Creation Museum created in Kentucky

[Vong]

Story Here (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070528/creation_museum?s_name=&no_ads=)

Saying that dinosaurs were created alongside humans is one thing. Actually proving it is another. Throwing unproven and factless shit in a building and calling it a "museum" doesn't make it one.

This museum is a farce of made-up "science" to make kids and adults feel at ease with their beliefs.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Although I disagree with this Ham character, I must admit it's a huge step from the "God placed dinosaur fossils as a test of our faith" days.

[Cyclonus]

Another assault on science by the increasingly powerful Christian Fundamentalist lobby. The sad thing is that some people, especially children, might be confused and misled by the slick presentation. I realize that the First Amendment protects their right to establish such a museum, but the rest of us have to educate ourselves against all forms of psuedeoscience, especially when there's a political agenda behind it. Otherwise we'll wake up to find this country a theocracy. The seperation of church and state is too important for us not to take heed.

[Thrizzle]

Whatever, religion is the antithesis of science because it's about faith whereas science is about logic. Overall, belief in science is progressing and stuff like this will eventually fade away.

[outsyder]

I think I read this one.

http://images.darkhorse.com/covers/300/11/11653.jpg

[bowieee]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Although I disagree with this Ham character, I must admit it's a huge step from the "God placed dinosaur fossils as a test of our faith" days.

It's amazing how many people I've met that actually with all their faith believed that theory.

[Lynn7]

I love the guy who said the 27 million dollars could have been spent on many other things. How much does he think the museums cost in cities all over this country? We can't afford to have a different opinion expressed than the one that the majority of modern scientests adhere to because of course we all know that scientests are NEVER wrong.

No one alive was there during the times of dinosaurs so we are all speculating on what happened. There are some things entered into evidence and there are interpretations of those things. And of course there might be some missing things or some things that are in evidence that are actually irrelevant so that is why science is always changing over time. Of course science will not change when the scientific community stops welcoming different ideas or interpretations.It's an interesting world these days.

Modern times are great - we've come so far EXCEPT the exchange of ideas is discouraged (just look at any college campus where a conservative comes to speak or get an award- his or her voice is effectively drown out by protestors). Nice.

[Scarfather]

There are hundreds of better ways to spend 27 MILLION DOLLARS then a museum that will brainwash kids into believing what is the scientific equivalent of the invisible pink unicorn.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
No one alive was there during the times of dinosaurs so we are all speculating on what happened.

IRONY ALERT!!!
Replace "dinosaurs" with "Jesus", and you got yourself a dilemma.

Lynn, to say that dinosaurs existed with humans is the worst interpretation imaginable. In order to say this, you would have to compress every single species that has existed and became extinct within a billion years into 4,000, on top of 2.4 million years of human development and 15,000 years of human civilization. To lump all that shit together in such a short time frame would blow the heads of anthropologists and geneticists. But of course, what do they know...if this museum is true, these people must be idiots.

[MadsenOMC]

Yes conservatives are not allowed to speak on college campuses, and the world is flat.

[Psychocandy]

The thing that annoys me and pretty much ensures that I will never even attempt to get into a debate about this is that the people who believe in creationism are so deluded that any attempt to try to sway them from their beliefs would likely end with me fracturing my skull against a wall. People are entitled to their beliefs but c'mon folks.

http://latefilm.com/images/one_million_years_BC_4.jpg

NO! NO!! NO!!! NO!!!! NO!!!!!

[Lynn7]

That's what creationists think about you guys. I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That's what creationists think about you guys. I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

There's a big difference though.

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That's what creationists think about you guys. I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

No we won't.

[QUENTIN]

People who are convinced the holocaust never happened, despite all the conclusive evidence, will never be able to convince those of us who believe it occurred and vice-versa, but it's not hard to tell who is wrong. There's something about stupid and ridiculous ideas that make all arguments for them pretty weak and easily identifiable. "God put them there to test our faith" and all similarly moronic ideas thrown out by creationist are fortunately just as easy to see for what they are by those of us who don't live in bubbles.

[Lynn7]

I am hugely outnumbered here but I assure you that when I am with my creationist friends (i.e. Christian friends or Christian community people) we all talk about you guys the same way. There is pity for people who beleive that we are descended from monkeys etc and there is talk that how can people be so deluded? So, you are right that people have different opinions and see things from much different perspectives. I have never heard anything that would remotely make me believe what you guys believe. So that's it.

But why should there be any concern if we want to have one little museum about creationsim? Seems innocent enough in the land of free speech.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Seems innocent enough in the land of free speech.

When you start dilluding yourself and others of false information, it's not free speech.

[Kevin Lockard]

To quote Lewis Black: "I can't be nice about this. These people are watching the Flinestones as if it were a documentary."

What I object to, Lynn, is what you're talking about when you say that Creationists talk about us all the same in "pity." My views aren't based on believing what one side says over the other. They're based off of Math, Reason, Logic......Science. Asking me to treat your faith as "just as valid" is way too much to ask. That's one thing I'll never understand, is people of religion/faith acting as if it's "reasonable." It isn't. Faith flies in reason, and as such, shouldn't be treated as "reasonable." It defies the very definiton, in that the conclusion wasn't based using "reason" as a means to explain it.

Now, let me ask a question - How is it better to live in a world where God is believed to exist than in a world where there is no God, and we are nothing more than another step in evolution as a whole. How it is better to live in that universe where your God hides from you, answers none of your questions, allows suffering, allows open-minded people like me to doubt his existence, but goes ahead with the damning-you-to-hell part if you fall short regardless? THAT universe is the one that is terrifying.

It does nothing to free will to prove you exist. If there is a God, and that's a big If, then why doesn't he just make himself obvious so that it answers the ultimate question instead of allowing people to continue to doubt his existence?

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have never heard anything that would remotely make me believe what you guys believe.


You're completely adverse to facts then?

[electriclite]

The only thing I wonder when I see stuff like this now is whether or not, for safety pre-cautions or what not, do these believers block out the Discovery Channel on their cable service or just not subscribe at all?

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There is pity for people who beleive that we are descended from monkeys etc and there is talk that how can people be so deluded?

So the logical alternative is that a sentient omnipresent being created existence?

