Creationism museum to be protested...

[SwedishMeatball]

As long as they don't use my tax money, I don't care either. But it does seem a little disingenous to be spurprised that there are potests when we know full well the same would be true if the situations were reversed.

I thought I read earlier in the thread that this specific museum was privately funded, but I'm not certain. There are lots of things my tax dollars support that I don't agree with, but such is life. What the topic of this thread boils down to for me is freedom of expression, and I'll support that.

 

[Charade]

??? What "jabs" ? That creationism is a lie? It is. It's an illogical argument created by those that can not or refuse to understand evolutionary theory (and, again, "theory" is a procedural term...it isn't a guess...Gravity is also a "theory", but that doesn't make it any less real).

Minor correction. Gravity is a law.

 

[wvrevy]

Minor correction. Gravity is a law.

Been covered...keep reading. My fault for not being clear enough.

 

[Charade]

I don't stand outside churches ridiculing those that enter. But if someone knocks on my door, they deserve what they get. Your beliefs are your beliefs, and you have every right to them. But if you put them "out there" - in the form of a museum or in the form of a post on a message board - then why should it be considered rude to post differing opinions?

Because it's rude to ridicule. Which you do often to those that have religious beliefs.

That's not quite the same as having an opinon that just differs.

 

[wvrevy]

Because it's rude to ridicule. Which you do often to those that have religious beliefs.

That's not quite the same as having an opinon that just differs.

That's simply not true, John. I may ridicule their religion, but I do not attack them personally. My opinion may be strongly against religion, but that doesn't make it against them personally.

 

[TheBellhop]

I hope the children are influenced.

I hope not.

Why should the bible be taken literally? Wouldn't it be more effective in it's teachings if the reader took it on a metaphorical level?

 

[Narnian_Princess]

I hope not.

Why should the bible be taken literally? Wouldn't it be more effective in it's teachings if the reader took it on a metaphorical level?

Why should any ancient text (or modern text, for that matter) be taken literally? Why should that science book be taken literally, or that math book, or that biography of Abraham Lincoln? Shouldn't they be interpreted metaphorically as well? Oh, that's right, they're fact. Well how does anyone know that the Bible is NOT fact? Just because it puts forth an idea some are uncomfortable believing does not make it false, just as if I don't believe that 2+2=4 or that "she" is a pronoun doesn't make the book false. If I refuse to believe that Benjamin Franklin flew a kite and discovered electricity, does that mean he didn't exist and therefore should not even be considered? I think not!

 

[Kath2003]

This is exactly why I have no intention of teaching my future children about a specific religion but a little bit about ALL of them (at least the major ones: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism...). Kids don't belong to a religion - they're not old enough to understand. When they're old enough to choose a religion - or none - I'll support that decision, but I'm sure as heck not going to make that decision for them!

 

[wvrevy]

Why should any ancient text (or modern text, for that matter) be taken literally? Why should that science book be taken literally, or that math book, or that biography of Abraham Lincoln? Shouldn't they be interpreted metaphorically as well? Oh, that's right, they're fact. Well how does anyone know that the Bible is NOT fact? Just because it puts forth an idea some are uncomfortable believing does not make it false, just as if I don't believe that 2+2=4 or that "she" is a pronoun doesn't make the book false. If I refuse to believe that Benjamin Franklin flew a kite and discovered electricity, does that mean he didn't exist and therefore should not even be considered? I think not!

Umm...it is not up to the non-believer to prove that God doesn't exist. It is up to the believer - should they choose to participate in debate on the subject - to prove that he does. I can easily prove that 2+2=4, that Abraham Lincoln did in fact live, and just about anything else you'd like to point out in a science or math text. I'd venture to say you'd have a hard time proving that Jesus was the son of god, that the entire world's animals fit on an ark, or about a million other things from the bible. Therein lies the very obvious difference. Science and math do not require your belief. They simply exist as proveable reality. Religion? Not so much.

 

[Kath2003]

If any particular religion was factually proven, everyone would believe it. Religion inherently requires a leap of faith and that leap of faith is getting more and more difficult as science answers more and more questions.

