... anymore than complicated = not true, particularly since it is not simple.
You see, I too, have heard the argument and the logic behind "Keep it Simple, Stupid". Ie., it gives the (flawed) premise that "Truth is simple, its only the lies that are complicated". And I used to believe it too. ... Used to.
Quantum physics is NOT simple, yet more and more facts are being learned that supports it as a certifiable science. E = mc2 might be 'simple', as its stated, but the science behind it is NOT simple. (Nice try, by the way)
There are many simple things in life that are indeed true. ... As there are many complicated and complex things in life that are equally true. Frankly, nowadays I'm beginning to think that the people who hammer on "Keep it Simple, Stupid" are basically those who prefer their (over)simplified and pithy sayings/beliefs, as then they don't have to burden themselves with facing the possibility that something in their simple beliefs ... might have a flaw. And by and large, people do not like admitting that what they believe in has flaws.
So I offer an alternative. Instaed of "Keep it Simple, Stupid", why not "Keep it Real!", be it simple or complicated.
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!
... anymore than complicated = not true, particularly since it is not simple.
You see, I too, have heard the argument and the logic behind "Keep it Simple, Stupid". Ie., it gives the (flawed) premise that "Truth is simple, its only the lies that are complicated". And I used to believe it too. ... Used to.
Quantum physics is NOT simple, yet more and more facts are being learned that supports it as a certifiable science. E = mc2 might be 'simple', as its stated, but the science behind it is NOT simple. (Nice try, by the way)
There are many simple things in life that are indeed true. ... As there are many complicated and complex things in life that are equally true. Frankly, nowadays I'm beginning to think that the people who hammer on "Keep it Simple, Stupid" are basically those who prefer their (over)simplified and pithy sayings/beliefs, as then they don't have to burden themselves with facing the possibility that something in their simple beliefs ... might have a flaw. And by and large, people do not like admitting that what they believe in has flaws.
So I offer an alternative. Instaed of "Keep it Simple, Stupid", why not "Keep it Real!", be it simple or complicated.
I thought about bringing the Quantum Revolution up. Yes Garth, I could show you some of the math for quantum chemistry I've had to do. It's solution is complicated but the end result much simpler.
I'm not taking about "Keep it simple stupid" Garth. I'm taking about the beauty behind nature.
What do mean "nice try"? If you want to "keep it real", quit going off-topic.
I was bringing up hybrids and soft-tissues found in fossils.
And, like the concept of the limits defining eternity, why will it make one bit of difference in our day-to-day lives whether we know the answer or not?
. . .
For some people, if the Genesis account is wrong, the whole Bible is wrong.
For me, I've looked at evolution evidence for years and just don't see anything that makes it clearly true. Something is missing, which means new, and important, discoveries await. That's exciting. But I think to many are thinking in a box. The creationists are the only real challengers of the current theories I'm aware of.
-------------------
I was thinking about hybrids. It turns out many hybrid animals are larger than their parent species. The largest cats are crosses of lions and tigers.
The fossil record shows many types of animals we know, but bigger. (Giant beaver, giant camels, mastodons, giant sloths etc.)
The Genesis record I think spoke of giants, maybe large animals (can anyone verify?) I think this was mentioned in "The Two Babylons"
----------------------
Neanderthals are believed to have had music and art. Sounds human to me.
I was reading on another forum, one guy pointed out that considering Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man seperate species is of form of racism. (The evolutionists argued vehemently of course).
I just want to know why pigs are living in "trees".
All that talk about giant "beavers" caught my eye, though.
But seriously Mr. B.
All I'm saying is that maybe there are elements of both schools that are right and maybe there are elements of both schools that are wrong.
It doesn't necessarily make Genesis wrong, just our understanding of its' true meaning.
The fact that we don't understand its' full meaning makes it no less or more real.
If we never arrive at its' "true meaning", it won't change that "true meaning".