Evolution is not something people pulled out of nowhere. THINK about it.

1. Do you think that an creature more suited to its environment has a better chance to survive in said environment than one less suited?

If you answer yes, then you've acknowledged evolution is viable, and at least present in some form or another. If you answer no, I'd REALLY like to hear the explanation.

[Lynn7]

Reading through all of your posts it becomes apparent that the bigger issue here is the way that you guys cannot accept that people have different perceptions of things and that evidence can be interpretted differently. We can each think the others' ideas are outlandish but we all have the right to beleive the way we see fit. For you guys to proclaim that what I beleive is nonsense is as silly as it is for me to say that what you believe is nonsense. Obviously, we disagree with the other sides' view or we would all be in agreement.

The most worrisome thing is the way there seems to be this move to squash opposing viewpoints. Again, the liberals seem to be very averse to some people having a viewpoint that is different from the "popular" one.

It is very easy- you beleive what you want to and we'll beleive what we want to. We have the right to see things differently. I am fine with that.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
To quote Lewis Black: "I can't be nice about this. These people are watching the Flinestones as if it were a documentary."

What I object to, Lynn, is what you're talking about when you say that Creationists talk about us all the same in "pity." My views aren't based on believing what one side says over the other. They're based off of Math, Reason, Logic......Science. Asking me to treat your faith as "just as valid" is way too much to ask. That's one thing I'll never understand, is people of religion/faith acting as if it's "reasonable." It isn't. Faith flies in reason, and as such, shouldn't be treated as "reasonable." It defies the very definiton, in that the conclusion wasn't based using "reason" as a means to explain it.

Now, let me ask a question - How is it better to live in a world where God is believed to exist than in a world where there is no God, and we are nothing more than another step in evolution as a whole. How it is better to live in that universe where your God hides from you, answers none of your questions, allows suffering, allows open-minded people like me to doubt his existence, but goes ahead with the damning-you-to-hell part if you fall short regardless? THAT universe is the one that is terrifying.

It does nothing to free will to prove you exist. If there is a God, and that's a big If, then why doesn't he just make himself obvious so that it answers the ultimate question instead of allowing people to continue to doubt his existence?

all of your questions tell me that you do not understand Christianity at all. The way you describe my God is not my God. That is the god that the atheists describe. I would not follow a god like that. I am not terrified of Him. My God does not hide from me, answers all my questions (but maybe not all of the world's questions), warns me I will suffer in this world because it is a fallen world that he offers salvation from. allows me to doubt and comforts me but does not condemn me when I do and uses those moments to teach me of Him, and knows I always will fall short but loves me anyway. That is a loving God.

As to your last statement, Jesus addresses that in the bible when he speaks of Lazurus asking for someone to be sent to his home to warn his brothers about what fate awaits them. Jesus said if some one was sent would people listen? He was referring to himself. God himself came to earth to teach of these things but who listened? He made himself very obvious. A poor carpenter born in obscurity who revolutionized the entire world thousands of years before radio and tv- amazing!

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Reading through all of your posts it becomes apparent that the bigger issue here is the way that you guys cannot accept that people have different perceptions of things and that evidence can be interpretted differently. We can each think the others' ideas are outlandish but we all have the right to beleive the way we see fit.

Lynn, we are critiquing your viewpoint because of your side's willful rejection of hard and scientific facts. You cannot take science and remove all empiricism from it and expect people to swallow it. This is exactly what this creation museum is doing; they are bending the truth to fit their own beliefs.

Originally posted by Lynn7
The most worrisome thing is the way there seems to be this move to squash opposing viewpoints. Again, the liberals seem to be very averse to some people having a viewpoint that is different from the "popular" one.

Considering that 35% of Americans believe that the Bible is the literal word of god, 46% believe in the literal view of creationism, and less than 2% are atheists, you currently have the "popular" viewpoint in your country.

[Vong]

BTW Lynn, I was hoping that you would address this situation that I posted earlier. I mean, you must have an answer for this....

Originally posted by Vong
Lynn, to say that dinosaurs existed with humans is the worst interpretation imaginable. In order to say this, you would have to compress every single species that has existed and became extinct within a billion years into 4,000, on top of 2.4 million years of human development and 15,000 years of human civilization. To lump all that shit together in such a short time frame would blow the heads of anthropologists and geneticists. But of course, what do they know...if this museum is true, these people must be idiots.

What is religion's answer towards anthropologists and historians?

[Squid Vicious]

This seems about right:

http://www.saintjoe.edu/~dept14/environment/rogero/creationism.jpg

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
This seems about right:

http://www.saintjoe.edu/~dept14/environment/rogero/creationism.jpg

Haha! So true.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
Lynn, we are critiquing your viewpoint because of your side's willful rejection of hard and scientific facts. You cannot take science and remove all empiricism from it and expect people to swallow it. This is exactly what this creation museum is doing; they are bending the truth to fit their own beliefs.



Considering that 35% of Americans believe that the Bible is the literal word of god, 46% believe in the literal view of creationism, and less than 2% are atheists, you currently have the "popular" viewpoint in your country.

What are scientific "facts"? I would prefer to see it as there are discoveries that people have interpretted a certain way. IF someone discovers a fossil then that fossil is looked at, examined and conclusions are drawn. If you think that every scientific conclusion that is drawn is absolutely 100% correct and infallible then you have not been watching science since the beginning. It is always changing.

The popular is not always the one that the most people follow. The popular is the one that the cool people adhere to- like Hollywood is cool and it is mostly against Christianity. So, explain this to me- how is it that if only 2% of people are atheist, so many posters here fall into that category? Could it be that the educational system is churning out students who ridicule the things of God and hold science up as the infallible answer? It seems to me that the schools have taken the view that it is OK to present only one side of issues as fact so that could have an impact on how many of our future citizens will register as atheists in future polls.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
This seems about right:

http://www.saintjoe.edu/~dept14/environment/rogero/creationism.jpg

The Bible has facts and conclusions. Biblical facts have been proven over and over by historical and archeological discoveries. Hey, this king from the Bible that no one ever heard of before actually existed! How about that? Here are his archeological artifacts! Happens all the time.

