Creationist Museum Opens in Kentucky

[surferskin 30]

scientists understand that theories are only as good as the info they are based on. It's not "faith", it's "this is as good as we have at this time". Having faith in it would mean stopping all research and believing that all is now known as well as we are meant to know it. I would say that most scientists have, in fact, the exact opposite of faith since they keep challenging "knowledge".

are we talking about scientists or the people on this bored that are so quick to mock any opposing views to evolution? the people here tend to regard the latest evolutionary thought of the day as "fact". IMO that takes quite a leap of faith.

[Isotopes 1]

lemme get this straight. it takes zero faith to believe in evolution BUT scientist's theories change all the time when they realize they were wrong? so you're not putting your faith in theories that might be proved wrong tomorrow because of new data?

 

You are just basing your belief on the best imformation possible. IMO, There is a difference between belief and faith. I believe in evolution, I don't have faith in it.

[Sergeant Bri 0]

It's not "faith", it's "this is as good as we have at this time". Having faith in it would mean stopping all research and believing that all is now known as well as we are meant to know it. I would say that most scientists have, in fact, the exact opposite of faith since they keep challenging "knowledge".

 

i agree that 'faith' isn't the right word for lending creedence to scientific theory.

 

it's not that scientists 'believe' in evolution like an article of personal faith. every unanswered question is constantly being explored. new questions are being asked.

 

the whole driving force behind science is that we do not know the full truth. it's not 'faith' that we do know the full truth.

[Blitzen 0]

are we talking about scientists or the people on this bored that are so quick to mock any opposing views to evolution? the people here tend to regard the latest evolutionary thought of the day as "fact". IMO that takes quite a leap of faith.

 

I am talking about scientists. That is what we are talking about right?

 

As far as people on this board, I would have to say that I've seen more blind faith displayed in political discussions than in scientific discussions.

[surferskin 30]

you believe in something that might not be true but there's no faith involved...gotcha.

 

I am talking about scientists. That is what we are talking about right?

no, i was actually talking about the people here that love to pick apart creation but won't ever use that same "question EVERYTHING" view of evolution.

[Sergeant Bri 0]

you believe in something that might not be true but there's no faith involved...gotcha.

no, it's more like i have a deck containing 51 queens and an ace.

 

i show you a card face down and ask you to identify it.

 

you say it's a queen.

 

do you have 'faith' that it's a queen? no.

 

it just seems much more likely than not that it's a queen.

 

this is why faith isn't the right word, and 'believe' can also be interpreted in a sense that does not truly apply.

[MDC 7,181]

are we talking about scientists or the people on this bored that are so quick to mock any opposing views to evolution? the people here tend to regard the latest evolutionary thought of the day as "fact". IMO that takes quite a leap of faith.

 

My folks are pretty devout Christians and I wouldn't mock their beliefs even though I don't share them. Really, I don't think creationism and evolution necessarily contradict one another. Couldn't God have created the original organisms that evolved into what they are today?

 

What I do mock are people who put creationism on the same plane as evolutionary theory. We have carbon dated fossils that show incremental changes in animals over time. This is concrete evidence of evolution. There is no scientific evidence of a creator. That does not mean God doesn't exist - just that he can't be measured through scientific means.

 

Also, there are problems with Darwin's original theory but organisms evolving over time in response to their environment and via natural selection is indisputable fact. And finally, I have no real problem with creationist beliefs but it is really irresponsible IMO to teach kids fictions about man living alongside dinosaurs. You can raise a kid Christian without making him or her stupid.

[Cdub100 3,851]

I think it's both.

 

No matter how far back in time you go at some point something had to be created out of nothing. If you believe all the mass in the Universe was centered at one point then exploded (big bang) That's fine, but how did that point of mass get there. If you believe in parallel universe that had to be one singular universe to spawn them off.

 

The point is at some point someone had to create.

 

That being said. I think God put things in motion billions upon billions of years ago. He put in the code to evolve. He would be stupid not too

[Rybo5 0]

Really, I don't think creationism and evolution necessarily contradict one another.

 

Again, it depends on what kind of creation you're talking about. Some people do see creation as "god" creating the "stuff" and going from there. Others dismiss evolution entirely and go with whatever a particular religion tells them, such as humans appearing out of thin air.

[surferskin 30]

no, it's more like i have a deck containing 51 queens and an ace.

 

i show you a card face down and ask you to identify it.

 

you say it's a queen.

 

do you have 'faith' that it's a queen? no.

 

it just seems much more likely than not that it's a queen.

 

this is why faith isn't the right word, and 'believe' can also be interpreted in a sense that does not truly apply.

yeah, but you could be wrong and that's the point. (not saying you) but they way people go out of the way to make it seem like creationists are idiots, YOU'D think they were 100% certain they were right in their "belief".