 

[TheBellhop]

Why should any ancient text (or modern text, for that matter) be taken literally? Why should that science book be taken literally, or that math book, or that biography of Abraham Lincoln? Shouldn't they be interpreted metaphorically as well? Oh, that's right, they're fact. Well how does anyone know that the Bible is NOT fact? Just because it puts forth an idea some are uncomfortable believing does not make it false, just as if I don't believe that 2+2=4 or that "she" is a pronoun doesn't make the book false. If I refuse to believe that Benjamin Franklin flew a kite and discovered electricity, does that mean he didn't exist and therefore should not even be considered? I think not!

Mhmm.

So Jesus' parables should be taken literally?

 

[SwedishMeatball]

I don't think anyone will ever have all the answers. I'm open-minded to the possibilities of lot of things and I'm not threatened by people with differences of opinions. Do we really need another dead end thread debating believers vs non-believers?? I mean feel free to debate away, but I thought the issue brought up in the OP was whether this museum has a place in our society. I believe it does because I support freedom of thought, regardless of whether or not it agrees with my thinking.

 

[Narnian_Princess]

Umm...it is not up to the non-believer to prove that God doesn't exist. It is up to the believer - should they choose to participate in debate on the subject - to prove that he does.

Why? It's just as hard to prove inconclusively that God does NOT exist as it is to prove that He DOES.

I can easily prove that 2+2=4, that Abraham Lincoln did in fact live, and just about anything else you'd like to point out in a science or math text.

Fine, so can I. Let's talk history, now; just HOW can you prove that, say... Pharaoh Sobekneferu existed? She's documented in a few sources. THAT'S undeniable proof? God is documented in many sources, is that proof? If you choose not to believe that there was a Pharaoh Sobekneferu, does that make her any less real?

I'd venture to say you'd have a hard time proving that Jesus was the son of god, that the entire world's animals fit on an ark, or about a million other things from the bible.

Uh, all the world's animals did NOT fit in the ark, only 2 of each kind, a male and a female. But I'll assume that was a little slip-up and that you actually meant how can the Bible be proven. My answer, I don't know. I am not a theologian, heck, I'm not even a debater! I myself could not prove that anything that happened in the Bible actually happened, but really, that's the point of it I guess. GOD Himself is the only one who will be able to prove ANYTHING beyond any doubt. I certainly can't. If you're genuinely interested, ask a theologian.

Therein lies the very obvious difference. Science and math do not require your belief. They simply exist as proveable reality. Religion? Not so much.

Any theory requires a belief. You believe that gravity is a result of the mass of a body pulling other objects toward it. Thus, all the evidence supports that. But if someone believed that gravity worked differently, then they could find evidence to support that belief. Everything is subjective. I believe in God so I can find evidence to support the idea that He existed. You don't believe, so your evidence supports the idea that He doesn't. However, as I said, I'm not a theologian or a scientist. I don't know off the top of my head the evidence for a creator. All I'm saying is everything, and I mean EVERYTHING requires belief of some kind. How else would placebos work? Belief is powerful. Just because you choose to believe something doesn't make it fact and vice versa.

 

[Kath2003]

Why? It's just as hard to prove inconclusively that God does NOT exist as it is to prove that He DOES.

True. However by that logic, everyone is an atheist. You believe that God exists, but you cannot know that God exists (you can be 100% certain of your belief but that does not equate to KNOWING).

Science relies on "this is the best explanation we have for this right now". Of course theories get dismissed, disproved and replaced - that is what makes good science. The issue some people have with religion is that it does not acknowledge that it may be disproved, dismissed and replaced in any context, however small.

At the end of the day, all religions are interpretive, otherwise all Christians would believe the same things. As it is, they all share one belief - that Jesus was the son of your God. That's pretty much the only combining factor of Christianity globally. Why? Because it's based on a book, written 2-6,000 years ago, based on a faith, interpreted into thousands of different languages.