And as I've said before, scientific conclusions keep changing as new "facts" come to light. So don't place your faith in a current scientifc viewpoint. Scientests of tomorrow could be laughing at the science of today. Happens all the time.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by Lynn7

And as I've said before, scientific conclusions keep changing as new "facts" come to light. So don't place your faith in a current scientifc viewpoint. Scientests of tomorrow could be laughing at the science of today. Happens all the time.

This is the truest of the true, but do remember that the the scientists of today revel the scientists of yesterday, men who for the most part knew what they were talking about and were prosecuted by the Church.

Because after all dinosaurs existed alongside man, and the Earth is the center of the universe.

[Scarfather]

Whoops.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Scarfather


Because after all dinosaurs existed alongside man, and the Earth is the center of the universe.

No, America is. ;)

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
No, America is. ;)


Meeeh. My Galileo joke!

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What are scientific "facts"? I would prefer to see it as there are discoveries that people have interpretted a certain way. IF someone discovers a fossil then that fossil is looked at, examined and conclusions are drawn. If you think that every scientific conclusion that is drawn is absolutely 100% correct and infallible then you have not been watching science since the beginning. It is always changing.

If you discover a fossil, do you just stare at it constantly and speculate on where it came from? Because that's exactly what this creation museum has done. This conclusion does not result in facts, but dillusions. Science has actually studied and analysed the fossils using scientific techniques based in the dozens of fields it holds. Do you think crime scene investigators just stare at a cadavre and rationalize what happened? No. They use science to explain what happened.

Of course science is always changing. That is the beauty of it. It is continually changing to fit societies progression in understanding and knowledge. 3000 years ago, the Greeks believed that lightning, storms, eathquakes and other natural phenomon were created by their gods. Science disproved that.

The world believed for over 1400 years that Ptolemy's universe was correct. Copernicus and Gallileo disproved it using science. Both of whom received religious backlash for their discoveries, being considered heretics for changing the norms of society.

Everyone believed that humans were created by gods. Darwin disproved that by starting a revolution in scientific reasoning; evolution.

The fact is, while science is constantly changing, religion stays the same. So while society is progressing along with new acceptances, norms and values, religion stagnates and fails to modernize. On top of this, science has been under the heel of religious dogma for thousands of years. It wasn't until the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment that men and women were no longer afraid of the consequences their actions would bring to them. We can thank these brave people for providing the life we have today. Do you think you could have written all these posts on this board without science?

Originally posted by Lynn7
The popular is not always the one that the most people follow. The popular is the one that the cool people adhere to- like Hollywood is cool and it is mostly against Christianity. So, explain this to me- how is it that if only 2% of people are atheist, so many posters here fall into that category? Could it be that the educational system is churning out students who ridicule the things of God and hold science up as the infallible answer? It seems to me that the schools have taken the view that it is OK to present only one side of issues as fact so that could have an impact on how many of our future citizens will register as atheists in future polls.

Haha, I like the idea that science is considered "cool". :cool:
Considering that 2% of 300,000,000 is 6,000,000, that lumps a significant number of people in your country beyond the walls of this forum.

Maybe schools are teaching science to kids because schools are meant to educate. Besides that though, Public Schools are made without religious doctrine affecting their curriculum. That is what religious based schools, such as Catholic Schools, are made for. If you don't want your kids learning things you don't want them to, send them to a religious-based school or home-school them. Many Evangelicals of the US do it.

Or maybe this is all due, once again, to an ever changing society. Maybe society is realizing that religion doesn't hold the key to everything. Maybe the faithful are seeing that while religion gives them some means of belonging and cultural identity, the doctrines of their faith are holding them down and preventing them from experiencing the world outside of their faith's box. Only 2% of the US may be atheist, but there are a growing number of Christians who accept the "story book" analogy of the bible and take it as it should be taken; allegorical literature.

[Thrizzle]

It has to be higher than 2%.

[Cyclonus]

Do forty-six percent of all Americans really believe in the Biblical notion of Creationism? Where does that figure come from? If it's true, it doesn't say a lot of good things about our population's scientific literacy.

[boombche_stum]

Actually Baylor Religion survey showed 5.2% of those surveyed did not believe in god. (The sample was only 1,721 so who knows how that would pan out nation wide).

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
Do forty-six percent of all Americans really believe in the Biblical notion of Creationism? Where does that figure come from? If it's true, it doesn't say a lot of good things about our population's scientific literacy.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution_2.html

"In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea. "

The only other country that ranked lower than the US is Turkey.

Pretty sad if you ask me.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by electriclite
The only thing I wonder when I see stuff like this now is whether or not, for safety pre-cautions or what not, do these believers block out the Discovery Channel on their cable service or just not subscribe at all?

Ahaha! I just got this vision of a mother standing in front of a bunch of scientists and historians like in the V-chip commercials telling them that she regrettably has to "block them".

[Vong]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
Do forty-six percent of all Americans really believe in the Biblical notion of Creationism? Where does that figure come from? If it's true, it doesn't say a lot of good things about our population's scientific literacy.

The figures come from Gallup.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The Bible has facts and conclusions. Biblical facts have been proven over and over by historical and archeological discoveries. Hey, this king from the Bible that no one ever heard of before actually existed! How about that? Here are his archeological artifacts! Happens all the time.

So you accept the science when it supports some passages in the bible (so we know at least parts of the bible weren't completely made up) but you won't accept those same scientific methods when they conclude that life existed before humans and the earth is billions of years old. That isn't reasonable.

And just because a book contains some historical accuracies, it doesn't mean that the entire book is factual - see: historical fiction.


And as I've said before, scientific conclusions keep changing as new "facts" come to light. So don't place your faith in a current scientifc viewpoint. Scientests of tomorrow could be laughing at the science of today. Happens all the time.

Yes but those revisions dont change our overall undertanding of the earth. We're not going to suddenly figure out one day that 30 ft tall dinosaurs walked around with humans, Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and the dozens of other humanoids 5,000 years ago and we just missed it.


Reading through all of your posts it becomes apparent that the bigger issue here is the way that you guys cannot accept that people have different perceptions of things and that evidence can be interpretted differently.

