everything. They just assume magic.

Creationists do not "assume magic", they believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible so at least to Creationists the difference is consequential, even if to you and me it may simply be a matter of semantics.

rosborne979 wrote:

How do I reconcile my assertion with what?

Your assertion that Creationists "assume magic" with the fact that Creationists would say that they do not "assume magic" but apply the literal interpretation of the Bible in a religious sense. Again to you and me it may be simply a matter of magic = religion, but it is not to Creationists.

rosborne979,
You and I are reading from the same book (so to speak) just maybe not the same page at the same time Smile

It's all good though, and I don't have much respect for those Creationist wieners either.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Your assertion that Creationists "assume magic" with the fact that Creationists would say that they do not "assume magic" but apply the literal interpretation of the Bible in a religious sense. Again to you and me it may be simply a matter of magic = religion, but it is not to Creationists.

I disagree. Can you make a more detailed case for your argument.

The very nature of creationism is an assumption of magic. How can it be otherwise?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
My reference to cohesive and elegant relates to the patterns we see in nature, evolution being a major cohesive and elegant process as an example.
Part of my point, evolution does not have to take place in a cohesive and elegant manner and can in fact be isolated and erratic

I was talking about the patterns we see in nature which connect the various aspects of science, namely the correlation between geologic evidence and fossil evidence and timeframes for the Earth in particular.

You don't need to lecture me on the fact that random events can affect particular places and things.

Going back to the original post, my challenge to creationism is that even though magic can be used to explain any given event, it does not easily exlain the collection of events or the interconnected aspects of every day reality which all show a pattern of evolution (both biological and otherwise, stellar for example).

0 Replies

Let there be light . . .

POOF ! ! !

0 Replies

Are you trying to defame the cogency of poofism?
Of all the nerve

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Your assertion that Creationists "assume magic" with the fact that Creationists would say that they do not "assume magic" but apply the literal interpretation of the Bible in a religious sense. Again to you and me it may be simply a matter of magic = religion, but it is not to Creationists.

I disagree. Can you make a more detailed case for your argument.

The very nature of creationism is an assumption of magic. How can it be otherwise?

I'll try, but bear in mind I see no pragmatic difference between magic and religion. It would be the Creationists stance that such differences exist. However, for the sake of argument, I'll provide the dictionary definitions for magic and religion, to see if one could cull some differentiation.

Magic:

1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
2. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
3. A mysterious quality of enchantment: "For me the names of those men breathed the magic of the past" (Max Beerbohm).

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time" (John Milton).
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

Religion:

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
4. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
5. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
6. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Idiom:
get religion Informal
3. To become religious or devout.
4. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

You don't need to lecture me on the fact that random events can affect particular places and things.

I promise to be a good boy from now on, sire!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Your assertion that Creationists "assume magic" with the fact that Creationists would say that they do not "assume magic" but apply the literal interpretation of the Bible in a religious sense. Again to you and me it may be simply a matter of magic = religion, but it is not to Creationists.

I disagree. Can you make a more detailed case for your argument.

The very nature of creationism is an assumption of magic. How can it be otherwise?
I'll try, but bear in mind I see no pragmatic difference between magic and religion. It would be the Creationists stance that such differences exist. However, for the sake of argument, I'll provide the dictionary definitions for magic and religion...

That won't be necessary.

I don't suggest (as you did) that magic=religion. The two things are clearly not the same by definition.

However, I do say that creationism carries an inherent assumption of magic.

And putting our (Ros and Chumley's) understanding of things aside, I would think that most creationists would recognize that their beliefs carry an assumption of magic, even if they prefer to call that magic "miracles", or the "hand of God".

Perhaps one of them will show up here and speak for themselves on whether they consider acts of God (like creation) to be magic.

0 Replies

Creation Museum

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know