GT

6 Volt Battery Hack! You'll Be Amazed! - video powered by Metacafe

There is no indication that they ever had anything to do with TWI. Just picked a name for their group using words from the Bible.

Full story of the lawsuit, along with the original complaint filed in U.S. Federal Court is on GS's main site. Feel sorry for them. Probably don't have the money to feed lawyers like TWI is retaining.

Sounds like they're running another one of their doom's day scenarios. Always good for putting a scare into their drones, upping the commitment level. I guess they're overdue for one. Been awhile since they had one. The Y2K scare didn't work out to well.

Kind of like IM. If you want to "Shout" something to everyone on the board, it's the place to do it. There's also a complete history of all the shouts. Click the "Shoutbox" link on the main menu at the top (between "Live Chat" and "Calendar"). Currently, only logged in users can see it.

I took the time to look up what you're referring to with macro-evolution. If you're referring to a jump from one species to another in a relative short amount of time, no I don't see that and everything I've studied would not suggest it. All evolution is done in minor steps, with the minor changes in the genes being beneficial to survival (most are not and the change dies out). Major change is achieved by many incremental changes, all being beneficial to survival. If you really want a perspective on it, read Dawkin's book - The Selfish Gene. No macro-evolution required. Don't worry, you won't end up having to go to an evolution fellowship meeting 2 - 3 times a week and send him 15% of your income. The worst that will happen is that you wasted a few hours of your time. ;) I think this sums up this thread rather well:

I think you're putting too much stock in breeding. Personally, I don't see how it plays any role. Just b/c two animals/plants set of genes have changed to the point that they are incompatible breeding with each other doesn't prove or disprove anything. At the most it shows that their genes have only diverged enough to prevent the incompatibility.

Kind of old (1995) but good information on the creationist's "kind" theory: CREATION "SCIENCE" AND THE GENESIS "KINDS" And on Noah's flood: CAN NOAH'S FLOOD ACCOUNT FOR THE GEOLOGIC AND FOSIL RECORD?

The Age of Life, Radiometric Dating, and Tree Rings If you haven't seen any problems with creationism yet, you're not looking (intentionally?).

Nobody knows how gravity works either. Must not exist. Ice Age Real evidence for multiple glaciation is overwhelming. Older works on glacial geology (Flint, 1971; Wright and Frey, 1965) describe in great detail arguments for four great ice ages in the last two million or so years. This evidence includes well developed soil horizons and sub-tropical vegetation over-run by succeeding ice advances (Morrison and Wright, 1965). More recent works (Goudie, 1983; Wright, 1989; Dawson, 1992; Anderson and Borns, 1994) support these observations and further separate the four advances into about ten different advances. In addition, they give evidence of several other very much older glacial epochs, including some Precambrian ones which would have been "pre-flood." Probably the best arguments for the magnitude of ice age time is the record from long cores taken through the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. In the Antarctic ice, summer and winter bands can be counted back, year by year, to at least 30,000 years (Anderson and Borns, 1994) with overall core lengths indicating total time spans of several hundred thousand years. Dates from counting the annual layers in the cores can in turn be correlated with C14 dates from the CO2 contained in entrapped air bubbles, with C14 dates from tree ring correlations which can be counted and correlated back 12,000 years, with annual sediment layers from glacial lakes, with dates from the pollen records of climatic change in Europe and America, and with radiometric dates and rate of sedimentation dates on deep sea cores. Most of these dates can in turn be stitched together and mutually supported by paleomagnetic dates from other areas and dating techniques (summaries by Anderson and Borns, 1994). As new evidence is gained and dating techniques are refined, all these lines of converging evidence show increasing good correlations with the Malenkovich cycles, based on Newtonian celestial mechanics, an additional set of time determinations linked to modern astronomic measurements. To argue in the face of such massive and interlocking evidence that the entire span of the Ice Ages constituted only the last few thousand years must represent a supreme example of faith overcoming reason.

