World's first creationist museum open for business
Mikey 57 comments
The world's first creationist museum has opened it's doors in mid-west USA. Among other worldly nuggets of knowledge, I never knew the Earth is only about 6000 years old, Tyrannosaurus Rex (a vegetarian) and humans once co-existed peacefully, and the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood.
From the web site: "The Creation Museum presents a 'walk through history.' Designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director, this state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life."
I know a certain Biologist will find this as amusing as I.
Visit the official web site at creationmuseum.org and see an alternative version of history.
Danny
Monday 4th June 2007 | 12:35 AMC'mon! T-Rex's massive razor sharp teeth were made for eating vegetables!
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 4th June 2007 | 01:36 PMAnd T-Rexs' sharp claws were for cultivating the land so she could grow the crispest vegies possible.
This is just dispicable really, to think that children are being taught and worse, taught to believe this drivel is correct, it just breaks my heart. Such a terrible form of child abuse in the form of brainwashing!
Mike T
Monday 4th June 2007 | 01:46 PMIt's funny, isn't it? The more the US appears to be losing its "war on terror", the more loopy things like this start popping up to hammer home the might (right?) of Christian fundamentalism. I don't know what's more dangerous: killing in the name of your religion, or brainwashing generations with complete and utter tripe like this? It's a thin line when people start rewriting history in the name of religious beliefs...
Janine
Monday 4th June 2007 | 05:38 PM...and on the 7th day God said "may thee preach this bullshit upon thy children with absolute certainty, for if you doubt the word of the lord, he shall strike thee down with furious anger, and lay vengeance upon thee!"
Anonymous
Friday 8th June 2007 | 02:51 PM"Being openly atheist can have drawbacks for some of us."
Thanks Mike for that Pearl of wisdom, more on Pearls latter.
Another anti Christian RANT, suprise me.
I cant feel the love.
Lets see a show of hands from all those who believe in evoloution.
Nobody today can justify evoloution, ther is no proof. I would go as far as stating anyone who believes in evoloution must be a brainwashed simpleton.
Evoloution is based an faith, there is no factual evidence, you only believe it to be true.
Dawkins and Hawkins are your holy men and I look on them with the contempt you look on the Bible, and my beliefs.
So where did we come from? if evoloution and creation are wrong, or are you going to cling on to evoloution.
We are all different, get use to it.
and where in the Bible does it state TRex ate vegies?
Michael
Friday 8th June 2007 | 07:58 PM"Nobody today can justify evoloution, ther is no proof"
And there is proof of God? Seriously I would like to see it.
"where in the Bible does it state TRex ate vegies?"
Very good question. Yet this museum is teaching just that :-)
"Another anti Christian RANT, suprise me."
Rant? Perhaps sarcasm, but definitely not a rant. Read it again.
"Dawkins and Hawkins are your holy men"
Who's Hawkins? Did you mean Hawking? As in Professor Stephen Hawking? If so I can't say I have read much of his work.
"We are all different, get use to it."
I am quite used to it. Seems you are the one making a fuss.
Gilly
Saturday 9th June 2007 | 02:50 PMSorry about my miss spelling of Hawkings name, but doesnt he write theories on the Earths age being so many million years? Patronise me because I cant spell his name, C mon.
I read on Dawkins site that an Athiest doesnt believe in the Jewish holocaust, by association clearly that implies all athiests dont believe in the Holocaust. How stupid would I be to think that, Eh!
There is no proof of God, I agree.
My question is why do you champion Dawkins, obviously you want to see an end to others beliefs just like him. No?
gilly said (me)
"We are all different, get use to it."
Mike said
"I am quite used to it. Seems you are the one making a fuss."
I am not making the fuss just countering a statement I clearly think is ignorant, but is that only for you to do on these forums .
Michael
Saturday 9th June 2007 | 04:54 PM"Patronise me because I cant spell his name, C mon"
Sorry you thought that was patronising. It was a legitimate question and my response was honest. I have never been game enough to read any of Hawking's work.
"There is no proof of God, I agree."
At least you seem open minded on the subject regardless of what your religious affiliation may be. Just like I can not disprove God and state with ultimate certainty he doesn't exist, you can not prove God and state with certainty that he does. All that matters is what we each believe based on our own experiences. I doubt anyone will ever win the argument, but that shouldn't stop us from arguing.