That "all or nothing" line of thought was a big part of PFAL that I now consider to be more of a sales technique than a valid approach to logical exploration of facts.
I believe there is room to consider both aspects of the subject without having to exclude one or the other.
I also believe that the subject is really beyond the scope of what the human mind can process.
Scientists debate about what happened to Neanderthals. Some (including evolutionists) believe they interbred with humans are were simply absorbed into our modern population. (Therefore some of us carry pieces of the genetic code of what were once Neanderthals).
I see proof of this every day.
I was reading on another forum, one guy pointed out that considering Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man seperate species is of form of racism. (The evolutionists argued vehemently of course).
Damn. Now I'm probably going to be branded as racist against those cavemen again... Just like Geico.
Having actually seen the Museum for myself, I can tell you there are a lot of facts presented –the same facts that Evolutionists use.
Bolshevik and I went to the Museum with an extremely skeptical point of view. Bolshevik, a former Evolutionist himself, and me, (I don’t really know that much science and I don’t really have a strong opinion one way or another). I took the Way of Abundance and Power class in the 90’s, and remember being told to believe that the adversary was the “Big Bang”, and that other scientific topics without any actual evidence or true research which I viewed as absurd. We thought this would be another “here’s the bible now you just believe it , ok” place. Anyhow, I actually wanted the creation museum to disprove themselves, I wanted it to be so hokey and so flaky that it would actually give credit to evolutionists, because at least evolutionists had facts.
I heard a quote once, it said something like, “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.” This is how I entered the museum.
When we entered the museum, the first area we went through compared and contrasted the views of evolutionists and creationists. They didn’t favor one or the other; they simply put them side by side and placed the facts out there. (They even had the famous “Lucy” fossils.) They showed two men working at a dig site. One had an evolutionist opinion and one had a creationist opinion—both working with the same facts, fossilized bones with two different opinions on how those bones became fossilized. They didn’t hide under biblical verses, or expect large leaps of faith, they simply presented the facts that evolutionists also have, and placed them with their view of the bible. I have to say it was quite logical.
They had time lines of when scientific theories originated such as evolution, and the gap theory. (Many more too, I just can’t remember them all.)
It took four hours for us to get through the Museum and honestly it was too much information for me. I think someone who is an evolutionist or scientist would appreciate the vast amounts of what they present more than I would.
If you are considering going to see the museum I highly suggest you do.
Whether you are a/an:
1. Evolutionist—You would be able to more firmly establish what you believe and you could be more culturally competent. Just because we have a different opinion doesn’t mean we are too good for an alternative view.
2. Creationist—well, I guess that’s obvious. If you go in with a certain opinion it will just be established for you.
3. Undecided—you would be able to have an additional side to the story presented.
The museum emphasizes also, that Jesus Christ is the Last Adam. It takes a walk through Genesis 1 through 11, presenting scientific facts. They say that as a Christian, if you do not believe the events of Genesis 1-11 then there is no need for the rest of the bible, because there is no need for Jesus Christ, and therefore Christianity at all.
Sorry this is so long, I don’t mean to offend anyone or cause any controversy, just to state what I saw. We had a good time and we left going, “hum, I never thought of that”. Even if it’s just food for thought it was a positive experience.
I was under the same opinion when I watched the documentary on tv last month. I saw quality work it its brief preview..Im so glad someone got out to see it. I have a Clergy friend who also will be going to see it..It's on my list of things to do..being I am drawn to science as a normal nature...one reason is, man cannot realy screw it to bad like they have done to the other natural things in life.
I just got out of class (I'm a grad student). My prof just spent several minutes emphasizing to prove information to yourself. He said don't ever assume a piece of scientific literature to be fact, not even if it has been peer-reviewed. He says he's found a lot of peer-reveiwed works in chemistry journals which turn out to be incorrect. He's even taken journal articles and turned them into homework assignments for his students. His students would find issues with the assignment, and it turned out it was because of serious errors in the experiment the article described. Scientists are people and are prone to the same errors as anyone else. (Note: this class has nothing to do with evolution)
I bring this up because it was argued on another thread that evolution is proven with literature under peer-review, and that creation-scientists are not credible because their work is not peer-reviewed by "real scientists".