I personally don't believe in a God but I am happy that I would be forgiven by the Christian God for this because:

1. If your God created me, he created me not to believe.
2. If your God is all knowing, he knows why I cannot believe.
3. If your God is all powerful, he would give me a reason to believe.
4. I don't pride humans above any other beings in the animal kingdom. Different, yes. Supreme, no.

Plus a whole bunch of other reasons, logical inaccuracies etc.

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

Not to be a complete science dweeb but...

There is both gravitational theory and the law of gravity. Theories and laws (in science) mean different things. A law expresses the relation between observed events (often expressed mathematically...which is why we can calculate the gravitational force between, say, the Earth and the moon). However, a theory is an explanation for something that has been observed, based on which we can make predictions (how gravity actually works...how forces are inter-related, etc.)

In short, laws say "what", while theories say "why" and "how".

Therefore, there will never be a LAW of Evolution (although there are genetics laws, such as the law of independent assortment, law of segregation, etc.), because the theory of evolution is an EXPLANATION (a "why" or "how").

Heather

 

[jenfur]

1.I have searched for such articles claiming carbon dating to be uneffective and they have all been proven false.

2.How can anyone believe what you want to believe without taking facts into account?

3.I am bewildered and Catholic - genesis is a story not literal truth.

1. Thats a LOT of reading in a short amount of time. Keep going...

2. I often ask myself the same thing. I used to believe in evolution as a tool used by God to create and the gap theory, but then I realized how far off the mark it is. One of the criteria for any scientific theory is falsifiability. Evolution has been so strongly embraced and enlarged so that it is no longer falsifiable. Please understand that does not mean it is a fact, but that many would not accept any evidence that could potentially prove it to be false.

3. I believe the genesis model to be literal and true

 

[Kath2003]

Gotta say: if carbon dating WERE to be proven false, why would it still be used? It's used by millions globally of all religions - do you not think if there were any credible evidence towards scrapping it, they may have even questioned its reliability?

 

[jenfur]

Interesting links. So, it's based on a literal interpretation of the bible. So, god created the earth in 7 days? Then he rested? Why? Was he tired? I thought he could do everything. Why did creating a universe tire him out that he needed a day off? And to do what?
Didn't anyone connected with this museum ever see or read Inherit the Wind? No, probably not.

Yep, seven literal days.

He wasn't tired- he "rested" to signify that the act of creation was finished. Also, to admire his handiwork. Why to you take a vacation or lounge around the pool. Did you just work your butt off and need a break (maybe sometimes) but most of the time you "rest" just to enjoy life and your surroundings. Also, it was an example, yes- there were just a few humans but he knew there would be more (he knew every single one that was or will ever be in fact) and set the example for man to rest and enjoy creation.

Yeah, I have seen Inherit the Wind. Pretty good as a fictional account of an actual event.

 

[IMGONNABE40!]

That's simply not true, John. I may ridicule their religion, but I do not attack them personally. My opinion may be strongly against religion, but that doesn't make it against them personally.

People who are strong in their faith would feel that your ridiculing their religion is a personal attack--much like one who would ridicule my race or ethnicity.

 

[mirthmaiden]

So tell me, Joe - or some other "believer" - who created God? If the "evidence" of creation is the creation itself, then - by the same "logic" for god to "exist", he must have had a "creator".

Or...if it is ok for God to "just always have existed", then why can't the same thing be said for the universe?

And sorry, but no, it doesn't take any "faith" to "believe" in evolution. All it takes is the ability to think critically and the lack of ability to believe in the supernatural.

If you consider the meaning of the word faith, anything that has happened, or anything you think has happened, when you were not personally there to witness it must be taken on faith.

Is it possible that evolution is part of God's plan? I am a full 100% believer in creation and I can consider this possibility. Is it possible that God's ways are not necessarily easy for humans to apply their puny logic and structure?
Is it possible that time as we know it does not apply to God and that the term "day" is used to describe God's work so that we may come closer to understanding what is beyond our comprehension? I don't get why people always want to confine God to our systems and structures when, by nature, He cannot be confined.