I watched a documentary on this creationist museum that has an exhibit in which two “scientists” are excavating a dinosaur’s remains; One is a conventional paleontologist, and one is a bibilcal literalist. The exhibit is set up saying the two men “work with the same facts” and that one starts out with the scientific consensus on paleontology and the other starts out with the “biblical perspective” of the fossil being caused by the mythical great flood. The point of the exhibit is to make creationists seem just as legitimate as conventional scientists. But isn’t starting out with the assumption of a religious text’s inerrancy unscientific? How can the two “work with the same facts” if both of them can’t be right? This seems to me to just be propaganda trying to promote mythical beliefs rather than real knowledge. What’s your take on this. 
The creationists are trying to show that their brand of bronze-age superstition is equal to established scientific fact.
It is nothing more than a press release from the Land of Make-Believe. There is no meaningful way for an educated person, or even an intellectually honest one, to believe in creationism. The continued presence of creationism among the human race is nothing short of an educational war crime.
You’re right of course. The documentary is trying to obscure the fact that when scientists who are atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Muslim look at the data, they come to the same set of conclusions (independent of the scientists’ religious beliefs), but when non-scientists come to the data, they come up with conclusions that (as if by magic) validate whatever preconceptions they began with. That’s why there’s no “Christian” paleontology and “Muslim” paleontology (etc.) but there is Jewish creationism, Muslim creationism, etc. etc.
How bizarre :dubious::dubious::dubious:
[ul]
[/ul]This always makes me crazy mad.
Really… I am leaving my hotel room to stab the people next door that are too loud.
Back in a minute.
<pant pant whew>
Better.
Now, where were we. Oh yes, Creationism vs Science.
I hereby challenge any creationists to do the following:
[ul]
[li]Ask a Question[/li][li]Do Background Research[/li][li]Construct a Hypothesis[/li][li]Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment[/li][li]Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion[/li][li]Communicate Your Results[/li][/ul]
Dang, ya’ll, it isn’t complicated.
Well maybe to the two folks who are maimed and calling for an ambulance next door, but they should have KNOWN I was going to off eventually as a loner living in a hotel room in a camouflage jacket.
IT WAS THEIR FAULT.
Wait… somebody is banging on the door… And I put the ‘Do Not Disturb’ tag firmly in the key entrance.
Probably need to submit this post now.
It might be a,.,.,:K
poiibiiwq huagjhgjhaa
Fake ETA: Now, of course the coolest thing to do is just stop posting here for a while and lurk.
But, WTF, nobody actually pays attention to what I write, so I guess it would be silly.
However, the people next door in my hotel WERE yelling at each other, and I DO own a camo jacket.
So… fear me! FEAR ME!
OMG! I can’t believe that we haven’t done this before! This should be fascinating.
So, could an airplane on a treadmill take off?
Moved MPSIMS --> Great Debates.
I am shocked—shocked!—to hear that there is propaganda at the creationist museum.
You’re really going to have a hard time when I mention that there is gambling going on at Rick’s Place.
talking about the dinosaurs was one of my favorite topics when i was a christian.
the thing is, there’s no consensus on that crap.
some believe there were no dinosaurs, that god created the bones to screw around with non-believers. this, as i pointed out, indicates a deceitful God. weird assertion, xtians.
some believe the dinosaurs were put on the ark (they were all wee babies as to not take up space–no i’m not making this up) and the climate change post-flood just didn’t work for them so they died.
this is actually taught by a so-called christian biologist/paleontologist. this raises the question as to what the point of them being on the ark would have been.
not to mention that these people believe the earth is less than 10k years old AND that dinosaurs ran around with man–so dinosaurs can’t be old…??
some believe the devil created dinosaurs–i never go into this one because even for stupid shit it’s too stupid to get into.
finally, the thing i bought into back before college–there’s a christian theory that dinos were on the earth for however long before the genesis account.