Peer-review may give an article more credibility, but it is no guarantee, and should never be simply accepted. For me to simply accept something, even gravity, without careful study and consideration, would go against my scientific training. It takes a lot work to become convinced of something. Just because the scientist next to me is convinced, doesn't mean I should be.
The museum emphasizes also, that Jesus Christ is the Last Adam. It takes a walk through Genesis 1 through 11, presenting scientific facts. They say that as a Christian, if you do not believe the events of Genesis 1-11 then there is no need for the rest of the bible, because there is no need for Jesus Christ, and therefore Christianity at all.
And that, folks, is the main part of the crux of which I speak; ie., the maintainance of the reputation of the Scriptures, upon which Creationism, even the 'brand' which this museum shows, rests. That is why I posed the question to give him, thusly: "Ask him what would he do (as a fellow scientist, and all) if he found evidence that clearly cut across and contradicted the Genesis account? How would he handle that? ... Would he even consider the possiblity of that happening?"
And now I have my answer: No, they won't even think about crossing that line. Their faith forbids it. ... And that is (one of the main things) that keeps it from being presented as 'an altenative point of view'. And sorry to bust your bubble, but such a mind block isn't the same in the evolutionary field as a whole. It _is_ in certain evolutionary biologists, sure. But not in the field as a whole. (And trying to equivocate evolution and religion in this context is but an empty and poorly thought out attempt.) For one thing, Darwin did not concoct the idea of evolution, then go around the world looking for evidence to prop the theory up. No, he didn't.
Also, look at some of the responses here to the idea/theory of evolution. "Its ridiculous! ... It just can't happen. ... We don't have the evidence of the actual process, therefore it cannot be true. ..." and so forth. Look at the presumption in reactions like that. It presumes that the evolutionary process just can't be true, and a lot of that presumption comes about because of the challenges to the Genesis account (this museum clearly illustrates this mentality). During Darwin's time, religious critics were open and honest about where they were coming from in their opposition: it contradicts the Bible, therefore it must be rejected. Nowadays, since that tactic is no longer effective, they try to portray their side from a 'science' angle, but that 'It shalt not contradict the Bible' crux is still there.
"Ask him what would he do (as a fellow scientist, and all) if he found evidence that clearly cut across and contradicted the Genesis account? How would he handle that? ... Would he even consider the possibility of that happening?"
Dearest Garth,
Thank you for your opinion.
You may want to ask yourself, what you would do, if you found evidence that clearly cut across and contradicted the theory of Evolution? How would you handle that? Would you even consider the possibility of that happening?
If no then, hum...
As a scientist you I am sure are willing to consider all the evidence. If this is true maybe you would be interested in seeing the museum so you would actually know what you are talking about regarding how "off" this museum truly is.
As it took four hours to walk through, there is a lot more to it than pushing bible verses at people.
You may want to ask yourself, what you would do, if you found evidence that clearly cut across and contradicted the theory of Evolution? How would you handle that? Would you even consider the possibility of that happening?
Then I would accept the point of view that is either proven, or has the preponderance of the evidence leaning substantially towards it.
I already tried that with Creationism, ... and found it lacking. And mainly for the reason I depicted. A reason which is still in place.
I look to evolution, and find the information/evidence/supporting sciences/etc., and I find a much stronger case, ... even with the holes and gaps. (and there's my evidence, Bolshevik. Sorry I couldn't put it into a nice and convenient link-in-a-nutshell for you)
Then I would accept the point of view that is either proven, or has the preponderance of the evidence leaning substantially towards it.
I already tried that with Creationism, ... and found it lacking. And mainly for the reason I depicted. A reason which is still in place.