"just countering a statement I clearly think is ignorant, but is that only for you to do on these forums"
Of course not. Just countering the counter, which anyone is free to do. Keep it coming :-)
Arguably the greatest Biblical scholar of all time, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon ("Miamonides" or "the Rambam") upon whose work much of the modern understanding of the Bible is based, said that "whenever a contradiction arises between scientific knowledge and Torah (Bible) belief, it is incumbent on us to re-evaluate our interpretation of Torah so that it aligns with scientific facts". He was also an astronomer, a physician and a philospher and he died over 800 years ago.
His work was very largely based on the principle of "Negative theology", i.e. there can be no contradiction between the truths which God has revealed, and the findings of the human mind in science and philosophy. Where contradiction arises, it is because your understanding of one side or the other is incorrect.
The man considered to be the greatest Jewish philospher of all time is on record stating "man should believe only what can be supported either by rational proof, by the evidence of the senses, or by trustworthy authority."
It seems since then, many people have lost the ability to interpret information from multiple sources, without resorting to brickwalling anything they just don't like.
The reality is evolution makes a truckload of sense. For someone to stand up and say it doesn't implies they're refusing to take facts presented to them onboard for serious consideration and when you refuse to look at all the evidence from all sides, thats when the truth becomes irrelevant.
Since the days of the Spanish Inquisition, mainstream modern Christianity has taken the approach of bulldozing anyone who has a countering idea, rather than trying to view the idea on its merits. It's concepts like this which lead to people being put to death for saying the World wasn't flat. In fact, The Rambam mentioned above was himself pulled up (he lived in Spain) on this very point, as Jews have never believed the Earth to be flat. The Mishah Talmud, which pre-dates Christ, records the Earth as a "kadur" (Hebrew for "ball"). But I digress.
This stonewalling of information and attempting to skew facts and figures to suit your own beliefs, such as displayed in the video on this Rusty article (https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=353) only serve to reduce crediability and in time weaken the resolve and understanding of your own religion, until such time as it devolves into... well what's in that video.
True faith comes not from denying the obvious and pretending things aren't happening when they clearly are. It comes from accepting that you don't know everything and that perhaps your interpretations to date may not have been correct. The Bible is an emmensely complex book and it was NEVER intended to be read without the Talmud to support it. By itself, it stands as virtually incomprehensible and those who study it without the Talmud inevitably walk into the traps shown in the video I just mentioned.
The Bible was given to Moshe (Moses) and 4 million others on Mt Sinai some 4000 years back, in a completely oral form, that lasted some 40 days. The compoments that were written down in what people call the Old Testament amounts to little more than "study notes" based on that dialogue. If someone was to borrow notes from my old uni days, they'd be completely useless to anyone but me. Trying to learn Physics or Calculus from them would lead people to make huge mistakes in their understanding (*especially* from my notes :P). That's why you need the entire story to make an understanding of it. This is what leads people to make ridiculous museums like this one.
GJ
Monday 11th June 2007 | 09:37 AMHAHAHA: http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=6627249
Gilly
Monday 11th June 2007 | 03:38 PMYou obviously have never read the Bible have you Rodney?
Mike, why do you hate Christians or Christianity. I have plenty of athiest mates who couldnt give a toss about my Christianity, but you seem to be on anti Christian crusade. You dont have to answer the question.
I am not here to win any arguments, just provide a alternative.
Interesting how you earlier sugested how tough it was to be atheistic. By the replies that thread recieved, surely it suggests you are not in a minority group.
Michael
Monday 11th June 2007 | 06:08 PMI hate Christians? How did you draw that conclusion. So I hate my wife and kids, my Mum and Dad, and just about everyone else I know.
Anti-Christian crusade? I have written one article about being atheist, and this brief news post. Hardly worthy of being labelled a crusadist. So how did you arrive at that conclusion? Remember this article is about the Creationist Museum. It's legitimately newsworthy. All http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&ned=au&q=Creationist+Museum&btnG=Search+News">these news sources thought so as well. Are they on a crusade?
Why do you think something like this is newsworthy? Why do you think all those news sources felt it necessary to write about the opening of the Creationist Museum? To help promote it? Somehow I doubt it. They write about it because the concept is so absurd people need to know about it.
Can I ask you Gilly, do you believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed peacefully (Just like the Flintstones!), and that the Earth is only 6000 years old? Do you think the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood? Fossils are the result of Biblical floods? Or are you just as embarrassed at the concept of the Creationist Museum as my God fearing friends?
I will go out on a limb and say you don't believe any of that nonsense - or have I misjudged you?
Rodney
Monday 11th June 2007 | 06:41 PMGilly, I'd challenge you on it any day. I read the weekly section of the Torah (5 books of Moses), in its original Hebrew, every single Saturday. I study it most nights of the week. I teach people how to understand it. I will guarantee I know it better than you do. Not some third-hand translation, full of misinterpretations and intentionally skipped lines, like the King James, either. If you want to understand the JEWISH Bible, about the Jewish God, then you need to start with a Jewish understanding of it. (Also, how my post above would imply I don't know the Bible is a little beyond me)
As for Mike, he's never appeard anti-Christian to me. Anti-creationist, sure, I'll pay that one, but this is a sight for discussing news articles which are of relevance and interest to, well, nerds. And nerds find this sort of thing interesting; it's a question of science. There's a difference between thinking that the approach taken by that museum is wrong and being anti-Christian.
I'm sorry you see it as an attack - knowing Mike I can assure you he's not on the offensive here.
None the less, I still like seeing you post here and you certainly keep it interesting. I don't mind if you do or don't disagree with the museum - it's your call. I don't even care if you teach your children dinosaurs and people shared spinach & ricotta rolls, that's your business.
Frankly, if you do believe the approach that museum is taking is the right one, then I'm genuinely interested in some posts from you supporting the theory (and, while I can't speak for anyone else, I promise not to mock them). It would only be fair to hear someone from the other side of the fence.
Gilly
Tuesday 12th June 2007 | 01:21 PMOne at a time Gentlemen,
Ok Mike
(1+)"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Dawkins.
(1) I think Dawkins is my new hero :-) Mike.
=2. An end to religion. Sounds like Stalinism in its purist form, simple maths.
And what if I do believe the world was created in 6 days, if the world is only 6000 years old. What does it matter to you if I believe Fred Flinstone had a lawnmower that was a dinosaur; chomping its razor sharp jaws. In fact I could believe that easier than I can believe in evoloution.
Evoloution is Darwins theory , taken by the Soviet Union to help stamp out religion, I dont see you ridiculing that.
In fact you seem to preach evoloution as the truth.
Me personaly, I dont have the answers and dont particularly care. As a young child in bed at night I use to wonder where the universe stopped. I imagined a big red brick wall at the end of the universe, strangely as I got older I realised that was silly and that the big brick wall had to have something behind it.
Some things are beyond my understanding, when I became a Christian I realised some questions are beyond men and dont have an answer our minds can comprehend.
:} and Rod
Why do you spend as much time, and study so hard on these Jewish fairytales?
Rodney
Tuesday 12th June 2007 | 02:04 PMArrg. "Fairytales". Nice. Consider now that these fairytales form YOUR religion, as well. Your messiah was also a Jew. On the one hand you deride me for not knowing the bible, then you deride me for studying it. Make up your mind. Or do you just prefer to be argumentative.
I study these for the same reason you presumably study your books - it's my religion and I believe in it. My religion also encourages me to understand it, properly, and make informed decisions.
So while we're on the subject of fairytales, can you explain why you believe in the Christian doctrines? Especially in light of the fact that your own bible makes it impossible for Jesus to be the Messiah?
Below are the Biblical conidtions for being the Messaih. Id like to know how you justify a belief that Jesus meets these. Theyre not something I made up, theyre direct quotes from the Bible, with references. Please note, failure to met 100% of these indicates that the candidate is not the Messiah.
Apologies for the length.
1. First of all, he must be Jewish -
you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you. (Deuteronomy 17:15)
- Ok, score one for Jesus.
2. He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet
(Genesis 49:10)
- To be a member of a tribe your FATHER must have been, also. Jesus didnt have a father.
3. He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever
(2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)
- Again, the miracle birth is getting you into trouble, here. Notice the line set up your seed after you, so he really must descend from Davids seed. The Kingly line can descend ONLY from male to male.
4. He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel - And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)
- Im a Jew and I live in Australia. So far, were 1 from 4.
5. He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem -
and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.. (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
- The Temple is not yet rebuilt. The land is currently occupied by a Mosque.
6. He will rule at a time of world-wide peace -
they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore. (Micah 4:3)
- War is most definately still happening.
7. He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-ds commandments - My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes. (Ezekiel 37:24)
- Many Jews, especially in the US, are not observant. Christianity actively discourages observance of Biblical law.
8. He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd (Isaiah 66:23)
- Again, definately hasnt happened.
______
So, out of 8, Jesus scores 1. Now, theyre the bare minumum requirements for even starting to look like the Messiah, so how come you believe he was?
9. The Bible clearly states that (Deuteronomy 4:2) You shall not add to the word that I commanded you, nor shall you subtract from it. and yet all the proof that Jesus was the messiah is *added* after the Torah finishes.
Michael
Tuesday 12th June 2007 | 02:39 PMWow Gilly, you keep getting further off track. And jumping to conclusions. That might be Dawkins' agenda, it's certainly not mine.
I was an atheist long before I even heard of Dawkins, or that term 'atheist' for that matter.
Gilly says: "and Rod Why do you spend as much time, and study so hard on these Jewish fairytales? "
Why are Rodney's stories 'fairytales', or anybody else's for that mater, and not yours?
Gilly says: "In fact you seem to preach evoloution as the truth."
Where did you get that from? Sounds like you are just reading what you want to read - not what is actually written. You have done that quite a lot :-)
From https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=393">my article: "I will never force either atheism or religion onto them based on my personal beliefs."
..and...
"The reason I want my children to learn about religion is because although no-one can prove the existence of God to me, I on the other hand cannot 100% disprove the existence of God"
Yes it really does sound like I am preaching evolution as truth doesn't it? (Laughs)
gilly
Tuesday 12th June 2007 | 04:00 PMI am a Christian, I believe the whole Bible to be factual, not fairytales. All of it from Genesis to Revelation, even in my flawed English.
My beliefs dont put God in a box or a serviet at the passover feast. I also believe the Jews are Gods chosen people. I believe all of it.
I have spoken to Messianic Jews who have overcome all your little issues Rod, but that is none of my buisness.
Why I thought you didnt know the Old Testament Rod, was in an earlier discussion I suggested you read the second book of the OT to find out about Jewish law. Exodus has little to do with Jewish law, Leviticus is the third book. The fact you didnt pick that, led me astray as to your knowledge.
Mike, I still dont see you dealing with, sexualising children as a marketing tool, Bullying in Schools, Corrupt Pollies, Muslim radicals or Tom Cruise and scientology etc, all good news stories, all of them. No you rant and ridicule against me and mines ignorant beliefs in relation to evoloution.
You have an agenda you just dont realise it. Again evoloution is a theory that is based on what some self serving scientist created and has been carried by other self serving scientists since to justify an income and acknowledgments. It is a good theory, never the less only a THEORY.
Again you seem to push it as the only truth, while ridiculing those that disagree. Why?
My answer, why I think you are on an anti Christian crusade is plain. Dont you yet understand it.
Rodney
Tuesday 12th June 2007 | 04:19 PMExodus (which I would call Shemot) is full of laws. All the books of Moses are; 613 of them to be exact. These are summarised in the "ten commandments". Leviticus (Vayikra) has many laws as you say, but all the books do. It's not correct to say its the principle book of laws - just the principle book of laws to do with worship.
And the points you raise about other topics is fair. But I invite you in all seriousness, to explain you evolutionairy beliefs. I, like you, belief in creation. I just don't disbelieve in evolution. If you read my comments on "https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=393" that page, you'll see I agree that evolution and other scientific theories have flaws. But I list my concerns with those theories.
You frequently state that evolution is clearly bogus but never site why. So please, to keep the discussion productive, let us know what your understanding of the situation is. Give us some "whys". That's all we really want.
Gilly
Wednesday 13th June 2007 | 12:51 PMNo I am not here to trade barbs on theories.
People here on this site are so cocksure that dinosaurs didnt live the same time as people that there can be no questions, cool, prove it, 100% to me. No gray areas, I want 100% proof.
Then I will laugh along with you at the ignorant fools.
See I dont realy care if you believe what I do, and dont really care if Dinosaurs walked with men, it wont affect my life in anyway.
Rodney
Wednesday 13th June 2007 | 01:10 PMNot good enough, Gilly.
Again, you dodge the question, which implies you don't have any answers. Everyone else here is happy to offer their reasons up for discussion. You don't seem to have any reasons.
I don't offer to "trade barbs" on theories. You seem to be the only one doing that. Instead, I'm offering you an opportunity to support your beliefs. As I've stated, I'm not going to deride any reasons you have - I have a genuine interest in hearing both sides of the story. I can't claim you won't be challenged on any beliefs but I can say you won't be mocked for them. Surely if you are sure you're right you can stand up to a little discussion on the topic?
So no more quick posts saying everyone but you is dumb. Either you have reasons or you just like arguing. If it's the latter, then find somewhere else to do it.
Gilly
Wednesday 13th June 2007 | 03:38 PMI work9-5.30 and spending time researching creation is not a luxury I can afford, now.
Your reasons are based on others opinions, so are mine.
You are more than welcome to try "answers in genesis". While I may not support all the theories they claim, they do have some interesting articles.
I like you Rod, believe in God, Unlike you I believe in every word of his book, all of it. I dont think that any of it is a fairytale. God could have caused evoloution, but where is the proof?
Rodney
Wednesday 13th June 2007 | 05:48 PMNo one who believes in the Bible thinks of it as a fairy tale. I also believe every word is true. What I question is a) my interpretation and b) my understanding.
It's fine to say evolution is bumkus, which you have many times. I'd like to know how you can say that, when you don't seem to have an arguement to support your theory. The fact that you'd need to research it to reply seems to confirm that. So how then, can you claim something is false, when you don't know why? Aren't you interested in reasons?
The only logical conclusion, I can find, is as per that movie "God said it, I believe, that settles it". Is that your reason (and I'm not judging you if it is)?
Gilly
Wednesday 13th June 2007 | 07:10 PMEvoloution is based on mutation. Where are the good mutations now?
Rodney
Wednesday 13th June 2007 | 10:26 PMwtf? Is that it? You seriously don't have a single supporting argument? To defend a theory you need something more than a potential reason the other theory is wrong.
Well. It's been real.
Anonymous
Thursday 14th June 2007 | 12:15 PMNo, that is one of many. BUT mutation is
F U N D A M E N T A L to evoloution.
If you cant explain that then you are pissing in the wind.
g
Saturday 16th June 2007 | 06:26 PMNo, that is one of many. BUT mutation is
F U N D A M E N T A L to evoloution.
If you cant explain that then you are pissing in the wind.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Saturday 16th June 2007 | 08:18 PMMutation is spontaneous and happens throughout the day. You go out in the sun and the molecular consistency of your skin changes, sometimes to such a degree where a partial or total mutation occurs without killing the cell, which then mutates. This is cancer. This is caused by, among other things, ultraviolet radiation from the sun which is partially dampened by the layers of ozone which envelop our planet, Earth.
We are aware of global warning and the effect that CO2, again among other things, has on the ozone layer. Throughout the x mill/billion years that this planet has evolved, an ozone layer has not always been present, or has simply not been as strong. All it takes is a hole in the ozone, say from a meteor that smacked the earth, and several different types of radiation, including gamma which is notorious for creating mutation on a large scale in both zero G and in laboratory, leaks in and changes the planet.
I really don't think that one side or the other is more right as both sides have their own evidence, whether it be from the ever expanding torrent of knowledge accumulated through scientific study or a book [old testement] which holds several thousands of years of accumulated literature. The reality is that 'because the bible says so' is good enough for some and 'because science says so' is good enough for too many people to count on my twelve fingered [mutated] hands.
You can either make history your beginning and your end or you can make it your guide, either way, we have no right to say who is wrong or right. One side comes off looking righteous and being called bigoted and the other comes off looking righteous and pious. The difference is the side you take.
I take no side, I have no religion, no faith but that in myself. Does that make me better than anyone else? Who bloody cares.
I digress, for all sides, the argument is, nothing worth having ever comes easily.
Rodney
Saturday 16th June 2007 | 09:47 PMWhat does that even mean; "Where are the good mutations now?"?
g
Saturday 16th June 2007 | 11:16 PMMutation is spontaneous and happens throughout the day. You go out in the sun and the molecular consistency of your skin changes, sometimes to such a degree where a partial or total mutation occurs without killing the cell, which then mutates. This is cancer.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Sunday 17th June 2007 | 12:55 PMG, you're being a bit daft here, sorry, but you're really not reading between the lines.
A spontaneous mutation strong enough to create a 'good mutation' as you put it, would take an extraordinary change in circumstance in the being's environment. This would take place if say the change in the earth's magnetic poles were to change (as we can say with some certainty will happen within the next few hundred years). We have no idea what the change in polarity will do to the ozone layers, but lets say for the sake of this explanation that the ozone layer was completely depleted. Almost immediately it would be impossible for anyone to leave their home, of course fire would ravage almost everywhere and there would be no water available as dams would dry up completely.
The resulting mutations which for history's sake would be classed as 'good mutations' would include thicker skin enabling us to walk under the sun. Better eyesight in the dark as most people would need to move underground. An ability to dehydrate slower and perhaps even store water in our body. These are just to name a few.
These mutations would take place over several thousand years and very slowly, but they are just examples.
Current 'good mutations' include opposable thumbs, cognitive thought, speech, the ability to see both depth and color.
Obviously these are mutations that we hold over our predecessors but mutations none the less.
If you are looking for something even more recent, how about the visible difference between races.
Rodney
Sunday 17th June 2007 | 04:52 PMSlightly off topic but why would a change in the Earth's magnetic poles remove the ozone layer? It's already changed poles a few times in history with no such effect http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/">http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/?
Genuine question which I can't be bothered researching - why would that effect the ozone layer? Ozone as an element is not based on iron. The link I posted above also mentioned this may cause the atmosphere to thin - can anyone explain this to me?
Jake Farr-Wharton
Sunday 17th June 2007 | 05:03 PMA pole shift happens around once every 250000 years and we're about 50000 years overdue for one. As for what is effected, apart from the GPS run satellites, there is no assurances.
Ozone particles are charged by the magnetic poles so far as I can remember. I don't believe it will totally dissipate unless it is by human ozone murder, though again, we really don't know exactly what to expect from a pole change.
Rodney
Sunday 17th June 2007 | 09:38 PMYeah; wow I didn't even think about the satellites.
g
Monday 18th June 2007 | 02:09 PMG, you're being a bit daft here, sorry, but you're really not reading between the lines.
Na Na, So are you. Interesting THEORY.
I bet you can prove that 100% to me. Crap100%
You need two perfect mutations to breed, that does not happen in the real world
_____________
Current 'good mutations' include opposable thumbs, cognitive thought, speech, the ability to see both depth and color.
Good guess but again Crap.
Do you even know what DNA is?
If you are looking for something even more recent, how about the visible difference between races.
D N A? Look it up on the intraweb thingy, (shakes head in disbelief at some peoples ignorance)
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 19th June 2007 | 09:47 AMG?
You've not actaully made a point just dismissed what I've said. If you want to be taken seriously, actually make a rebut, don't be childish and just say that I'm wrong.
Yes G, I have a great understanding of DNA, RNA and the effects of radiation with respect to celular change, thanks for asking pal.
Radiation effects DNA and easily creates mutations at a celular level.
Two perfect mutations are not required for offspring to be born with a mutation.
What is this 100% proof thing you're asking for?
I don't personally work in a laboratory that performs experiments on DNA, though it is just around the corner from me in one of our bunkers and I manage some of the people that perform the tests. I can't give you the 100% proof personally but would be happy to direct you to some of our published research in the field.
While we're talking about 100% proof though, I would be really interested in having some 100% proof with respect to the existence of those deities you beleive in?
Perhaps you could explain for me, of course with no less than 100% proof, that the dude jesus was not married, did not have kids, was a carpenter, was the result of an immaculate conception and died for your sins (as opposed to dying cause he pissed of the ruling jews at the time). I should say also that I would appreciate actual proof, i.e. please don't use the bible to proove the bible...
G
Tuesday 19th June 2007 | 12:21 PMSo, you are not suggesting blue eyes or blond hair are traits of modern evoloution.
I am not asking anybody for 100%, just pointing out Mike (mysteriously disapeard) position.
Yes I am aware that both sides ,Creation and evolution are based on faith. Again I couldnt care less what you want to believe in.
Your argument of race in relation to evoloution is childlike.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 19th June 2007 | 01:33 PMAgain G, all you've done is dismiss the claim and have said nothing to refuke it that holds any baring, bar your closed and illigitimate statement.
I am most certainly suggesting that blue eyes, blond hair, skin colour and many more race traits are charachteristics of modern evolution. There is a great deal of scientific evidence suggesting thus. Certainly enough to show that creationism is infact the childish rationalisation.
G, if you're going to come back with anything, for your gods sake, make it constructive. When you simply dismiss and idea you end up looking like a goose. Give your argument some substance or it just sounds like a baloon full of air being let to rip through the office...
Also, you did ask for 100% proof.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 19th June 2007 | 01:39 PMSorry, I should say, I'm not trying to shut you down G, I would really like to hear some constructive thought from the creationists side of the table... with some substance though.
g
Wednesday 20th June 2007 | 01:27 PMSorry. I am working on Three fronts here. One at a time.
Rod first Please explain the Leviathon and Behemoth to me as a Jewish scholar. I dont think a cow/ox has a tail like a cypress tree. God would not have used it as an example to Job if Job didnt know what they where. I am not arguing about Dinosaurs here.
Then explain the Dragon like animal described in Job. Simple answer for you here. Did they live at the same time as Job or not. Yes or No, or are you a coward and to afraid to stand by your scriptures teaching.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 21st June 2007 | 10:01 AMFor your gods sake G, your entire frickin beleif system relies on one extremely unreliable and unstable medium, translation.
Have you heard the saying 'lost in translation'? When converting most languages to English, literal or figurative translation is completely flawed. So unless you read ancient greek, take no credence from the old testament, while your at it though, the new testament holds the same flaw.
Second to that you also have a the FACT that people wrote the stories you read in the bible, not an omnipotent being. If your god was actually speaking through them as they claim, through vissions and dreams, every word is fundamentally flawed by their interpretation of those dreams and vissions.
This same flaw exists in churchs because you beleive that you are not qualified or 'holy'/pious enough to speak directly to your god, you rely on the interpretations of a priest, cardinal, bishop etc. So unless you are getting the message directly from your gods, your teachings are completely flawed by interpretation, translation and literals.
Rodney
Thursday 21st June 2007 | 11:25 AMWell said Jake... this has been part of my point all along. (Although not to sound like a broken record, the original text is Hebrew, not Greek, specifically bans the use of intermediatories for providing a relationship and wasn't put together by vote :P)
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 21st June 2007 | 12:40 PMI wasn't sure what it was, thanks. Are you talking about the old testiment though? I was more specifically referring to the new testament, the council of Nicea which voted upon jesus' divinity (198ad) and the council in 374ad which formalised the stories for a 'one true christian bible'.
Rodney
Thursday 21st June 2007 | 01:25 PMI don't know much about the new testament but I am familiar with the voting in and out of certain texts and the general understanding that this bit or that bit was written by various people; at least at a TV documentary level, anyway.
When looking at the old testament, we believe the majority of that, in terms of pages, is written by people as well. Only the first 5 books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy) are considered the word of God. Psalms, for example, was undisputedly written by King David and largely consists of poems written by a troubled man, who had hard times in his life. As such, while we place value in the lessons which can be learned in these books and attribute some level of prophetic value to them, they're not considered 'as holy' and we don't place so much emphasis on them. We accept that they're human written and as such open to wide interpretation. They're even considered different works (obviously we don't call them the old testament)- we call this "2nd" section of the Bible "Tanakh" and the first 5 books "Torah". Generally, most Jews won't really even study Tanakh, other than in passing.
What utterly bewilders me though, is how another group of people can come along, pick up those same books and insist that they mean something different. This is like me writing a story in school and the teacher coming along and telling me it didn't mean what I intended it to mean; it means what she wants it to. I mean, for goodness sakes, they're Jewish books, written by Jews, for Jews and yet other groups come along and tell us we don't know what they mean! They do this without reading a single word of any of the supporting texts because those texts tend to destroy their prefered interpretations and yet those texts pre-date these newer groups and are crucial to understanding. So the world winds up with stories about devils and angels fighting for souls and burning in hell if you don't shut up and do what you're told.
Gilly opitimises this perspective. He doesn't question anything, he refuses to believe any viewpoint other than his own is valid and I have found this to be common to all evangelical christians. They simply refuse to consider options and agressively attack anyone who does. This is not a healthy or mature way to approach belief. The problem with the all or nothing teaching of evangelicals, however, is that when you take such a rigid approach and are proven wrong, you're left with nothing.
At least in Judaism and Islam there are multiple viewpoints and multiple interpreations. We don't consider other views "wrong", so long as they can back themselves up in a clear and logical fashion. This doesn't make the religion weaker or wishy washy. Everything still needs textual proof and must be argued out in legalistic terms (ever wondered why so many Jews wind up lawyers?). It shouldn't be considered weak to accept that you don't understand everything and maybe someone else has a better idea.
I hope one day Gilly realises that true belief doesn't come from refusing to look around you. True belief comes from being able to accept that some times things weren't as you thought they were, being able to accept the new reality and still believing. Not just blindly but by realising that one reality doesn't have to preclude another.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Friday 22nd June 2007 | 09:04 AMWow Rod, I truely thank you for your insight.
Many thanks.
Hitler
Saturday 23rd June 2007 | 07:22 PMWow Rod, I truely thank you for your insight-
and want to have your children
Just a joke, LAUGH!
Sorry my views are based on the Bible.
Yours are based on ? Nothing? Others? Crap?
Interlinear Bible. WTF is that?