 

I know people LOVE polls around here so here's one from Gallup:

 

 

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=23470&pg=1

 

June 23, 2006

Who Believes in God and Who Doesn't?

Belief in God correlated with socioeconomic status

 

by Frank Newport

 

Seventy-two percent of Americans are certain there is a God and have no doubts, while another 14% think that God probably exists and have only a few doubts. Only 3% are certain that God does not exist. There are no significant differences in belief in God by age. Men, those living in the East and West, those who are college graduates, and those with high incomes are less likely to believe in God than others.

 

so 86% of people in the US believe there is a God. why is it soooo dumb to believe he had a hand in creation?

[Rybo5 0]

so 86% of people in the US believe there is a God. why is it soooo dumb to believe he had a hand in creation?

 

Sorry, but what the majority believes is irrelevant to what's actually true. Also, I think asking someone about "belief in god" requires way more elaboration. "Belief in god" can mean a great many things, so it's pointless to make a poll like that. HTH!

[Sergeant Bri 0]

yeah, but you could be wrong and that's the point. (not saying you) but they way people go out of the way to make it seem like creationists are idiots, YOU'D think they were 100% certain they were right in their "belief".

 

i'll agree that it'd be better to be more tolerant of other ideas.

 

of course tolerance doesn't mean they can't think these ideas are ridiculous.

 

i myself see no contradiction between belief in God and subscribing to our present scientific understanding of the origins of all things.

[D_House 0]

 

Again, Evolutionary theory does NOT explain, nor attempt to explain, the origin of life. However, there do exist theories with minimal experimentally confirmed evidence as to exactly how life as we know it started. These do not fall under evolutionary theory. Darwin's theory of evolution starts from the first living organism, and goes on from there.

 

If you look how he described how that organism got here ..."into which life was first breathed..." he clearly leaves room for a number of explanations for the origin of life, but the language used strongly suggests something or someone actively providing that first 'breath.'

[MDC 7,181]

Again, it depends on what kind of creation you're talking about. Some people do see creation as "god" creating the "stuff" and going from there. Others dismiss evolution entirely and go with whatever a particular religion tells them, such as humans appearing out of thin air.

 

Those people (bold) are just objectively wrong, just like people who believe man co-existed with dinosaurs in biblical times are wrong. It's not "intolerant" to point that out.

[Blitzen 0]

you believe in something that might not be true but there's no faith involved...gotcha.

no, i was actually talking about the people here that love to pick apart creation but won't ever use that same "question EVERYTHING" view of evolution.

 

The only faith I have is that science will keep coming up with better explanations for things. HTH. Perhaps another way to put it is that I have faith in the human brain coming up with new ways of looking at things.

 

You keep getting mixed up: as a scientist your job is to keep finding a better explanation for how things truly come about. It's not to blindly believe in one theory or another. If you are, then you're a lousy scientist. The current theories are just stepping stones. I realize this is very hard to understand for folks looking for absolutes to believe in however. Think of it this way: if science was faith based, we would have never explained how lightning truly comes about. We'd still be cringing in fear of the Gods who shoot it out of the skies. But somebody decided to look into it a little more closely...

 

And on Intelligent design, answer me the following: about 30% of all human conceptions are naturally aborted. How could God, whom I would think is pro-life, design humans so that 30% of all conceptions abort by themselves?

[surferskin 30]

 

Again, Evolutionary theory does NOT explain, nor attempt to explain, the origin of life. However, there do exist theories with minimal experimentally confirmed evidence as to exactly how life as we know it started. These do not fall under evolutionary theory. Darwin's theory of evolution starts from the first living organism, and goes on from there.

 

If you look how he described how that organism got here ..."into which life was first breathed..." he clearly leaves room for a number of explanations for the origin of life, but the language used strongly suggests something or someone actively providing that first 'breath.'

so what is the opinion of the scientific community that regard evolution as settled science? that God got evolution started? pleazzzze... don't act like it's like an either or subject.

[Rybo5 0]

How could God, whom I would think is pro-life, design humans so that 30% of all conceptions abort by themselves?

 

He works in mysterious ways, my son.

[surferskin 30]

And on Intelligent design, answer me the following: about 30% of all human conceptions are naturally aborted. How could God, whom I would think is pro-life, design humans so that 30% of all conceptions abort by themselves?

great question: why do babies die? why is the sky blue? why isn't every guy in the world 6'5" with a 12" dong, rich, have supermodel for a wife and win their FF league every year...like us geeks.

[D_House 0]

so what is the opinion of the scientific community that regard evolution as settled science? that God got evolution started? pleazzzze... don't act like it's like an either or subject.

