Creation Museum

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Enmos, Nov 28, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455

    where have i said life must have arisen by supernatural means?

    thank you james. at least you are man enough to admit it.
    because that is what people do when they don't have all the pieces.
    it's also why you must continually tell new posters that there is a difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

    i am not avoiding anything. i made a simple statement and everybodys brains just oozed out of their heads.

    i never said life didn't come from non life.
    i said "science has no proof that life came from non life naturally"
    the meaning behind that statement is that every scenario and every experiment performed to test abiogenesis has failed. period.
    frankly i find it amazing that fraggle rocker would get as stupid as he did in his last post over a simple observation.

    fraggle,
    do not put any more words in my mouth.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RubiksMaster Real eyes realize real lies Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    To be humble? To think that there is a force more powerful than me? That's hubris? I'd better call up the folks at Merriam-Webster, ASAP.

    Straw man. That's completely not what I'm claiming.

    That's EXACTLY my point. Religion is NOT scientific theory. It should never be used to answer scientific questions. That was my whole point about science and religion being completely unrelated.

    Yes, I see, because a different person's belief has so much bearing on your own existence. You teach kids to be so intolerant to what other people are so much as thinking.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    This is a fact.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    More to the point I think is that unsupportable opinion is being offered and propounded as fact, somehow on the same level as scientific evidence and analysis.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    thank you.
     
  9. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    No, it is not. Much of the supporting evidence of these theories has been tested in lab. There have been no tests that prove the theory entirely, though. That may have been what was meant by you, but leopold's words were 100% false.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
  11. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Hm, last time you linked me supporting evidence I had about a quarter of one hundred thousand words of text to read and only find it was off topic.

    And I will not be backing up something so well known and easy to find for you. Unlike people such as Enmos, I am content to let others wallow in their ignorance.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    anyone can pay lip service exhumed.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,057
    Even if every scenario and every experiment performed to "test abiogenesis" had created living beings right in the jar in five minutes, science would have no proof that life came from non-life "naturally".

    What you call the "meaning" is only indirectly related.

    Science has no proof the sky was blue over North America in the Middle Ages. But the hypothesis seems to fit a lot of the facts.

    The "tests" of abiogenesis provide info and argument about certain aspects or steps in hypothetical chains of event that might have been involved in abiogenesis. They have all succeeded in supplying such info, and therefore have none of them failed.

    We don't know the biochemical mechanisms involved in living beings' appearance on earth. On the other hand, we didn't even have a biochemical mechanism for evolutionary change in bacteria until 1960, something which was happening right in our test tubes at twenty minute intervals, so maybe it's a little early to give up as failed the elucidation of a sequence of events that took place more than 3 billion years ago.
     
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Which is what this thread is about. Did you read the OP ?? :bugeye:
     
  15. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Yeah…that’s definitely what Jesus would want people spending $27 million on – a museum with pictures of cave men riding around on dinosaurs. Not something silly like, you know, giving shelter to the homeless, food to the starving, or medical care to the sick. I'm sure that if Jesus were here he would totally pat you on the back and compliment you on your priorities.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I just love how Christians make a huge deal out of believing that the Earth is 10000 years old and that life arose by magic when god clapped his hands, but them conveniently ignore most of the actual explicit instructions from Jesus in the New Testament.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2007
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    You did not. I'm responding to your actual statement:
    . . . by pointing out that the fundies "become thoroughly unglued" when we say that life (like absolutely everything else in the universe) must have arisen by natural means. It is the fundies who throw their hands up in the air and give up on science because we haven't solved all the riddles of nature yet. Forgive me for appearing to misquote you, that was not my intention. Pointing out that we have not yet proven that abiogenesis is possible is usually the first salvo in an attack on the theory of evolution. We are understandably tired of having to constantly fend off the forces of darkness in a website that is supposed to be a place where people come to learn and discuss science. As a Moderator, my approach to the problem is to define "trolling" in more detail so that we can delete their posts and toss them out on their butts, instead of having to repeat the same response fifty times to people who aren't going to read it anyway, in order to serve the people who do come here looking for science. Most of the offenders truly are trolls who are not interested or capable of scientific discussion.
    There already is a force more powerful than you. Four of them actually: Gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. It's human hubris to insist that the universe cannot possibly be ruled by these soulless, mindless, compassionless natural forces, but must instead be ruled by a supernatural being that is so very much like a giant Homo sapiens.
    Sorry, I've posted my advice about emigration so often that I've apparently condensed it beyond the point of comprehension. I'm not urging people to leave America because they can't tolerate religion. If that were all of it, I would urge them to stay and fight for rationality. My point is that the anti-science, anti-rationality program of the Religious Redneck Retard movement is very likely to destroy our economy. Who would want their children to live in a place that was not only ruled by RRR's, but also abjectly poor, possibly a vassal state of China?

    Not to mention, the mutual intolerance of the two leading cults of Abrahamism is leading to the resumption of the Crusades. I don't want to be collateral damage in that war and die for a cause I despise.
     
  17. RubiksMaster Real eyes realize real lies Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    True, but when everyone was accusing leopold of being religious, it got off topic, and turned into a hate-fest. Even though I was agreeing with the OP, but all I got was a whole slew of hatred by Fraggle Rocker.
     
  18. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    692
    ya know.....I was awe-struck today.....I brought up the creationist musiem to a few people I work with and meet throughout my normal day........

    almost HALF of them.......belived the world was only 6,000 years old......

    needless to say my jaw dropped and I asked each and every one of them......."WHY??!!!"

    among the various replies all of which were illogical and flew in the face of every day common knowledge KNOWN science......I could do nothing.....I was speechless.......


    I didnt know this belief was that common........I had no idea until I asked.....
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2007
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    That'll larn ya fact checkers. Meh
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    james,
    this is a part of what i was saying earlier:
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution11.htm

    as you can see abiogenesis and evolution are treated as the same theory.
    personally i've never heard the word abiogenesis before i started posting here.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,057
    As I can see they are not, not even close:
    Two representative quotes from your link:
    That clearly separates ordinary Darwinian biological evolution from abiogeneses, and the site goes one to retail a common creationist error, confusing the matter:
    That second statement is not true - instead of "random" chemical processes, evolutionary accumulation of complexities is possible.
     
  22. mrow Unless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    I agree with you, Enmos. And they never should be able to even make a museum like that in the first place without making it very clear to anyone that visits that none of it is based on fact and is merely a suggested view.
     
  23. RubiksMaster Real eyes realize real lies Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Why should they have to make that clear? Private businesses have no obligation to educate the public.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page