Creation Museum

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aegiltheugly Registered Member

    Messages:
    19
    Dinosaurs are still living with us. They keep crapping on my car.:shrug:
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Is this musuem a crime?

    I find it funny that this museum would be attacked for it's fictional account of history. There should be no doubt that it is fiction. The facts will never get though to people that believe here is something that can override common sense.

    But that does not make the Darwin fans right either. They are partners in crime with the creationists. The banner of truth and fact is often waved by the "scientific" side of the argument. Yet the "crime" of telling people of lies in the name of fact has a new name; "science". I am not talking about the entire body of "science", without a doubt, much of it is fact. But people did not come from a goo. What did they come from? Who knows, but there are no facts at all that support evolution from goo as the cause. Far from it.

    Did God do it? Not in my opinion, but at least such an opinion is creative on the order of magnitude of what it would take. While goo is not even creative. There are trillions of things that most all happen at once and in exact ways for life to get started.

    The religions of history have a stained record of bad behavior. Yet the high and mighty "Scientific World" has mist something. The religions had some sensible things about them, and that it was men at exact times in history that perverted it into the subject that deserves the scorn it now gets. But today these men of perversion are now working for the sciences. And so too do the facts slide away from truth and into lies that should not be questioned.

    I say it is funny that this museum would be put down by men that are guilty of the same thing they scorn. Solid belief in what they were told was true and never questioned. Did it even occur you personally (I am talking to anyone scientific or religions creationists) that man has had a pattern of turning back and forth from religion to science and back to religion and so on because he has a tendency to blur the truth? Religion cleans itself up and says some right answers and people go for it. Then becomes corrupt and people can't help but see it. So they go to science, a subject with the purpose of pulling out of the lies religion holds so dear. But soon becomes corrupt with the lies of "too complex for you to undrstand" and money (the same thing that corrupts religion) and soon becomes evil. Then comes the religion talking of the evil science that perverts men. Back and forth, new names, new places but the same habits.

    At this time religion deserves to be tomatoes and boos it is getting. "Religion is faith" is a joke because you are not a joke. You are a fact. Thus faith need not apply. And "science" claims your brain gives you life. This is scientific garbage. It is fact that the brain is not capable of sustaining the phenomenon of life. They have known this for over a hundred years. Yet it is still "fact". Do I mean that you should all turn to god for this? No, of course not. But fact is fact.

    You want to know what has been proven about the brain? The brain could be thought of as a dashboard in a car. It registers how much fuel it has, the temp, everything you would want to know, it also has controls to make the body do all the things you can do. But not a trace of the higher functions. Only limited reactions when a higher functions is active but not enough for the function. THAT is a fact. If questioned as where these higher functions are taking place you will get the run around with scientific names and that you "just need to take my word for it". The "I would never tell you something that was not true" is where it all goes wrong. Because they are. Missing form it all is the driver. Who or what is driving? Billions spent on the brain could tell you how to change a persons thinking from clear to fuzzy and change behavior (of course, I mean try to drive with basic functions missing from the car) but not a single thought. Only where thoughts register. (you know, where the steering wheel is was easy for them)

    So, where is the truth? The brain, God, or none of the above? I have no answer for you. It is neither. Yet people are logical, or at least try to be. And hear in is the problem. All men will try to make sense of the world around them. Yet you need facts and data to think with something. You can't think with the unknown. That is the trap that locks these two subjects in place. If you are offered the Brain or God at least that is something. But both are wrong without question because either can not stand simple observation.

    Until a better answer is offered, people will gives their lives in the name of what they believe. They will gladly stand before an executioner, stuffed with lies, because to ask them to see what is right infront of them is worse then dieing without a clue. At least they believe in something and they can think with life and why they are being executed. You can't do that when you have no information at all.

    Let them have their museum. Let them say where they came form. It is all a lie, but until you have a better answer to give them, until you can get a crowbar in there between their own common sense and what they believe, the two will be bound with superglue, nails, bolts, welding, iron clamps and allot of hope and faith. The missing facts will fill the moment the person sees them with the very best answers the guy could come up with.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    Until you understand evolutionary theory, you will only be able to parrot ridiculous strawman versions of it. May I suggest http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    First I am not a creationist. And from your link:

    "1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all."

    Err... no I didn't.

    "2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life."

    no... I didn't do that either. have you ever seen how a cell works? I mean at the nano level? Forget complex proteins. Just look at the stuff moving around! I have never calculated proteins into this. I have no idea how many their are. But the cell is not made up of 1 or 2 parts. It has many more. Take away just one and it all fails! Even simple proteins will fail at the level I am talking about. It works because IT ALL WORKS! take one part out and that is it. We could not make one of those machines if we tried. And that is with trying!

    "3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials."

    Lol, I don't care if they clocked-in and clocked-out. Sequential trials would be worse. You need MANY parts all going at the same time in an exact way for it to work. You have the odds of each part forming AND that they form close enough to function/combine with the correct part. In a few cases there needs to be restraints to hold other functions in place. These odds STACK UP BIG TIME! how life got more complicated after that I don't care about. There is a base on which all this functions. The odds of stuff moving around by itself are even worse then what I said.

    "4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation."

    Right, I bet they tell everyone that. "You suck! You can't count!". No, it is easy to see that this is nothing more than a losers attempt at undermining the integrity of the numbers. But I am not that stupid. I have seen that the parts work. I have made machines before. They simply do not fall together like that. I wish they did!