And you can believe that modern medicine consists of tiny little men hiding inside pills that wait till they get inside your stomach to burst out with tiny spears to hunt down any illness inside you; or planes aren't propelled by rearward thrust produced from combustion, but are controlled by magic shaman co-pilots. You can think that but dont advocate teaching that crap to other people and pass it off as science or fact when there isnt a shrivel of either in it. Medicine, technology, what we know of history and the universe comes from scientific method and without it we'd still be back in the middle ages burning women for witchcraft and enslaving people with different skin.

This guy who created this museum is wrong when he thinks that God and science are at odds with each other, you can believe in both. Science never asks you to forfeit your belief in God and visa versa. And here it's important to understand the difference between God and the church. The church asks to suspend belief in science in the name of god when it has no authority to do so.

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
So you accept the science when it supports some passages in the bible (so we know at least parts of the bible weren't completely made up) but you won't accept those same scientific methods when they conclude that life existed before humans and the earth is billions of years old. That isn't reasonable.

And just because a book contains some historical accuracies, it doesn't mean that the entire book is factual - see: historical fiction.



Yes but those revisions dont change our overall undertanding of the earth. We're not going to suddenly figure out one day that 30 ft tall dinosaurs walked around with humans, Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and the dozens of other humanoids 5,000 years ago and we just missed it.



And you can believe that modern medicine consists of tiny little men hiding inside pills that wait till they get inside your stomach to burst out with tiny spears to hunt down any illness inside you; or planes aren't propelled by rearward thrust produced from combustion, but are controlled by magic shaman co-pilots. You can think that but dont advocate teaching that crap to other people and pass it off as science or fact when there isnt a shrivel of either in it. Medicine, technology, what we know of history and the universe comes from scientific method and without it we'd still be back in the middle ages burning women for witchcraft and enslaving people with different skin.

This guy who created this museum is wrong when he thinks that God and science are at odds with each other, you can believe in both. Science never asks you to forfeit your belief in God and visa versa. And here it's important to understand the difference between God and the church. The church asks to suspend belief in science in the name of god when it has no authority to do so.

What I don't get is why Christians can't believe in Creation and Evolution. It's not impossible to do so. I know plenty of people that do. Why some chose to believe that because it isn't mentioned in the bible means it's null and void is beyond me.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The Bible has facts and conclusions. Biblical facts have been proven over and over by historical and archeological discoveries. Hey, this king from the Bible that no one ever heard of before actually existed! How about that? Here are his archeological artifacts! Happens all the time.

And as I've said before, scientific conclusions keep changing as new "facts" come to light. So don't place your faith in a current scientifc viewpoint. Scientests of tomorrow could be laughing at the science of today. Happens all the time.

Happens all the time?? I'd like some supporting evidence in both cases. If nothing else, Archaeology is more hit or miss than science ever will be. And when is the last time any major accepted scientific theory was actually proven wrong?? Scientists don't claim to be infallible, but they provide research, data and evidence to support their theories or disprove them. In earlier history, some scientists were burned as either heretics or witches just for attempting to understand our world and our surroundings better. And for the largest portion of scientific history, research of this nature has quite literally changed our way of thinking and changed the world for the better.

Yet, you STILL haven't answered my TWO posts in your Science thread with links to articles where President Bush is taking action to stop using greenhouse gases. That would be the gases that cause global warming...you know - that thing you claim doesn't exist. Instead, you chose not to acknowlede what the federal government is already working to prevent and you still insist on your claim that science isn't based on on facts.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

What I'm about to say is definitely blasphemy, but I'll say it because it's true: if God really wrote the Bible, then it was not a very well-thought out book. I mean, the book is a chaotic mess. By the end of the book so much is left unexplained we really don't know what God is trying to get at. Plus, let us not forget how the Bible skips eighteen years of Jesus' life, what happened there? Were those years of Jesus' life really that unimportant? Maybe if they left them in there we would know more about Jesus. Hell, outside of the scriptures we don't really know if Jesus existed (I don't doubt it, I'm just saying it's a possibility he didn't).

I can't stand the guy and I hate to refer to him, but Christopher Hitchens did bring up a good point on The Daily Show about how there are so many contradictions in the Bible, which makes no sense because if the book came straight from the mouth of God to the written words of the disciples, then why can only so much of it be accounted for?

[MadsenOMC]

Only radical Evangelical Christians believe that biblical facts have been proven over and over again. The bible is full of contradictions, as others have said already.

[Cyclonus]

Originally posted by boombche_stum
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution_2.html

"In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea. "

The only other country that ranked lower than the US is Turkey.

Pretty sad if you ask me.

I don't know. I've always suspected that these kind of numbers were distorted by Christian fundamentalists and other religious activists to futher their agenda. I do have a very had time believing that nearly half of all Americans--that's more than 100 million people--actually regard the Book of Genesis as a literal truth. Are we really that backward?

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
I don't know. I've always suspected that these kind of numbers were distorted by Christian fundamentalists and other religious activists to futher their agenda. I do have a very had time believing that nearly half of all Americans--that's more than 100 million people--actually regard the Book of Genesis as a literal truth. Are we really that backward?

I've actually wondered that myself. I've seen several different polls though and most of them put the figure at around 40-60% as far as people actually believing in Creationism. Now, whether or not they're just saying that because they were raised that way and kept that belief with them despite not really being Christian, I don't know. But I do have a feeling some it is fudged.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
Are we really that backward?

Yes. She's something of a minority here (on a Canadian movie website), but there are WAY more Lynn's in this country than people like us, by a ratio of at least 5-1. Radical fundamentalist Christians are the biggest voting block in this country and make up 28.6% of the population (or more than 85,000,000 people according to the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract), more than Catholics, Protestants, or any other religious group. There's a reason George W. Bush got elected.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Yes. She's something of a minority here (on a Canadian movie website), but there are WAY more Lynn's in this country than people like us, by a ratio of at least 5-1. Radical fundamentalist Christians are the biggest voting block in this country and make up 28.6% of the population (or more than 85,000,000 people according to the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract), more than Catholics, Protestants, or any other religious group. There's a reason George W. Bush got elected.


And then of course she tells us that Christians in the US are being attacked like they're an oppressed minority, and for no reason.

Oh, there's a reason! You can't be that big of a group and not abusively throw your weight around.

[Vong]

And here I thought Canada was exempt from carrying a sizable amount of nutjobs among its ranks...