Of course scientists are going to look for testable hypotheses for the origin of life, but there is no unified position on the origin of life, just like there is no unified position on the origin of the universe. There is debate as to whether it was metabolism (proteins), DNA, or RNA that were the first molecules of 'life.' There are questions about the "primordial soup" experiments: firstly whether the results reported were accurate and can be reproduced, and secondly whether they accurately reflected the environment of the nascent Earth.

 

But again, this has nothing to do with evolution.

[Blitzen 0]

The point is at some point someone had to create.

 

No the point is that we have no focking idea how a good chunk of the universe works.

 

And who would've put that someone there in the first place? If you believe that that someone was always there, then why is it not just as likely that matter has always been there and didn't need to be created?

 

But to think that we'll NEVER know may be very short sighted. If scientists operated like that a few hundred years ago, we would have missed out on an awful lot of stuff. I don't think scientists can demonstrate a God's existence but they can work on many theories I have no hope of understanding to look at how the universe may (or may not) work.

[Rybo5 0]

so what is the opinion of the scientific community that regard evolution as settled science?

 

What scientific community is this? The way it works is that evolution in general is currently the agreed upon theory. Everything about isn't known, but there is certain evidence to support it. Religious creation stories such as the one in christianity are just stories and have no evidence whatsoever to back them up, so there's no point in discussing it scientifically. Also, any kind of discussion about how the original universal "stuff" went from non-existence to existence(if that's even the way it really works) is also kind of pointless right now, because in the cosmic clock, we just arrived. If you want to subscribe to any particular religion's creation story, that's great, but don't bother trying to justify these stories scientifically, because there's no basis for that.

[surferskin 30]

Of course scientists are going to look for testable hypotheses for the origin of life, but there is no unified position on the origin of life, just like there is no unified position on the origin of the universe. There is debate as to whether it was metabolism (proteins), DNA, or RNA that were the first molecules of 'life.' There are questions about the "primordial soup" experiments: firstly whether the results reported were accurate and can be reproduced, and secondly whether they accurately reflected the environment of the nascent Earth.

 

But again, this has nothing to do with evolution.

everyone knows this and yet you keep chiming in like you've just invented electricity and we're all sitting in the dark. i pretty sure everyone knows what this basic discussion is about. now run along and pretend to be a liberal/conservative in every political thread. really that stuff is just gold.

[El Barton 8]

i just think it's funny how people that nitpick the hell out of the intelligent design theory don't ever turn the keen eye of observation on evolution. there's noway you can can believe everything about the theory of evolution without the same faith that it takes to believe in creation.

 

I'm not finished reading this entire thread, but please explain and cite examples.

[Blitzen 0]

great question: why do babies die? why is the sky blue? why isn't every guy in the world 6'5" with a 12" dong, rich, have supermodel for a wife and win their FF league every year...like us geeks.

 

You're right, those are some great questions. Some of which we have answers for and some we don't.

 

But how can pro-lifers complain about abortion clinics when their own God apparently designed the human body to naturally abort conceptions 30% of the time? It's not OK to abort babies for reasons like "he's the product of a rape of a 14-year old girl" or "she will grow up in a crack house to parents who don't know she's alive" but it's OK for God to kill those same potential babies for no discernible reasons whatsoever? mkay.

[D_House 0]

everyone knows this and yet you keep chiming in like you've just invented electricity and we're all sitting in the dark. i pretty sure everyone knows what this basic discussion is about. now run along and pretend to be a liberal/conservative in every political thread. really that stuff is just gold.

wtf? i answered your question. no idea what you're talking about the other stuff.

 

i myself see no contradiction between belief in God and subscribing to our present scientific understanding of the origins of all things.

This is the point I'm trying to make. Evolution makes room for atheists, agnostics, and the religious all to determine what provided the origins of all things. Using 'faith' with respect to belief in evolution is entirely inaccurate because evolution is based on a growing mountain of physical, experimental evidence. Really surferskin, don't take my posts so personally, I haven't even said what my own personal beliefs on creation are, and I think they may align closer to yours than you think.

[El Barton 8]

God: "Hmmm... and I'll make some ponies, and some birdies and some more birdies"

 

"And some insects for the birdies to eat, and some plants for the insects to eat"

 

"And some hippos and tigers and bears"

 

"And there's some dinosaurs"

 

"Oh fock!!!! Oh fock!!! The dinosaurs are eating everyone!! Fock!!! Fock!!! EXTINCTION!!! EXTINCTION!!!"

 

"Whew! That was dumb of me. Now where was I. Oh yeah! And some fishies, and some more fishies..."

LMAO! Like playing some of those old life simulators!