    You want to know the odds? Take a computer of yours and tell it to generate at least a few billion random numbers. Then have it execute those numbers. Count the number of times it tries. The count ends when your computer comes to life with a real program that will continue itself and adapt, in other words it must live. You can up the random number count to a trillion if you like but remember we are not going for higher intelligence. If you have such faith in the origins of life, you should enjoy this. It is your holly grail. The number of tries that failed will not matter as each attempt is random. If it works you will prove everyone right. It needs allot going at once in the correct sequence. This is the same as what we are talking about. The living program will give you the odds you are looking for.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2007
  8. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Ok. You are using the word 'odds' here a lot. This is not what evolutionary theory is built upon. You are clearly a fan of 'irreducible complexity'.

    No one claims that the functional subparts of a cell just 'fell' together by chance. Chance plays a role in the following forms:

    - Environmental variation
    - Mutation

    But what evolution by natural selection says is that from the offerings made by the environment and mutation, organisms will be deterministically selected for or against.

    So, you can probably look up the articles that explain how a simple cell (or a human eye - that's another favorite example) can form from increasingly complex parts that served previously independent functions.

    Will you believe the explanations? Probably not. Your loss.
     
  9. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    "But people did not come from a goo."
    "I have made machines before. They simply do not fall together like that."

     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Eye is a particularly good development that illustrates how evolution developes very complex organs as all of the prior stages still exist. A simple amoeba is able to sense heat radiation and tends to avoid it. The Pit vipers have concentrated these heat sensors of Electromatic Magnetic radiation much to the regret of a warm-bodied mouse foolish enough to wander out on a cool night in the desert. These pits have become deeper in some other animals and in the Chambered Natulus the photo senstive surface is larger than the opening, which lets light in to the "deep nearly-circular pit." {I.e. its "eye" is a crude "pin hole" camera, but the opening has not yet formed any transpairent covering so the interior of its eye is filled with sea water.} Next came that tranpairent covering, which then thicked in the center to form a sharper image, etc. and finally the fully developed eye with distinct lense that mussels could distort to adjust some distance for maximiumally good focus.

    BTW this happened more than once. I.e. the octopuss is obviously God's preferred creatures as it not only has much bigger eyes (good for both collecting light and higher resolution) but also they are intelligently designed - not like the human eyes where the light sensitive retina cells are behind a shaddow casting net of blood vessels, two layers of data processing nerves - the light senstive cells of the octpus's retina are "up front" - the first thing the light fall upon. - clearly a parallel evolution path, only a better one than the one humans came from.

    The number of different paths and eye types that evolution has developed is quite large and some are very strange. One tiny organism has a single light senstive cell in each eye, but it is held by some fibers and can be moved around so it scans the full 2D "picture" much like the eletron beam in a Cathode Ray tube TV "paints" the picture on the screen.* I forget the name of this creature but there is a micro photograph of its eye in the book The Eye and the Brain.[/b] (one of he bests introductory books for anyone interested in vision).
    ----------------------
    *A good system for tiny slow moving creature. Why move the whole eye ball, just to look in another direction? Reduces brain requirements also as only process one pixel after another, not 100,000 or more in parallel.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2007
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    A lie is deliberate deceit. The problem with evolution denial, and the reason it's been given a respectable-sounding name that makes it appear to be a proper theory, is that people really do believe it. This isn't a cabal of psychotic Christian leaders desperately trying to shore up a Stone Age philosophy by hiding the truth from people. This is a breakdown of civilization in America.

    Of course we have to let them have their museum. Even if suppression of religion weren't a nasty thing to do, as a practical matter it never works. But since the government effectively nationalized the education industry, the American adults it turns loose have lost their power of critical thinking and they will not be able to spot the flaws in the museum's approach to science. Ironically, some of the church-run universities like Occidental College turn out better critical thinkers than the government's bureaucratic diploma mills.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,064
    There are a great many "facts" that support the hypothesis that people evolved, eventually, from goo. Including the fact that people are made of goo, of a kind that has been shown to evolve.
    That is false.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yet another one comes.
    what do you make of this james? fraggle?

    more evidence that science "lies" to our students.
    and you can't deny it, it's right there in black and white.

    come on guy, the concept of god is for children.
    i'm just not as rabid and fanatical about it as fraggle is.
     
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Good observations, but although I agree that "critical thinking individuals" are an endangered specise in the USA, I think their decline started with TV, not the government. Most Americans (and perhaps most others where entertaining TV is available) no longer are cazpable of thinking independantly. They are now so passive that effectively they are "brain dead." They are filled with opinions and gradually these opinons come to have much in common and fall into a few distinct groups. Thus most people can be characterized by a few adjectives, like liberal, capitalist, Luthern, Republican, socialist, etc. and they do not really think but only repeat the "party line" of their group.

    Pre TV people wrote each other thoughful letters and discussed significant things in them. Now, in addition to family news, about the only thing you will find in letters (and dam few ever write any) is some comments on the latest turn of some soap opera. I am active here, in part, as a few of this vanishing species, like you, do still survive, and post more than one line quips that reflect some thought capacity and ability to discuse an issue rationally instead of just repeat the "party line" of their group.

    Why do you blame the government for this sad turn of events?
     
  15. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    i'm a huge fan of this museum...

    by it's mere existence it reveals so much about the 'secular' and the 'scientific' community... it's fascinating to watch...

    that's what i like most about it...

    the unnatural fixation it draws from those who present themselves as logical and rational and unconcerned with things of the spirit or religion...

    they actually teach dinosaurs and man, and 6000 years?... lol...

    AWESOME!!!
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page