Story Here (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070605/creation_museum_070605/20070605?hub=TopStories)

...then again, it is in Alberta...:rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
What I'm about to say is definitely blasphemy, but I'll say it because it's true: if God really wrote the Bible, then it was not a very well-thought out book. I mean, the book is a chaotic mess. By the end of the book so much is left unexplained we really don't know what God is trying to get at. Plus, let us not forget how the Bible skips eighteen years of Jesus' life, what happened there? Were those years of Jesus' life really that unimportant? Maybe if they left them in there we would know more about Jesus. Hell, outside of the scriptures we don't really know if Jesus existed (I don't doubt it, I'm just saying it's a possibility he didn't).

I can't stand the guy and I hate to refer to him, but Christopher Hitchens did bring up a good point on The Daily Show about how there are so many contradictions in the Bible, which makes no sense because if the book came straight from the mouth of God to the written words of the disciples, then why can only so much of it be accounted for?

I dont have much time online so I just will address your post tonight and come back to the rest (so i'm not accused of avoiding accusations).

The bible is not a chaotic mess. It is perfectly planned and executed and makes absolute sense. I used to think it was chaotic too until I began to read and study it and then I became awed by the structure and the logic of it. Teh world never made any sense to me until I began to study the Bible and now everything makes sense to me.

Those years of Jesus' life were spent living. He came to be a man so that he could be an intercessor for us. When we pray, we pray to someone who has had our experiences as people in this world. He lived and was known as an every day Joblo so to speak. So much so that after he began his three year ministry he visited the town where he grew up and could do no miracles there because everyone knew him as the carpenter's son. They could not accept he could be God's son. A prophet is without honor in his own town.

I like Hitchens but obviously disagree with him on this issue. His brother wrote an article about Chris- hs brother believes in God and is totally at odds with his brother's beleif system. He says Chris was an atheist from the age of 9 years old. An age where every one is in the know.

In the Bible it says without faith it is impossible to please God and so God has allowed us some room for faith by not answering everything. Even if He did, people would still find reasons to hate Him and disbeleive Him.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
So you accept the science when it supports some passages in the bible (so we know at least parts of the bible weren't completely made up) but you won't accept those same scientific methods when they conclude that life existed before humans and the earth is billions of years old. That isn't reasonable.

And just because a book contains some historical accuracies, it doesn't mean that the entire book is factual - see: historical fiction.



Yes but those revisions dont change our overall undertanding of the earth. We're not going to suddenly figure out one day that 30 ft tall dinosaurs walked around with humans, Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and the dozens of other humanoids 5,000 years ago and we just missed it.



And you can believe that modern medicine consists of tiny little men hiding inside pills that wait till they get inside your stomach to burst out with tiny spears to hunt down any illness inside you; or planes aren't propelled by rearward thrust produced from combustion, but are controlled by magic shaman co-pilots. You can think that but dont advocate teaching that crap to other people and pass it off as science or fact when there isnt a shrivel of either in it. Medicine, technology, what we know of history and the universe comes from scientific method and without it we'd still be back in the middle ages burning women for witchcraft and enslaving people with different skin.

This guy who created this museum is wrong when he thinks that God and science are at odds with each other, you can believe in both. Science never asks you to forfeit your belief in God and visa versa. And here it's important to understand the difference between God and the church. The church asks to suspend belief in science in the name of god when it has no authority to do so.

I was not referring to science but archeological finds, dug out of the dirt. I am not against science, by the way. It is not all or nothing but I do know that science tries hard and does a lot of good but is always shifting and changing. It is nothing to put your complete and total trust in. There is also corruption in science especially when there is money involved.

How can anyone be sure if dinosaurs existed with humans or not. To me it does not matter either way. God created animals before he created people. But certainly we coexist with animals now. I'm just saying, why would it matter one way or another?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by boombche_stum
What I don't get is why Christians can't believe in Creation and Evolution. It's not impossible to do so. I know plenty of people that do. Why some chose to believe that because it isn't mentioned in the bible means it's null and void is beyond me.

Some do but why would we have to consider what this guy Darwin says and try to make our faith try to fit in with his ideas? Who the heck was he? To me, the bible says it all. If the bible wanted to talk about evolution it could have. God could create people in anyway he wanted but the bible does not say that. It says he created men and women. He created animals. It does not say he created men and women from animals. And why would He have to do that anyway? I just think people were looking for an alternate explanation for God creating the world and when DArwin came up with his ideas people jumped on board.

Now that so many scientests (not all) accept evolution, society looks down on creationsists and categorizes them as stupid so weaker Christains look for a way to make Christianity jive with evolution. To me it does not disqualify someone as being a Christian- Christianity is all about accepting Jesus as savior. Evolution is a minor issue.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by jeo4
Happens all the time?? I'd like some supporting evidence in both cases. If nothing else, Archaeology is more hit or miss than science ever will be. And when is the last time any major accepted scientific theory was actually proven wrong?? Scientists don't claim to be infallible, but they provide research, data and evidence to support their theories or disprove them. In earlier history, some scientists were burned as either heretics or witches just for attempting to understand our world and our surroundings better. And for the largest portion of scientific history, research of this nature has quite literally changed our way of thinking and changed the world for the better.

Yet, you STILL haven't answered my TWO posts in your Science thread with links to articles where President Bush is taking action to stop using greenhouse gases. That would be the gases that cause global warming...you know - that thing you claim doesn't exist. Instead, you chose not to acknowlede what the federal government is already working to prevent and you still insist on your claim that science isn't based on on facts.

I have read many things to support my comments over the years but I do not have the time or energy to try to recreate what I have seen or read to tell you. It is simply my life experience and you have yours.

As I said before I do not hate science- it is not all or nothing but sometimes around here science is elevated to godlike status-science is not infallible- we see that every day as new findings come out to replace old ones.

Pres. Bush can work to fight green house gases. Doesn't matter to me. As I said before, we can conserve as much as the public will tolerate. I just don't think the public has the committement and I dont even think the leaders of the movement have the committment. I haven't seen it. As long as it doens't impact people personally, people will be all for it. But when it impacts jobs, or impacts personal sacrifice then we will see. I just want to see the celebs give up their private jet rides in the name of global warming. That will be impressive.