[Blitzen 0]

LMAO! Like playing some of those old life simulators!

 

Anyways we all know that we're just part of a very large experiment run by mice to determine the most important question in the Universe who's answer is 42.

[El Barton 8]

Anyways we all know that we're just part of a very large experiment run by mice to determine the most important question in the Universe who's answer is 42.

 

The question is: what is 9 x 5

[remote controller 143]

"In the Beginning God Created the Heaven's and the Earth"

 

 

[El Barton 8]

You're right, those are some great questions. Some of which we have answers for and some we don't.

 

But how can pro-lifers complain about abortion clinics when their own God apparently designed the human body to naturally abort conceptions 30% of the time? It's not OK to abort babies for reasons like "he's the product of a rape of a 14-year old girl" or "she will grow up in a crack house to parents who don't know she's alive" but it's OK for God to kill those same potential babies for no discernible reasons whatsoever? mkay.

pffft...everybody KNOWS the devil is trying to use these women to populate the earth. Those children would be the devil's spawn! God must know that and he/she/it stops it before it happens.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

My folks are pretty devout Christians and I wouldn't mock their beliefs even though I don't share them. Really, I don't think creationism and evolution necessarily contradict one another. Couldn't God have created the original organisms that evolved into what they are today?

 

What I do mock are people who put creationism on the same plane as evolutionary theory. We have carbon dated fossils that show incremental changes in animals over time. This is concrete evidence of evolution. There is no scientific evidence of a creator. That does not mean God doesn't exist - just that he can't be measured through scientific means.

 

Also, there are problems with Darwin's original theory but organisms evolving over time in response to their environment and via natural selection is indisputable fact. And finally, I have no real problem with creationist beliefs but it is really irresponsible IMO to teach kids fictions about man living alongside dinosaurs. You can raise a kid Christian without making him or her stupid.

I once knew a carbon scientist. I don't think that was his title, but it is what he did. He explained to me that carbon dating is by no stretch a perfect science. He told me there are at least ten methods for carbon dating. Each method comes up with different dates. He said of the 10, 4 show ages in the millions and billions of years. And 6 showed ages in the thousands and tens of thousands of years.

[remote controller 143]

"Create in me a clean heart oh God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the Joy of Thy Salvation, and uphold me with Thy Free Spirit." amen

[Blitzen 0]

I once knew a carbon scientist. I don't think that was his title, but it is what he did. He explained to me that carbon dating is by no stretch a perfect science. He told me there are at least ten methods for carbon dating. Each method comes up with different dates. He said of the 10, 4 show ages in the millions and billions of years. And 6 showed ages in the thousands and tens of thousands of years.

 

He prolly wasn't much of a scientist since it's pretty well known that carbon dating can only be reliable up to about 50,000 years ago, due to its half life. Some techniques can extend that some but certainly not in the millions of years. Its best reliability lies in the 3,000 to 30,000 year range.

[El Barton 8]

I once knew a carbon scientist. I don't think that was his title, but it is what he did. He explained to me that carbon dating is by no stretch a perfect science. He told me there are at least ten methods for carbon dating. Each method comes up with different dates. He said of the 10, 4 show ages in the millions and billions of years. And 6 showed ages in the thousands and tens of thousands of years.

 

wow, there really aren't that many methods for carbon dating. Carbon dating relies on the decay of the radioactive element carbon-14. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5,700 years. This method can't be used to date fossils more than 40-60,000 years old. However, this principle applies to other radioactive elements like potassium-40. It's half like is 1.3 billion years. (Thus extending our ability to date fossils)

[D_House 0]

God: "Hmmm... and I'll make some ponies, and some birdies and some more birdies"

 

"And some insects for the birdies to eat, and some plants for the insects to eat"

 

"And some hippos and tigers and bears"

 

"And there's some dinosaurs"

 

"Oh fock!!!! Oh fock!!! The dinosaurs are eating everyone!! Fock!!! Fock!!! EXTINCTION!!! EXTINCTION!!!"

 

"Whew! That was dumb of me. Now where was I. Oh yeah! And some fishies, and some more fishies..."

Missed this the first time through.

[wiffleball 4,788]

God: "Hmmm... and I'll make some ponies, and some birdies and some more birdies"

 

"And some insects for the birdies to eat, and some plants for the insects to eat"

 

"And some hippos and tigers and bears"

 

"And there's some dinosaurs"

 

"Oh fock!!!! Oh fock!!! The dinosaurs are eating everyone!! Fock!!! Fock!!! EXTINCTION!!! EXTINCTION!!!"

 

"Whew! That was dumb of me. Now where was I. Oh yeah! And some fishies, and some more fishies..."

 

 

Very funny stuff.