Creation Museum

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mrow Unless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    They're presenting it as truth in a museum purposely intending to get more people to believe something they have no basis for claiming.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. mrow Unless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    There's no proof against either of those things. There is plenty against what they're claiming the age of the Earth is.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    and you don't think our schools are doing anything even remotely similar?
     
  8. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    LOL. And there is no proof FOR them either.
     
  9. mrow Unless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    I do. I didn't say I thought that was right either.
     
  10. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    Hmmm.... so from what I read here and there, this museum is mostly just to bring the bible into the halls, correct?

    I do support the notion of "why the fuss?" in this matter.... best consider it a bible visual show than an actual scientific museum (although the founder dubbing it a museum is quite a wrong thing to do indeed). Although bringing dinos while I don't specifically remember if they are even mentioned in bible sounds pretty stupid, I admit.....
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,096
    Not the ones who stick to science in the science classes.
     
  12. mrow Unless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    There are "photos" that claim to depict UFOs and Bigfoot. What they are actually of is up to the viewer. What would they fill a museum with? Theories with no evidence at all? And you're right curiocity, it should not be called a museum.
     
  13. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Look, unless you believe in mystical nonsense or that some supreme alien intelligence is behind life, the universe, and everything, then abiogenesis clearly happened.

    leopold99 seems to be saying that there is no proof of abiogenesis from purely natural means, and that is a fact.

    I am highly certain that natural abiogenesis happened. But has it been proven? No. Leo is simply stating a fact.

    Abiogenesis has zero to do with evolution by natural selection (which is well proven).
     
  14. RubiksMaster Real eyes realize real lies Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Again, private businesses have absolutely no responsibility or obligation to educate the public.

    If this were a government-funded museum, I might have a problem. But this is a private business, and they should have the right to claim whatever they want to. It's up to the consumer (museum-goer) to make the decision of what's fact and what's not.
     
  15. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    You would fill it with all the crap that is currently in the museum. And in the creationist museum you can actually saw its gvmt sanctioned teaching (Kansas was it??) where these other museums can't say that.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,096
    Leopold is saying somewhat more than that. He is drawing conclusions, from the lack of "proof", about what should and should not be taught in science classrooms, and the legitimacy of excluding certain other hypotheses from these classrooms.
    If that's all he were doing, the fact would be irrelevant here. There is no "proof " of anything, in science, let alone events of the distant past.

    But the opposite direction - evolution by selected variation has a great deal to do with abiogenesis - supplies at least one possible mechanism for the creation of reproductive complexity from simpler precursors. Without such a mechanism, abiogenesis would have a different kind of mystery at its theoretical foundation.

    That doesn't mean it is the correct mechanism - the one actually involved. It just provides something necessary for the practical consideration of abiogenesis, and in doing so suggests routes of inquiry - the hallmark of a fruitful hypothesis.

    Otherwise, the common assertion that we have only two (and not realistically distinguishable) choices - wildly improbable random event, designed intervention - would carry more weight.
     
  17. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Alright then. I can't really argue with that, since I agree with it. I've had this debate long ago with leo.
     
  18. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Those themes are not perceived as religion. An important characteristic of religion is that you 'spread the word', in other words as a religious person it's your duty to win souls.
    Not so with UFO and Bigfoot believers.
     
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Freedom of speech is sacred in America. The only curbs are:
    • Advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force. The government takes great care to protect itself.
    • Inciting a riot. This is sort of a baby version of the first one. Basically you're not allowed to abuse your freedom of speech to cause a breakdown of civilization, even just locally.
    • Fraud. You can't deliberately lie to someone for the purpose of manipulating him into doing something he would not otherwise do. This applies to claiming that your swamp land in Florida is actually valuable real estate in order to manipulate him into buying it. But it could just as well apply to the classic example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded darkened theater in order to manipulate the crowd into panicking and entertaining you with their confused actions.
    • Libel and slander. In my view this is just a special case of fraud: Telling lies about one person to manipulate other people into thinking less highly of him and changing the way they deal with him.
    • Conspiracy. This is a more recent law. You can't sit around with one or more other people and make plans to commit a crime. This is the way they catch mobsters, who are often too skilled at avoiding being linked to the actual crime itself. It has been suggested in fiction that it could be used to prosecute people who comspire to commit acts which might not be prosecuted in other countries but would be here. E.g., you and your brother-in-law plotting to send your adulterous wife on a vacation to visit your family in Crapistan, where they can get away with murdering her as punishment for adultery.
    • Hate speech. This is the newest law and one we libertarians are uncomfortable with. If you honestly hate someone then why should you be prohibited from saying so? As Homer Simpson put it, "What kind of a country is this when I can only hate somebody if he's white?" Talking publicly about such things has to be better than forcing the people to discuss it with other like-minded folks in a basement. As I always say, we need to keep the cockroaches on top of the linoleum. Otherwise they will go off and have a Holocaust Denial Festival in Tehran, where they won't be picketed by tatooed concentration camp survivors and people whose grandparents were murdered every time they step out of their hotel. SciForums prohibits racial hate speech and as a Moderator I do my duty and enforce it, but I don't like it. If it's not laced with obscenities, not directed at an individual member, and does not flout the scientific method, for example by being illogical or unsubstantiated, I think such discussions need to be held. I would much rather ban a racist because his argument is irrational or because his data is fraudulent; this would be much more educational to the other members.
    Other than that growing list, Americans are free to lie to each other and they're even more free to express their sincere beliefs.

    As Joseph Campbell wisely put it, how can you explain the difference between a lie and a myth? Not everyone understands the concept of metaphor.
     
  20. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    I really like that.
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i have not drawn any conclusions. every thing i have posted in this thread is a fact. if you doubt any of it then read the links i provided or supply evidence to support your side of the argument.

    a lie of omission is still a lie.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,096
    So ?

    I mean, that isn't true - some of your posted links, at least, contained counterfactual assertions (I highlighted a couple above). and this
    is directly false, as explained above also,

    but even if it were, so what?
    I think msot of us agree that these people have the right to put up a creationist "museum". And the rest of us have the right to say perfectly true and if possible funny things about it, them, and their apparent delusions - and warn the unwary.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i am not going to argue this point with you any longer.
    i've made my claims and backed them up.
    you have made your counter claims but have failed to provide any links.
    see ya later.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page