Here's a good summary of the creationism time-line: A Creation "Science" Geologic Time Scale (1) 4000 B.C. Creation Week: (laws of science suspended) Day 1 - Space, light & dark, earth materials. Day 2 - Waters above and waters below. Day 3 - Earth's crust and plants. Day 4 - Sun, moon, and stars in place. Day 5 - Atmosphere + animals of the waters. Day 6 - Land animals + Adam & Eve. Day 7 - Day of rest. 1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid. (2) Adam and Eve, talking snakes, etc. (3) World's waters are in great Venus-like atmosphere or in ground water. No rain, no ocean basins. (4) Radiometric dating invalid; speed of light changed. (5) Humans, dinosaurs, mammals, the "works," all live together in peace. Both lions and Tyranosaurus Rex are vegetarians in Eden before the "fall." (6) Human life spans up to 900 years. (7) Battle of Satan and angels produces craters on moon. Flood Year: Flood "Geology" - ONE (?) year of normal (?) "science" Rain - 40 days (8) Big animals run to mountain tops. Not a single dumb human caught in all the early flood sediments. All dinosaurs washed off only in middle flood-time. (9) Coral reefs (Guadalupe Mountains of Texas) grow to thicknesses of half a mile during single year. (10) Vast coal beds accumulate one on top of another, each as original swamp deposits on order of 100 feet thick, all in one year. (11) Mile-thick salt formations in Utah form by evaporation (!) of seawater during (!) the flood. Flood - about 250 days. (12) Most of the world's sedimentary rocks dumped on continents to average thickness of one mile, almost entirely during the flood year. (13) Most continental drift occurs. Flood waters drain into the newly formed ocean basins. Atlantic opens at average rate of 1/2 mile per hour. (14) Most deep sea sediments (average about 1,500 feet thick) collect on the newly opened ocean floors. (15) Hawaiian volcano built 30,000 feet high on new sea floor. (Cools enough for birds and plants from Ark to colonize soon after end of flood year. Final Retreat - ? 100 days ? (16)Volcano of Mount Ararat built 7,000 feet high underwater and cools in time for grounding of the Ark. (17) Successive Yellowstone ash beds bury 10 to 27 forests one on top of another, all grown during single year. (18) Grand Canyon cut by receding flood waters. Flood sediments de-water and harden in one year to rock strong enough to stand as steep, mile-high cliffs. Post-Flood Geology - 4,500 years of normal (?) science to Present (19)From Ark, Noah (?) directs streams of distinctive animal and plant communities to migrate to Africa, Australia, South America, etc. (Ferry service ?) (Some creationists use post-flood continental drift at rates up to one mile per hour !) (20)Sun stands still for Israelite battle. Earth stops rotating and then starts again due to near-miss by Venus out of its orbit ? (Velikovsky) (21)Only one ice age as post-flood atmosphere cools. Geologists' abundant evidence of many great ice advances separated by sub-tropical vegetation and development of thick soil zones between some advances are wrong. (22)Late-flood granite masses, formed at 1,000 degrees (F.), cool to present low temperatures at rates in violation of all laws of thermal physics. Fit to radiometric dates is mere coincidence. (23)Extreme rates of continental drift typical of flood (1/2 mile per hour) suddenly slow to present-day laser-measured rates of inches per year. Accord of present rates with radiometric dates is mere chance. (24)Coral reefs (Bikini, Eniwetok) grow 1/2 to 1 mile thick in first 1,000 years (rate of one foot per month) then slow to present measured rates of inches per century.

The creation museum's proof that humans lived with dinosaurs (even had them as pets):

Perhaps you should apply the same thinking to the book of Genesis. This thread has finally made sense to me. It only makes sense if you accept Genesis as absolute truth and everything else must fit within it. Sorry, don't care how scientific one wants to claim to be, that is bad science. It's also a carry over from TWI days -- the fundamentalist literal interpretation of scripture. Waybrain in action. And this museum is not another point of view. Saying 2+2=5 is not a point of view. It is a factual error, or in this case, outright dishonesty.

This is an example where the simple makes more sense? First, both are simple. VP's law of believing, you get what you believe for, negative or positive, is plain and simple. Faith (or 'belief', which is probably what it should be translated as) is only 1/2 of the equation, belief in something someone (God knows who that might be) wrote 2,000+ years ago without any evidence supporting it. Both aren't worth crap. Both are for the lazy mind that doesn't want to put forth the effort to find the real answer, whether it agrees with the Bible or not, or who don't want to know the real answer b/c it will disagree with what they already hold to be true. Still astounded that people actually believe dinosaurs and humans lived together. Yaba-daba-dooh!

Creationism is always easier. Any part you don't know you just say God did it. Takes all the effort of thinking out of it. The lazy mind approach. And calling Richard Dawkins religious while extolling the virtues of creationism based on Genesis is like saying I'm still in TWI and here to witness for them. I wish you could explain yourself better. You're making no sense.

I'm sure you have many examples. Still doesn't disprove the theory, nor should it. That's how theory works. You keep working at it until all the holes are explained, proven, disproved, corrected, etc. But just b/c there are areas that are not understood does not disprove it, as it appears you are trying to do. By this logic, gravity doesn't exist. And no one expects anyone to accept it as absolute. Go see the museum? Probably would if they weren't trying to pawn it off as scientific fact. Would be amusing. But as it is, it's insulting.