I look to evolution, and find the information/evidence/supporting sciences/etc., and I find a much stronger case, ... even with the holes and gaps. (and there's my evidence, Bolshevik. Sorry I couldn't put it into a nice and convenient link-in-a-nutshell for you)
Ie., higher score wins.
Wow. That's a deep, logical, convincing statement you got there.
So you make decisions based on a point system?
Actually Garth, I still like the old saying:
. . .
If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect.
I just got out of class (I'm a grad student). My prof just spent several minutes emphasizing to prove information to yourself. He said don't ever assume a piece of scientific literature to be fact, not even if it has been peer-reviewed. He says he's found a lot of peer-reveiwed works in chemistry journals which turn out to be incorrect. He's even taken journal articles and turned them into homework assignments for his students. His students would find issues with the assignment, and it turned out it was because of serious errors in the experiment the article described. Scientists are people and are prone to the same errors as anyone else. (Note: this class has nothing to do with evolution)
I bring this up because it was argued on another thread that evolution is proven with literature under peer-review, and that creation-scientists are not credible because their work is not peer-reviewed by "real scientists".
Peer-review may give an article more credibility, but it is no guarantee, and should never be simply accepted. For me to simply accept something, even gravity, without careful study and consideration, would go against my scientific training. It takes a lot work to become convinced of something. Just because the scientist next to me is convinced, doesn't mean I should be.
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.
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.
Genesis is what the museum is based on. It shows that all the phenomena in the world fit with it.
You were the one who want to discuss isotope dating?
Based on the amount of viable, scientifically sound concepts that don't require believing in a presupposed account based on little more than faith, ... uhh yeah. Works for me.
If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect.
And you can infer that the earth, the universe, etc. is likened unto the watch, ..... how? By it's 'complexity'? And how do you know how to determine the level of complexity that requires said 'superior intelligence', or of which kind of intelligence, for that matter. Ie., why is it that the Christian 'superior intelligence' (ie., your God) should be the one who gets the nod here?
I bring up what I said before about the Hindu tales of creation, or the Greco-Roman one, or that of the ancient Norse, ... or even the modern Scientologist variety. You do know that they too, have their own unique account of how the earth came about, and the life thereon (Aliens with their thetans tied to nuclear volcanoes, donchaknow. ) ... All of them include various 'superior intelligences' who were supposedly behind nature's beginning, and I'd be willing to bet that they could explain their ((cough)) 'science' just as effectively as your museum in Kentucky could.
'Cept it ain't science. <_<
And how do you determine that evolution is indeed a set of 'natural processes acting blindly'? How do you come to the conclusion (scientifically of course ;) ) that evolution isn't acting rather, according to a set(s) of biological/geological laws that are continuously in operation, even if some of them are undetecteable to one human's observation? See, that's one of the creationist's BIG misunderstandings of how evolution works. They presume that it's all by some blind and random chance with no laws to guide what occurs. You show the same unscientific mistake by means of that quote being one of your favorite phrases.
Update! Here's a
(length is a little over 6 minutes) that I recalled that provides a powerful argument against the 'theory' of irreduceable complexity.
Yeah, yeah, I know. ... Pain in the keister I am! :B)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
13
17
74
Popular Days
Jul 6
33
Jul 3
27
Jul 5
18
Jul 4
17
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 16 posts
oenophile 13 posts
GarthP2000 17 posts
Bolshevik 74 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2007
33 posts
Jul 3 2007
27 posts
Jul 5 2007
18 posts
Jul 4 2007
17 posts
GarthP2000
... anymore than complicated = not true, particularly since it is not simple.
You see, I too, have heard the argument and the logic behind "Keep it Simple, Stupid". Ie., it gives the (flawed) premise that "Truth is simple, its only the lies that are complicated". And I used to believe it too. ... Used to.