this introduced me to old-earth creationism–my father (who was a preacher) showed me accounts and interpretations of genesis that indicate unknown amounts of time “in the beginning–” the whole “earth day” idea is absurd just because the vault of the heavens wasn’t created on the first day–so a sun didn’t exist to even have a day. that leaves it inconclusive how much time could have passed.
but that’s not the real issue. the real issue is that the account in genesis was a “recreation” of earth “for habitation for the humans.” that it could have existed eons before, renovated variously by fire, inhabited by who knows what all–dinosaurs included.
slight side note:
the flood story was a crux for me in my intellectual development. i was dating a girl who i thought i’d marry. i had this conversation with her about the pointless, preposterous and God-fallible aspects of the flood story. i pointed out the Epic of Gilgamesh and the likelihood the flood story was lifted from ancient texts and added into the bible.
i pointed out how ultimately the flood was pointless and even indicated regret on the part of God–
i pointed out the physical dimensions of the ark and the capacity of living animals.
i jokingly got to the part where i was all "and dude. how’d the polar bears and penguins get to the middle east?! teleport?
she said “God miracled them there.”
that statement was the start of then of our relationship. she went on to say she literally believed LITERALLY that the flood story happened as told. it’s not a parable or metaphor. it’s not just a story. it really, literally happened, and ALL the animals ON THE PLANET fit on it.
because: miracle. everything i go “but this part’s not even physically possible” she’d say “yeah well MIRACLE.” i’d refute with "if God’s just going to miracle a bunch of too many animals to fit on a too small ark, why even bother with the “human dude–do this. don’t sweat it–it’s retarded and i’ll miracle all the important aspects…” what’s the point…?
why not just say to build the ark, you know, large enough? hell, if it’s just a miracle, why didn’t he just cram all the animals into a thimble…?
she was a smart girl. a college graduate.
and a TOTAL ex girlfriend.
???
No offense to anyone, but can this thread please remain on topic as described by the OP. For some reason Gagundathar’s little story is reminding me of No Country for Old Men - in regards to people getting beat up in hotels. As enjoyable as th story was to read, this is a serious thread and I’d appreciate honest, disciplined feedback.
Oh, and thanks to the moderator who redirected this thread. I wasn’t sure if Great Debates was appropriate.
ged, i am perplexed as well, but you just blew your monthly allotment of question marks.
(i’ll loan you some of mine).
This is why a lot of people don’t even bother debating creationists anymore. By granting the opponent a platform you implicitly give them status and legitimacy, as if there is even a debate to be had in the first place.
Creationists don’t work with facts. What they do is hold a conclusion as true and then cherry-pick facts that support the conclusion, twist the rest, and ignore those that blatantly contradict. They oftentimes have a huge ignorance of science and the scientific process.
Okay, here’s how creationists works. They take the facts - fossils found in archaeological sites - and then they “explain” how the facts “prove” their pre-existing belief that God made everything.
Look at one subset of creationists - the young earth creationists, who insist the universe is only seven thousand years old. When they are confronted with a fact like the existence of a five million year old fossil, their “explanation” is that seven thousand years ago God made that five million year old fossil. And, of course, only God could create five million year old fossils so the existence of these fossils proves the existence of God.
If you start with the premise that God did everything, then everything that has ever been done is evidence of God.
Yes, it’s unscientific. I’m guessing that the video was put out by AiG, since it seems to be Ken Hamm’s big thing that the issue is interpretation.
The fact is that you have one explanation that fits the data and another explanation that selects certain evidence and ignores other evidence (creationism).
AiG want to have the appearance of legitimate science, but when you scratch beneath the veneer, it’s a lot of horse manure.
I must protest. Horse manure can be useful.
Good point.
I’d bet that more scientists are doing research involving horse manure than are doing ‘creation science’ research as well…
In regards to science, what’s it called when you start off with presupposed ideas? Bias? Can anyone elaborate on this? :dubious: