Creation museum pushes 'true history'
-
I just think that it is the silliest exercise imaginable to try to discover rationalizations for modern scientific conclusions in the bible. I believe Christianity is done great harm by those who do so.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
True, "Christians" like that probably convert more Christians to atheism in a day than any other cause does in a year.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I just think that it is the silliest exercise imaginable to try to discover rationalizations for modern scientific conclusions in the bible. I believe Christianity is done great harm by those who do so.
Ah, so you were agreeing with me. *Marks 12-12 on the calendar* ;P
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
so you were agreeing with me
agreeing to what?
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
True, "Christians" like that probably convert more Christians to atheism in a day than any other cause does in a year.
James L. Thomson wrote:
True, "Christians" like that probably convert more Christians to atheism in a day than any other cause does in a year.
I doubt that, but it does promote a silly battle that does not need to be fought. Rather than wasting time trying to take on science directly, the Christian community should concentrate on trying to fight the constitutionality of current interpretations of 'separation of church and state'.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
Zac Howland wrote:
so you were agreeing with me
agreeing to what?
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
That basing/arguing scientific facts from the Bible with modern science is a fruitless endeavor.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
I frequently drive by that 'museum'. From the freeway all you see is a large rock wall. It just has 'evagelical cult' written all over it. It scares me, it really, really scares me. They're takeing over I tell ya! :~
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It scares me, it really, really scares me. They're takeing over I tell ya!
:) I confess I don't like do agree with you, but your irony is right on target this time. ID and creationism lost their political and intelectual track and never achieved any scientific significance. After the Dover trial and the creationist education board in Kansas lost elections, it is time to see ID as pathetic, not scary. It is silly to use as an argument for a science war against religion.
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
James L. Thomson wrote:
True, "Christians" like that probably convert more Christians to atheism in a day than any other cause does in a year.
I doubt that, but it does promote a silly battle that does not need to be fought. Rather than wasting time trying to take on science directly, the Christian community should concentrate on trying to fight the constitutionality of current interpretations of 'separation of church and state'.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
constitutionality of current interpretations of 'separation of church and state'.
You mean the standard that isn't even mentioned in the Constitution itself... ;P But that is another set of threads altogether.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
constitutionality of current interpretations of 'separation of church and state'.
You mean the standard that isn't even mentioned in the Constitution itself... ;P But that is another set of threads altogether.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
You mean the standard that isn't even mentioned in the Constitution itself...
Precisely...
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
That basing/arguing scientific facts from the Bible with modern science is a fruitless endeavor.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
That basing/arguing scientific facts from the Bible with modern science is a fruitless endeavor.
If that is what you were saying, than, yes, we agree.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6216788.stm[^] - To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus Rex. "You go to some of the major museums and dinosaurs are their teaching icon," said Mr Looy. "We're going to turn that on its head, and use dinosaurs to show that the Bible presents the true history of the world. We have people, and dinosaurs, together." I think that guy's missing an "n" from his name. Shouldn't it be "Mr. Loony" - Colorado-based Dr Michael Sherwin was touring around with his family: "I'm a pathologist... When I was studying genetics, it just seemed to me that if I consider one single cell to contain all the information I have to form me - I just don't see how that could evolve." Personal incredulity is not a valid counter argument to evolution.
PlayByTheRules wrote:
Personal incredulity is not a valid counter argument to evolution.
He wasn't using it as one. He was relating why he started looking into creationism in earnest to see if it seemed more credible.
From the article:
Despite adopting the structure and technology of the most extravagant science museum, it remains that none of it is remotely plausible without first accepting Genesis. Without taking that leap and rejecting centuries of scientific reasoning, it all resembles just another Disney-style magic kingdom.
Actually there have been a number of people who accepted Genesis because it seemed to them, after careful inquiry, to fit the evidence, rather than accepting Genesis first and then accepting creationism because of it. I know I would not accept the Genesis account if it seemed to be off base from reality. As for rejecting scientific reasoning, creationists use the same logical principles and work from the same data, but merely have a different interpretation of that data, which they think fits best with what they observe.
-
We have a planetarium to our left Geocentric, of course.
-
PlayByTheRules wrote:
Personal incredulity is not a valid counter argument to evolution.
He wasn't using it as one. He was relating why he started looking into creationism in earnest to see if it seemed more credible.
From the article:
Despite adopting the structure and technology of the most extravagant science museum, it remains that none of it is remotely plausible without first accepting Genesis. Without taking that leap and rejecting centuries of scientific reasoning, it all resembles just another Disney-style magic kingdom.
Actually there have been a number of people who accepted Genesis because it seemed to them, after careful inquiry, to fit the evidence, rather than accepting Genesis first and then accepting creationism because of it. I know I would not accept the Genesis account if it seemed to be off base from reality. As for rejecting scientific reasoning, creationists use the same logical principles and work from the same data, but merely have a different interpretation of that data, which they think fits best with what they observe.
J. Dunlap wrote:
Actually there have been a number of people who accepted Genesis because it seemed to them, after careful inquiry, to fit the evidence...
I would contend that if you consider Genesis -- or any creation myth, for that matter -- to fit any scientific evidence, your inquiry cannot have been careful at all. -- modified at 16:24 Tuesday 12th December, 2006
-
Not one member of Answers in Genesis believes in geocentricism. First of all there is clear, indisputable empirical evidence for the earth orbiting the sun, and secondly, there's no discrepancy between the Bible and the heliocentric model. :)
Thus spake Google --- Ecclesiastes 1:5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. Joshua 10, 12–13: Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Psalm 104, 5: [God] (w)ho laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Isaiah 66:1: Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. --- *insert standard "non-literal interpretation" counter* *insert statement pointing out the hypocracy of advocating a non-literal interpretation of inconvient verses while advocating a strictly literal interpretation elsewhere* *inset long winded, possibly unintelligable, rant* *inset statement of concession due to tiring nature of arguing with someone who uses "faith" as a shield to ignore reason* *insert post whose only purpose is to get the "last word"* *end debate*
-
That basing/arguing scientific facts from the Bible with modern science is a fruitless endeavor.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Thus spake Google --- Ecclesiastes 1:5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. Joshua 10, 12–13: Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Psalm 104, 5: [God] (w)ho laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Isaiah 66:1: Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. --- *insert standard "non-literal interpretation" counter* *insert statement pointing out the hypocracy of advocating a non-literal interpretation of inconvient verses while advocating a strictly literal interpretation elsewhere* *inset long winded, possibly unintelligable, rant* *inset statement of concession due to tiring nature of arguing with someone who uses "faith" as a shield to ignore reason* *insert post whose only purpose is to get the "last word"* *end debate*
James L. Thomson wrote:
Ecclesiastes 1:5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. Joshua 10, 12–13: Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Psalm 104, 5: [God] (w)ho laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Isaiah 66:1: Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool.
Colloquial metaphors - just like when we talk about the sun being low on the horizon, high in the sky, rising, setting, etc. We refer to them as they appear from our frame of reference. Even the concepts of "up" and "down" are based on our frame of reference. These frame-of-reference metaphors make total sense in everyday speech, even though they are not correct in absolute terms.
James L. Thomson wrote:
*insert standard "non-literal interpretation" counter* *insert statement pointing out the hypocracy of advocating a non-literal interpretation of inconvient verses while advocating a strictly literal interpretation elsewhere*
The proper way to interpret any book, Bible or otherwise, is to look at the historical context, writing style, and other factors, to determine the intended form of communication, and the intended meaning. Sometimes that means interpreting something as historical narrative, sometimes as poetic metaphors, sometimes a colloquial metaphor, sometimes matter-of-fact expression of ideas or messages, sometimes a biographical story, etc. This must be done with an open mind, with careful attention to the available information. Sometimes we cannot be sure which categor(ies) a given piece of writing falls into, but with Genesis, most Biblical scholars agree[1] that it is meant as a historical narrative, for a number of reasons, although many feel, of course, that is an inaccurate narrative. Whether to consider it to be an accurate narrative or not is determined by whether what it says seems to fit the available evidence. It is
-
PlayByTheRules wrote:
Personal incredulity is not a valid counter argument to evolution.
He wasn't using it as one. He was relating why he started looking into creationism in earnest to see if it seemed more credible.
From the article:
Despite adopting the structure and technology of the most extravagant science museum, it remains that none of it is remotely plausible without first accepting Genesis. Without taking that leap and rejecting centuries of scientific reasoning, it all resembles just another Disney-style magic kingdom.
Actually there have been a number of people who accepted Genesis because it seemed to them, after careful inquiry, to fit the evidence, rather than accepting Genesis first and then accepting creationism because of it. I know I would not accept the Genesis account if it seemed to be off base from reality. As for rejecting scientific reasoning, creationists use the same logical principles and work from the same data, but merely have a different interpretation of that data, which they think fits best with what they observe.
J. Dunlap wrote:
As for rejecting scientific reasoning, creationists use the same logical principles and work from the same data, but merely have a different interpretation of that data, which they think fits best with what they observe.
Does science really explains everything around us? Take the simple test, why do we sleep? (give us the scientific basis of this, and I think it is easier than travelling the world digging bones). With love, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.