Quantum physics is NOT simple, yet more and more facts are being learned that supports it as a certifiable science. E = mc2 might be 'simple', as its stated, but the science behind it is NOT simple. (Nice try, by the way)
There are many simple things in life that are indeed true. ... As there are many complicated and complex things in life that are equally true. Frankly, nowadays I'm beginning to think that the people who hammer on "Keep it Simple, Stupid" are basically those who prefer their (over)simplified and pithy sayings/beliefs, as then they don't have to burden themselves with facing the possibility that something in their simple beliefs ... might have a flaw. And by and large, people do not like admitting that what they believe in has flaws.
So I offer an alternative. Instaed of "Keep it Simple, Stupid", why not "Keep it Real!", be it simple or complicated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
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!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I thought about bringing the Quantum Revolution up. Yes Garth, I could show you some of the math for quantum chemistry I've had to do. It's solution is complicated but the end result much simpler.
I'm not taking about "Keep it simple stupid" Garth. I'm taking about the beauty behind nature.
What do mean "nice try"? If you want to "keep it real", quit going off-topic.
I was bringing up hybrids and soft-tissues found in fossils.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
For some people, if the Genesis account is wrong, the whole Bible is wrong.
For me, I've looked at evolution evidence for years and just don't see anything that makes it clearly true. Something is missing, which means new, and important, discoveries await. That's exciting. But I think to many are thinking in a box. The creationists are the only real challengers of the current theories I'm aware of.
-------------------
I was thinking about hybrids. It turns out many hybrid animals are larger than their parent species. The largest cats are crosses of lions and tigers.
The fossil record shows many types of animals we know, but bigger. (Giant beaver, giant camels, mastodons, giant sloths etc.)
The Genesis record I think spoke of giants, maybe large animals (can anyone verify?) I think this was mentioned in "The Two Babylons"
----------------------
Neanderthals are believed to have had music and art. Sounds human to me.
I was reading on another forum, one guy pointed out that considering Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man seperate species is of form of racism. (The evolutionists argued vehemently of course).
Just some thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I just want to know why pigs are living in "trees".
All that talk about giant "beavers" caught my eye, though.
But seriously Mr. B.
All I'm saying is that maybe there are elements of both schools that are right and maybe there are elements of both schools that are wrong.
It doesn't necessarily make Genesis wrong, just our understanding of its' true meaning.
The fact that we don't understand its' full meaning makes it no less or more real.
If we never arrive at its' "true meaning", it won't change that "true meaning".
That "all or nothing" line of thought was a big part of PFAL that I now consider to be more of a sales technique than a valid approach to logical exploration of facts.
I believe there is room to consider both aspects of the subject without having to exclude one or the other.
I also believe that the subject is really beyond the scope of what the human mind can process.
And heck, that's all just my opinion anyhow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
PS-----I dig the Newton quote in your signature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
I see proof of this every day.
Damn. Now I'm probably going to be branded as racist against those cavemen again... Just like Geico.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs. Bolshevik
Hello all.
Having actually seen the Museum for myself, I can tell you there are a lot of facts presented –the same facts that Evolutionists use.
Bolshevik and I went to the Museum with an extremely skeptical point of view. Bolshevik, a former Evolutionist himself, and me, (I don’t really know that much science and I don’t really have a strong opinion one way or another). I took the Way of Abundance and Power class in the 90’s, and remember being told to believe that the adversary was the “Big Bang”, and that other scientific topics without any actual evidence or true research which I viewed as absurd. We thought this would be another “here’s the bible now you just believe it , ok” place. Anyhow, I actually wanted the creation museum to disprove themselves, I wanted it to be so hokey and so flaky that it would actually give credit to evolutionists, because at least evolutionists had facts.
I heard a quote once, it said something like, “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.” This is how I entered the museum.
When we entered the museum, the first area we went through compared and contrasted the views of evolutionists and creationists. They didn’t favor one or the other; they simply put them side by side and placed the facts out there. (They even had the famous “Lucy” fossils.) They showed two men working at a dig site. One had an evolutionist opinion and one had a creationist opinion—both working with the same facts, fossilized bones with two different opinions on how those bones became fossilized. They didn’t hide under biblical verses, or expect large leaps of faith, they simply presented the facts that evolutionists also have, and placed them with their view of the bible. I have to say it was quite logical.