I really don't understand your reasoning there. Just because part of a process is not understood does not mean the theory surrounding it is wrong. Gravity is theory. No one understands how it works. Plenty of holes in it. Yet I don't think you dismiss the theory, no? If you jump off a building, your going to hit the ground going pretty fast without any understanding of how it works. Same for evolution. It's the best theory that explains all the evidence. As more comes in, it is adjusted or corrected. The theories presented in Genesis worked pretty good 2,000+ years ago, when the earth was flat, the sun and universe rotated around the earth and fossils were unknown. Someone forgot to update the text as more evidence came in though.

Science is wrong all the time. But unlike religion, when contrary evidence is found, science corrects itself. I really don't need to examine what this museum has to offer. It is known that they are dishonest with scientific facts. They also watched too many episodes of The Flintstones in claiming man lived with the dinosours. But even more, it is based on texts I have already studied the origin of and found they are not what they claim to be. Not from a belief system, but from evidence. Hardcore solid evidence. If you're trying to proove something based on something else that has already been disproven, what's the point? You sound like you had a faith-based biology teacher who was forced into teaching evolution and all he did was give you the holes in it. You may be right about macro-evolution, if I'm thinking about the same thing. Don't know. Try reading The Selfish Gene some time. Some "good arguments that need to be looked at."

Let me add that I have nothing against you Bolshevik. I like you. You have a good head on you, witty, and (if I recall your previous posts correctly) was smart enough to see through TWI even after growing up in it. My beef is with this joke of a museum. I would suggest if the source of whatever you believe came from TWI to apply the scientific method to it. By that I mean to question it severely. Try to disprove it, no matter what it is. If you can disprove it, then dump it. Otherwise, you're just a target for the next group to come along. School of hard knocks presented me with that bit of advice. And it seems to work rather well. This museum claims the earth is only 6,000 years old, taking a literal reading of Genesis. How many fields of science have to be ignored to support this hypothesis? Archeology showing prior human existence, including cities? Geology with its mountains of evidence and many reliable dating methods (carbon-14 is not the only)? Thermo-dynamics? Cosmology? Astronomy, with its known speed of light and that the closest star to us (excluding our sun) is 4,500 light years away. If the earth and, by extension of Genesis, the universe is only 6,000 years old, the only thing you would see in the night sky are the planets in our solar system and maybe a couple other stars.

A slight suggestion to pay attention in biology class. Proof? How much do you need? There are volumes of evidence you seem to ignore. Why is it that this museum is the only one claiming proof of a global flood? And their proof is one layer of coal? I don't think you understand the magnitude of the amount of "poop" that would have to be carted off. Of course if your in the habit of ignoring physical laws, then it's easy as pie. Been arks and floods throughout history. But none that encompassed the entire earth, or even worse, kept a set of every living creature. As far as I know, this museum is the only one of its kind that claims to be scientific proof of a myth. If it wants to claim to be a museum of Christian beliefs, I have no problem with it. But when they distort scientific facts, warp logic, and disgrace common sense in the guise of science -- that I have a problem with.

Just my opinion: Calling this place a museum is a joke. Squeezing 2,000+ year old mythology into scientific facts, distorting them, and outright misrepresenting/changing them is blatant dishonesty. There is no evidence of a global flood occurring 4,500 years ago. There is no evidence of a global flood ever occurring. If the entire earth was ever covered in water, it would leave a layer of sediment and be visible wherever you dug. How can anyone ignore a basic fact like this to squeeze in a myth story taken from two older myth stories (the Egyptian Hermopollitian Creation myth and Babylonian flood myths), haphazardly combined and converted to monotheism? If you really want to put your noggin to work and use some common sense, picture the boat Noah supposedly built. It had 1 window, approximately 2 feet by 2 feet. Now picture these thousands of animals on the boat defecating and urinating every day. You've got 1 small window to provide ventilation. Think that's enough? Living in a sewer for months with little ventilation is survivable, right? Oh wait! The 8 people on the boat could have worked 24x7 carting the feces up to and out the window and siphoning the urine out and still had time to feed all the animals and themselves. That's workable. Yeah! Tell me, what would be the difference between this "museum" and one set up to show the creation of the earth by the Greek gods? Is there any? Anyway, enjoy your "museum".

Section of OJ's book leaked. http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/19/oj-did-it-leaked-online/ I read somewhere that the Goldmans won the rights to the book and plan to release it under a new title, "Confessions of a Murderer," in order to collect what is owed them from him.