[shoe1985]

Why can't people believe what they want to believe?

If these people want to believe in Creation let them. What will it hurt? Oh no less Christians.

I thought we were supposed to have choices in life?

[Cyclonus]

Christians claim that the Bible reveals the ultimate spiritual truth. Yes, but what about people of other faiths throughout history? The Buddhists, Hindus, and everyone else make similar claims for their faiths and sacred writings. And at least some of them haven't been nearly as pushy about it as the Christians (and yes, the Muslims). Offhand, I don't recall any instance where the Buddhists were willing to go to war to spread their faith, as the latter two have been guilty of doing (and perpetuating atrocies at the same time). To simplify it, everyone thinks theirs is right and everyone else's is wrong.

As far as science goes, the difference is that they have to at least prove their points, instead of asking people to accept it on blind faith alone.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I was not referring to science but archeological finds, dug out of the dirt. I am not against science, by the way. It is not all or nothing but I do know that science tries hard and does a lot of good but is always shifting and changing. It is nothing to put your complete and total trust in. There is also corruption in science especially when there is money involved.

How can anyone be sure if dinosaurs existed with humans or not. To me it does not matter either way. God created animals before he created people. But certainly we coexist with animals now. I'm just saying, why would it matter one way or another?

Archeaology is science. There is no seperating the two.

The overall picture of evolution will not change. Certain dates of when animals existed probably will shift slightly but the overall idea wont. People didnt exist alongside dinosaurs. There were dozens of humanoid species before us that we evolved out of, and even the earliest of those didnt exist alongside dinosaurs. These are facts that will never change. Ever.

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Some do but why would we have to consider what this guy Darwin says and try to make our faith try to fit in with his ideas? Who the heck was he? To me, the bible says it all. If the bible wanted to talk about evolution it could have. God could create people in anyway he wanted but the bible does not say that. It says he created men and women. He created animals. It does not say he created men and women from animals. And why would He have to do that anyway? I just think people were looking for an alternate explanation for God creating the world and when DArwin came up with his ideas people jumped on board.

Now that so many scientests (not all) accept evolution, society looks down on creationsists and categorizes them as stupid so weaker Christains look for a way to make Christianity jive with evolution. To me it does not disqualify someone as being a Christian- Christianity is all about accepting Jesus as savior. Evolution is a minor issue.

The bible says it all, yet was cannonized by people who took out and disregarded several books and passages. So, how can it say it all if it isn't even in the original form from when it was first written? Or am I to believe the cannonizing of the bible was God's work as well?

I don't think people accepting Darwin's theory of evolution has anything to do with people just "jumping on board" with a new idea. I think it has more to do with the fact that evolution is part of the natural law of our world. Animals, people, plants, single celled organisms.... they all evolve over time.

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by Lynn7
How can anyone be sure if dinosaurs existed with humans or not. To me it does not matter either way. God created animals before he created people. But certainly we coexist with animals now. I'm just saying, why would it matter one way or another?

Don't you think that there would be some sort of recorded references depicting mankind co-existing alonside dinosaurs if this was indeed the case? The only writings presenting tales of dinosaurs existing alongside mankind take the form of fictions. I mean why are there no mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Many other fauna are mentioned. Lynn...I understand why someone would want to believe the bible in a wholesale fashion. Some people need something to guide them through life and they need to trust it 100%. I'm not a religious person. I am a good person though and I think that a lot of that goodness was taught me by my parents and in particular my mother and a lot of those teaching have undoubtably filtered down into the public consciousness via the bible. So I don't think it's existence is an altogether bad thing (just as it's also not an altogether good thing). Many of the stories contained within it's pages undoubtably have roots in actual historical events. But I do believe that much of it is a mixture of cautionary tales mixed with allegory. And the problem there is that I believe they were written by men, not under the guidance of god, but under the guidance of their own intellect. Hence the reason why much of what is written is somewhat misguided (and the fact that so many different people wrote it also explains somewhat why it can be quite contradictory at times). That's my tuppenceworth. I don't claim to be anything like an expert. But it is incredibly frustrating when someone who is obviously not lacking for intelligence (I have a friend who trusts the bible pretty much the same way you do) believes that the world is only 4000 years old, was created by a higher power in six days, and that dinosaurs existed alongside mankind (or worse that a prankster god scattered fossils around the planet just to fuck with his future followers). Ok...that's all now.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Archeaology is science. There is no seperating the two.

The overall picture of evolution will not change. Certain dates of when animals existed probably will shift slightly but the overall idea wont. People didnt exist alongside dinosaurs. There were dozens of humanoid species before us that we evolved out of, and even the earliest of those didnt exist alongside dinosaurs. These are facts that will never change. Ever.

Again, all of that involves interpretation. If an archeologist digs up something that belonged to a king who was mentioned in the Bible but mentioned no where else in history, then it might be of interest to you. For me, I beleive the Bible anyway so it is just interesting to me. I dont put my faith in science or archeology but as I said before that does not mean I reject it all. I am just a skeptic about everything (except my God).

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by boombche_stum
The bible says it all, yet was cannonized by people who took out and disregarded several books and passages. So, how can it say it all if it isn't even in the original form from when it was first written? Or am I to believe the cannonizing of the bible was God's work as well?

I don't think people accepting Darwin's theory of evolution has anything to do with people just "jumping on board" with a new idea. I think it has more to do with the fact that evolution is part of the natural law of our world. Animals, people, plants, single celled organisms.... they all evolve over time.

Teh books were selected over time- they used certain standards about what books were to be accepted or rejected. But as a beleiver I do beleive that if God created this world, planned to send his son and sent him and gave us his teachings. so of course I beleive that if He went to all this trouble He would make sure to have the books He wanted to be included in the Bible. He worked through man as He has always done. I beleive that but I don't expect a non beleiver to beleive that.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
Don't you think that there would be some sort of recorded references depicting mankind co-existing alonside dinosaurs if this was indeed the case? The only writings presenting tales of dinosaurs existing alongside mankind take the form of fictions. I mean why are there no mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Many other fauna are mentioned. Lynn...I understand why someone would want to believe the bible in a wholesale fashion. Some people need something to guide them through life and they need to trust it 100%. I'm not a religious person. I am a good person though and I think that a lot of that goodness was taught me by my parents and in particular my mother and a lot of those teaching have undoubtably filtered down into the public consciousness via the bible. So I don't think it's existence is an altogether bad thing (just as it's also not an altogether good thing). Many of the stories contained within it's pages undoubtably have roots in actual historical events. But I do believe that much of it is a mixture of cautionary tales mixed with allegory. And the problem there is that I believe they were written by men, not under the guidance of god, but under the guidance of their own intellect. Hence the reason why much of what is written is somewhat misguided (and the fact that so many different people wrote it also explains somewhat why it can be quite contradictory at times). That's my tuppenceworth. I don't claim to be anything like an expert. But it is incredibly frustrating when someone who is obviously not lacking for intelligence (I have a friend who trusts the bible pretty much the same way you do) believes that the world is only 4000 years old, was created by a higher power in six days, and that dinosaurs existed alongside mankind (or worse that a prankster god scattered fossils around the planet just to fuck with his future followers). Ok...that's all now.

Why would dinosaurs be mentioned specifically if most other animals are not named specifically?

Cautionary tales mixed with allegory. What passages are those? The bible is pretty straightforward with accounts of men and women.
We do beleive that it is the inspired word of God written through man and through many men from all different walks of life and time periods and yet the same thread runs through all their accounts. Things they had no way of knowing but God did- the real author is God.

Dating of fossils etc is accepted as so accurate and yet it hasn't been around long enough to really be tested over time. Talk to me again in a thousand years or more.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Again, all of that involves interpretation.

Science is interpretation?!?! Holy shit...

My heads hurt, I need to sit down...

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Why would dinosaurs be mentioned specifically if most other animals are not named specifically?

Yeah...but what about there being no "non-bible" references to giant lizards co-existing with human beings within the last 4000 years? Or were all such writings destroyed in the great flood? And why didn't Noah take any dinosaurs on his ark? Was he scared they might eat the sheep and wildebeasts. And talking about tales that stretch the imagination a little. Exactly how big was his ark? To contain all of the numerous beasties that existed at the time it would have to be twice the size of your average US state. But i'm done debating. There's no point to it. I don't know why anyone else here ever bothers to respond to any of your posts because it's not like there's even the slightest chance of them convincing you that you're wrong.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
Yeah...but what about there being no "non-bible" references to giant lizards co-existing with human beings within the last 4000 years? Or were all such writings destroyed in the great flood? And why didn't Noah take any dinosaurs on his ark? Was he scared they might eat the sheep and wildebeasts. And talking about tales that stretch the imagination a little. Exactly how big was his ark? To contain all of the numerous beasties that existed at the time it would have to be twice the size of your average US state. But i'm done debating. There's no point to it. I don't know why anyone else here ever bothers to respond to any of your posts because it's not like there's even the slightest chance of them convincing you that you're wrong.

Is debating only worthwhile if you can be sure to convince the other person that he or she is wrong? People have differences of belief systems. That's a fact. We can ask people why they beleive the way they do and we can even challenge their beliefs but at the end of the day, we need to make our own minds up about what makes sense to us. The Bible makes sense to me. I don't really care about dinosaurs. I believe they existed and that God made them but other than that I don't really care.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't really care about dinosaurs. I believe they existed and that God made them but other than that I don't really care.

I refer once again to my metaphor of a fundamentalist:
Someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and yells "LA LA LA LA LA! I'm not listening! LA LA LA LA LA!"

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Is debating only worthwhile if you can be sure to convince the other person that he or she is wrong?

Well...in my case yeah. Because otherwise i've got better things to be doing with my time. And i'd rather not waste said time being the unstoppable force to your immovable object.

[unspoken]

Originally posted by Vong
And here I thought Canada was exempt from carrying a sizable amount of nutjobs among its ranks...

Story Here (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070605/creation_museum_070605/20070605?hub=TopStories)

...then again, it is in Alberta...:rolleyes:

Excuse me? I resent that, and trust me, if I wanted to, I could say a bunch of not so flattering things about Ontario, but I won't go there.

I don't care for these museums at all though, and I think the really funny thing is that this one is in a town less than an hour away from Drumheller, where some of the biggest dinosaur remains have been found, but oddly enough no human remains from that era. Kinda makes you wonder.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
Well...in my case yeah. Because otherwise i've got better things to be doing with my time. And i'd rather not waste said time being the unstoppable force to your immovable object.

If you feel that a person is not worth spending time with because they beleive differently than you, doens't that make you intolerant? Isn't that the whole message of diversity to accept that others have different points of view?

The way you are stating your beleif sounds more like what communism represents. Everyone needs to beleive the same way- no religion. The state is in charge of all. People will live in harmony with common viewpoints.

We can fight things out and try to influence the congress to change laws in our sides' favor but we always have the hope of changing things wheras in communism the people have no control. No discussion is encouraged or even tolereated. Look what is happening in Venezuala. Shutting down a tv station that has dissenting views.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have read many things to support my comments over the years but I do not have the time or energy to try to recreate what I have seen or read to tell you. It is simply my life experience and you have yours.

This just solidifies my theory that you don't have any valid proof. You don't even want to try to convince anyone of something you have no examples of.

Originally posted by Lynn7
As I said before I do not hate science- it is not all or nothing but sometimes around here science is elevated to godlike status-science is not infallible- we see that every day as new findings come out to replace old ones.

We've been over this ground before. Nobody here thinks that science is a "certainty". most people here use logic and evidence to support theories. That's what science is all about. Religion isn't. So if nothing else, you're accusing science of what religion already does. Sorry, but that just blew up in your face.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Pres. Bush can work to fight green house gases. Doesn't matter to me.

Yeah, let's not use facts or government action as our examples. Those would prove you wrong.


Originally posted by Lynn7
As I said before, we can conserve as much as the public will tolerate. I just don't think the public has the committement and I dont even think the leaders of the movement have the committment. I haven't seen it. As long as it doens't impact people personally, people will be all for it. But when it impacts jobs, or impacts personal sacrifice then we will see.

And as I said before, you underestimate several things:

1. The willingness of people to take care of their children so they have a place to live and thrive. Both education and decision making processes are affected by this.
2. The market for research into solutuions for chemical pollutants contaminating air, water and land and the jobs that come with setting up these plants
3. The new market that would open up with both ethanol and hydrogen, including new vehicle development, the mass production of farm products to produce ethanol, and the development of hydrogen fuel sources to replace fossil fuels. This is rapidly becoming the path to the next generation fo passenger vehicles as petroleum products contineu to escalate. GM already has several E85 vehicles on the road and is developing more. Design teams are hard at work on alternative fuel sources.
4. The need to conserve food, animals, and the environment has become a pressing issue in every country, not just the US. If every country is doing it, it becomes a standard. The willingness to do more is directly impacted.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I just want to see the celebs give up their private jet rides in the name of global warming. That will be impressive.

You've brought this up before. This is far more serious than just a few rich assholes flying in a jet. All of the celebs and politicians riding around in jets don't amount to dick compared to over three hundred million people using fossil fuels and various pollutants. Bringing up the actions of a scant few is useless in comparison.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by jeo4
This just solidifies my theory that you don't have any valid proof. You don't even want to try to convince anyone of something you have no examples of.

Some of that shit is hard to find, though. I personally don't think it's worth the effort either.

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If you feel that a person is not worth spending time with because they beleive differently than you, doens't that make you intolerant? Isn't that the whole message of diversity to accept that others have different points of view?

The way you are stating your beleif sounds more like what communism represents. Everyone needs to beleive the same way- no religion. The state is in charge of all. People will live in harmony with common viewpoints.

We can fight things out and try to influence the congress to change laws in our sides' favor but we always have the hope of changing things wheras in communism the people have no control. No discussion is encouraged or even tolereated. Look what is happening in Venezuala. Shutting down a tv station that has dissenting views.

Lynn...I don't like you inferring that i'm intolerant just because I can't be arsed wasting my time on pointless debate on an issue i'm not that interested in in the first place. Fact is that I rarely dip my elbow into the politics forum because most of the time I can afford to this place is taken up with other forums that cover things i'm more interested in...like movies, music & books. You seem to spend the vast majority of your time in here. That's your thing. It's not mine. I do believe that religion has done harm...but it's also done good. I think that it's impossible to say whether or not one facet of it's influence on humanity and it's growth is more prevalent than the other. Jesus...here I go again. I'm just going to shut up because i'm neither religious nor particularly interested in politics. One thing I have noticed about you though. You pick and choose your battles a lot of the time. If you don't have a realistic argument against something you either ignore it or say you don't care about it. That's not debate and that's another reason why I can't be bothered. This is my last post in this thread. So go ahead and have the last word.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
Lynn...I don't like you inferring that i'm intolerant just because I can't be arsed wasting my time on pointless debate on an issue i'm not that interested in in the first place. Fact is that I rarely dip my elbow into the politics forum because most of the time I can afford to this place is taken up with other forums that cover things i'm more interested in...like movies, music & books. You seem to spend the vast majority of your time in here. That's your thing. It's not mine. I do believe that religion has done harm...but it's also done good. I think that it's impossible to say whether or not one facet of it's influence on humanity and it's growth is more prevalent than the other. Jesus...here I go again. I'm just going to shut up because i'm neither religious nor particularly interested in politics. One thing I have noticed about you though. You pick and choose your battles a lot of the time. If you don't have a realistic argument against something you either ignore it or say you don't care about it. That's not debate and that's another reason why I can't be bothered. This is my last post in this thread. So go ahead and have the last word.

Sorry. I assumed since you were posting in here that you were interested so that's why I wrote back to you. If you aren't interested in politics or religion that is fine. There was a time in my life I had nothing much to do with either. Now I am interested most of the time.

Just as you choose where to spend your time while on the boards, I also choose my time. I don't think I have avoided any issues but I have to prioritze too and I will often respond to subjects that interest me the most. Also, what you do not realize is that because I have been posting here for so long, many things we talk about have come up in other discussions we have had and so even though it may look like I am ignoring a point I have probably addressed it already in other conversations. I am not afraid of anyhting. I have my opinions and people have theirs. There is no fretting over not being able to defend my view cause if I felt I couldn't defend it, it would not be worth having. Other people may not accept my defense but that is something different.

I was not trying to infer that you are intolerant. Sorry if it came accross that way. I am just making the point that we are diverse people and there is a new trend these days (that I have brought up many times on this board) of people pushing that everyone should agree on everything or they are disliked. Political correctness, I guess. I thought it would be an interesting discussion but I guess you feel differently :cool:

[rilocay]

Gotta say this has been a great read.
I must ask though, where at all in the bible does it suggest that dinosaurs coexsisted with humans? Because even though im not a die-hard bible reader, from what i know, it doesn't. So to the the creationism belief, why does it even exist? More importantly is WHY and where did it come from to support the theory of coexsistence? Now i won't rule it out, but as it's been said, there is support to say that the two beings never existed with each other. This support has been concluded from a proven technology/science (to an extent atleast). Science may not be certainty, but science will explain how this computer works. And the fact that it works, especially with the methods they would suggest, IS a certaincy

eg, finding a dinosaur bone and doing whatever tests to determine it's age, is really not different (although more complicated) than determining the age of a jumper my grandmother knitted using wool from a freshly shaven sheep that she had on her farm (for eg). They can say, using our tests we find the matrials this jumper is made out of are from a lamb's wool made in early 2007. But we knew that, because my grandmother knit it, from a lamb that was on her farm, that she shaved etc/ she was there, i may was there to see it happen etc. We believe that because we existed when it happened, even if we werent there.The difference is with dinosaurs we weren't there. But the same thing with the dino bones. Technology advances so quick these days espeically, it's not suprising we can determine how old something may be.


This may sound confusing, but i'm sure it's enough to understand. But that's my opinion on why the whole creationism deal about we lived with dinosaur's is most likely an incorrect assumption by a group of people who needed a quick fix on something they understood existed, but unprepared to accept that they may have to doubt some of their faith in order to do so. Same deal with evolution, which there are signs of in everyday life - with mutations and such, not to mention a flu shot could be considered part of. Religion and Sceince can co exist though, but it's not a perfect marriage.


My head is a mess with explaining myself, but i'm sure it's comprehendable enough to catch my point.