They had time lines of when scientific theories originated such as evolution, and the gap theory. (Many more too, I just can’t remember them all.)
It took four hours for us to get through the Museum and honestly it was too much information for me. I think someone who is an evolutionist or scientist would appreciate the vast amounts of what they present more than I would.
If you are considering going to see the museum I highly suggest you do.
Whether you are a/an:
1. Evolutionist—You would be able to more firmly establish what you believe and you could be more culturally competent. Just because we have a different opinion doesn’t mean we are too good for an alternative view.
2. Creationist—well, I guess that’s obvious. If you go in with a certain opinion it will just be established for you.
3. Undecided—you would be able to have an additional side to the story presented.
The museum emphasizes also, that Jesus Christ is the Last Adam. It takes a walk through Genesis 1 through 11, presenting scientific facts. They say that as a Christian, if you do not believe the events of Genesis 1-11 then there is no need for the rest of the bible, because there is no need for Jesus Christ, and therefore Christianity at all.
Sorry this is so long, I don’t mean to offend anyone or cause any controversy, just to state what I saw. We had a good time and we left going, “hum, I never thought of that”. Even if it’s just food for thought it was a positive experience.
Love to all,
Mrs. B
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Thanks Mrs.B-
I was under the same opinion when I watched the documentary on tv last month. I saw quality work it its brief preview..Im so glad someone got out to see it. I have a Clergy friend who also will be going to see it..It's on my list of things to do..being I am drawn to science as a normal nature...one reason is, man cannot realy screw it to bad like they have done to the other natural things in life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I just got out of class (I'm a grad student). My prof just spent several minutes emphasizing to prove information to yourself. He said don't ever assume a piece of scientific literature to be fact, not even if it has been peer-reviewed. He says he's found a lot of peer-reveiwed works in chemistry journals which turn out to be incorrect. He's even taken journal articles and turned them into homework assignments for his students. His students would find issues with the assignment, and it turned out it was because of serious errors in the experiment the article described. Scientists are people and are prone to the same errors as anyone else. (Note: this class has nothing to do with evolution)
I bring this up because it was argued on another thread that evolution is proven with literature under peer-review, and that creation-scientists are not credible because their work is not peer-reviewed by "real scientists".
Peer-review may give an article more credibility, but it is no guarantee, and should never be simply accepted. For me to simply accept something, even gravity, without careful study and consideration, would go against my scientific training. It takes a lot work to become convinced of something. Just because the scientist next to me is convinced, doesn't mean I should be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Is that real?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story....jectid=10448585
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
cool video. Notice how the zebras typically only hang out with other zebras, even though they could hang out with other horse-types.
BTW, mules, (horse + donkey) usually are sterile, but that's not always the case. Probably true with the Zorse.
Camas, (camel + llama) have viable offspring (they can reproduce). Which I think is more surprising.
This hybrid stuff was just one corner of one room in the museum. But its a lot to chew on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And that, folks, is the main part of the crux of which I speak; ie., the maintainance of the reputation of the Scriptures, upon which Creationism, even the 'brand' which this museum shows, rests. That is why I posed the question to give him, thusly: "Ask him what would he do (as a fellow scientist, and all) if he found evidence that clearly cut across and contradicted the Genesis account? How would he handle that? ... Would he even consider the possiblity of that happening?"
And now I have my answer: No, they won't even think about crossing that line. Their faith forbids it. ... And that is (one of the main things) that keeps it from being presented as 'an altenative point of view'. And sorry to bust your bubble, but such a mind block isn't the same in the evolutionary field as a whole. It _is_ in certain evolutionary biologists, sure. But not in the field as a whole. (And trying to equivocate evolution and religion in this context is but an empty and poorly thought out attempt.) For one thing, Darwin did not concoct the idea of evolution, then go around the world looking for evidence to prop the theory up. No, he didn't.