Sorry, I am a Christian, but stupidity even frustrates me.
Rodney
Saturday 23rd June 2007 | 09:48 PMI said: "What utterly bewilders me though, is how another group of people can come along, pick up those same books and insist that they mean something different..."
Gilly says: "Sorry my views are based on the Bible.
Yours are based on ? Nothing? Others? Crap?"
Thanks for confirming my point, Gilly (who choses to glorify
in Hitler - what a compassionate, loving person you must be). You're doing a bang-up job representing Christians, here.
Hitler or What?
Saturday 23rd June 2007 | 10:24 PMI am only playing along for the audience. I did not choose the title, it was given to me on this site.
If you think I am Hitler-FINE- You be the judge.
Nothing I have said or done has placed me in Hitlers position.
My question MUTATION your ANSWER?
I am bored with this crap cos I cant get an answer.
I took offence at being described as Hitler, but unlike the rest of the precious princesses hear abouts, I can take criticism. I can even play along.
You can not read the book and miss understand it, unless you are stupid.
JFW mate
Saturday 23rd June 2007 | 10:33 PMThis same flaw exists in churchs because you beleive that you are not qualified or 'holy'/pious enough to speak directly to your god, you rely on the interpretations of a priest, cardinal, bishop etc. So unless you are getting the message directly from your gods, your teachings are completely flawed by interpretation, translation and literals.
Sai's Wharton
This is why I consider you IRRELEVANT Wharton.
You talk utter crap. Completely IGNORANT to what I have said before.
You are a Catholic and you will die a Catholic. I bet me balls on it.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Sunday 24th June 2007 | 05:41 PMI assume it was gilly who wrote the above as JFW Mate.
It's quite easy to tell that it was him as all he ever does is try to shut you down. That is it. He has nothing productive to say, simply dismisses everything. No substance, just defiance.
Gilly, I have no religion. I renounced christianity many years ago, it had no answers and discouraged and forbade questioning anything that was beyond the rudimentary. I should say though, I am also not an athiest, I simply subscribe to no theocracy.
I'm sorry you took offence to my voicing the similarities between your and Hitler's view of the Jewish people. I simply wont tollerate that kind of ignorant behavior.
Gilly, my friend, it seems that both of our views are based on crap as we have reached an impass. Enjoy your faith, it obviously give you some sort of fulfilment, a light in the dark if you will... I simply prefer to create my own light.
Gilly
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 12:28 PMStill waiting on a simple answer on good mutations. Unless that crap about the Earths magnetic polls is your best shot.
Answers?
Anonymous
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 09:30 PMWhere does mutation take place that is positive and where did life come from. Evoloution can not explain these two fundamental problems.
Go have a crack. You can do it.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 10:24 AMGilly, I've provided several 'recent mutations' for you previously. The ability to see colour, depth and detect movement in our field of vision, apposable thumbs, slow-oxidative twitch muscle fibres, the list goes on.
Where did life come from? positively charged electrons grouped together by a massive charge of electricity, something like a bolt of lightning.
Now, instead of taking these well supported theories further, I'll make a 'Gilly statement' def.- a substance free statement that requires no thought provocation, little intelligence (I am refering to the statements, not Gilly personally):
There is no such thing as a christian god, creationism is a creton's answer to a genius' question, the bible is wrong because it is and athiests' all smell like lavender.
hollowman777
Wednesday 2nd April 2008 | 12:08 AMholy crap is this a heated topic or what? The problem with most Christians are that they are religious and can't see past their own noses. The problem with Atheists are that they too are religious but can't see past their own noses as well.
Once man enters the equation the facts are manipulated and truth is buried in favor of convenience.
As far as having a creationist museum out there. I think it is a good idea to have a varying opinion floating around. I personally get tired of hearing claims that the world is millions of years old. After all the oldest living tree known on earth is only about 8000 years old. So, it is beyond me how individuals can claim the earth is as old as many claim.
In summary both all relgious groups including atheists are idiots. Chances are we are all wrong on not only this theory but probably every single theory that has to rely upon something other than facts.
/\/\@ximus
Wednesday 2nd April 2008 | 05:32 AMThis should settle it once and for all....
http://static.mmoabc.com/my/P/u/n/ch/2007/12/13//1197585423160.png
Hacker
Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 07:44 PMThe museum should be called "The Museum Of The Monumental Wank. Seriously!
Yorky
Monday 4th June 2007 | 12:31 AMAre there any creationists in aus or are americans only that dumb? Seriously its the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life.