Also, look at some of the responses here to the idea/theory of evolution. "Its ridiculous! ... It just can't happen. ... We don't have the evidence of the actual process, therefore it cannot be true. ..." and so forth. Look at the presumption in reactions like that. It presumes that the evolutionary process just can't be true, and a lot of that presumption comes about because of the challenges to the Genesis account (this museum clearly illustrates this mentality). During Darwin's time, religious critics were open and honest about where they were coming from in their opposition: it contradicts the Bible, therefore it must be rejected. Nowadays, since that tactic is no longer effective, they try to portray their side from a 'science' angle, but that 'It shalt not contradict the Bible' crux is still there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
And yet Garth, you fail to bring forth evidence to support evolution.
If you are making the statement "All life on earth evolved from a common ancestor", evidence please. Otherwise, you've discredited yourself.
You are making assertion that evolution is true. You need to back it up with facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs. Bolshevik
Dearest Garth,
Thank you for your opinion.
You may want to ask yourself, what you would do, if you found evidence that clearly cut across and contradicted the theory of Evolution? How would you handle that? Would you even consider the possibility of that happening?
If no then, hum...
As a scientist you I am sure are willing to consider all the evidence. If this is true maybe you would be interested in seeing the museum so you would actually know what you are talking about regarding how "off" this museum truly is.
As it took four hours to walk through, there is a lot more to it than pushing bible verses at people.
Have an excellent day!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Maybe evolution proves evolution and Science proves God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Then I would accept the point of view that is either proven, or has the preponderance of the evidence leaning substantially towards it.
I already tried that with Creationism, ... and found it lacking. And mainly for the reason I depicted. A reason which is still in place.
I look to evolution, and find the information/evidence/supporting sciences/etc., and I find a much stronger case, ... even with the holes and gaps. (and there's my evidence, Bolshevik. Sorry I couldn't put it into a nice and convenient link-in-a-nutshell for you)
Ie., higher score wins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gladtobeout
Mrs. B.
Thanks for sharing. I can't wait to go, and now I know to allow plenty of time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Wow. That's a deep, logical, convincing statement you got there.
So you make decisions based on a point system?
Actually Garth, I still like the old saying:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
Vestigial Organs are an interesting topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_structure
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
GT
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Genesis is what the museum is based on. It shows that all the phenomena in the world fit with it.
You were the one who want to discuss isotope dating?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And you can infer that the earth, the universe, etc. is likened unto the watch, ..... how? By it's 'complexity'? And how do you know how to determine the level of complexity that requires said 'superior intelligence', or of which kind of intelligence, for that matter. Ie., why is it that the Christian 'superior intelligence' (ie., your God) should be the one who gets the nod here?
I bring up what I said before about the Hindu tales of creation, or the Greco-Roman one, or that of the ancient Norse, ... or even the modern Scientologist variety. You do know that they too, have their own unique account of how the earth came about, and the life thereon (Aliens with their thetans tied to nuclear volcanoes, donchaknow.
) ... All of them include various 'superior intelligences' who were supposedly behind nature's beginning, and I'd be willing to bet that they could explain their ((cough)) 'science' just as effectively as your museum in Kentucky could.
'Cept it ain't science. <_<
And how do you determine that evolution is indeed a set of 'natural processes acting blindly'? How do you come to the conclusion (scientifically of course ;) ) that evolution isn't acting rather, according to a set(s) of biological/geological laws that are continuously in operation, even if some of them are undetecteable to one human's observation? See, that's one of the creationist's BIG misunderstandings of how evolution works. They presume that it's all by some blind and random chance with no laws to guide what occurs. You show the same unscientific mistake by means of that quote being one of your favorite phrases.
Update! Here's a
Yeah, yeah, I know. ... Pain in the keister I am! :B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.