It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adam and Eve Did What? A Visit to the Creationism Museum Makes Scientists Laugh, Cry

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
What bothers me most about this 'museum' is the anti-intellectualism note that it comes across with. I know there's something huge somewhere about the fact that that war rears its head all over society today, I just haven't found the right way to sum it up.




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 


I understand exactly what you mean. Ignorance seems to be spreading in this world and, moreover, is celebrated in many cases. People draw lines in the sand and entrench themselves on either side much like sports fans. You're born a Mets fan, or taught to be, and you root for that team no matter what. It's fine and fun in sports but often scary and damaging in politics, religion, and day to day dealings with people.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple.




So, wait, does that mean dinosaurs were around when people were? If that were the case, wouldn't dinosaurs be mentioned in the Bible? You would think if there was this large predator on the loose snatching people and animals up and ripping them apart because an apple was eaten, it would be mentioned somewhere...

...forget it. I give up trying to understand fairy tales.

Religion is funny. The end.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


Religion is not funny, its is the worlds mental crutch that must be ridden off as soon as possible. If it wasn't for religion we would be living in paradise right now, not one contrived by an invisible voyeur pervert in the sky but one that we will be able to create once the world is cleansed of the savages.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by really reply to post by Bunken Drum
 
Criticism of the museum is FREE Speech. That's the point of free speech. One side makes a point another a counter-point. If you take the museum as symbolic speech then the article is the counter-point to it.
I note that immediately before replying to me you castigated someone else for not reading an article.
I think I made it quite clear that my position is that to portray the dogma of creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution is disingenuous. To do so is the museum mislabelling it's product, therefore it's not free speech but rather taking advantage of the gullible.
Did you read my whole post & choose to ignore the conclusion, only read part of the post, or just not understand? If either of the latter, how far did you get before boredom/confusion set in? I ask because, whilst I like to present a well rounded argument, I realise one must tailor one's output to suit an audience's attention span & intellectual capacity.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Well they better get used to it cause there are a lot of dissimilar thoughts
and stories for almost any topic.

Control has a purpose to keep the young and unwise out of trouble.
One reason the scientists think alike.
They are the ones that are the weakest of humans as they herd
together like the wildebeest to strengthen their theories while the
rest of humanity interprets their words as foolishness.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Two words.

Jungian Dogma.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 

I know there's something huge somewhere about the fact that that war rears its head all over society today, I just haven't found the right way to sum it up.

Yeah. If it were the case that moral relativism, which these people claim stems from not taking the bible as literal truth, was responsible for war, then it should follow that in times where people did follow the letter of scripture, there would be no war. Forget the evidence of history, because fundamentalists would say that people did not follow scripture closely enough. What about the wars of aggression fought by God's chosen, described & celebrated in the bible?
In our era, it is the patriarchal hierarchy espoused by the bible that makes war possible.
An ordinary person sitting @home would pick up weapons to defend their loved ones, but to get the same person to invade another country requires that (usually male) leaders tell them it's the right, just & brave thing to do. You only have to look@ some of the military oriented threads here on ATS to understand how deeply indoctrinated people must become to go along with the whole concept of war. That is why 'basic training' is necessary: to break ordinary people down & build them back up to follow orders against their own interest.
But hey, christianity isn't the only culprit. Patriarchal hierarchy has many flavours & waddayano? The same kind of 'warrior' mentality has been necessary for all wars.
It's time for people to realise that technology has freed us from our need for violent competition. It's time the sistren took an equal hand in governance. But whilst the past & religion inspired morals hold sway, women can never achieve power unless they conform to the rules of patriarchy.

Edit to fix tags.

[edit on 3/7/09 by Bunken Drum]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phlegmi
 


Yes, because without religion there would be no wars over money and land, there'd be no greedy oil companies scrambling to get resources, there wouldn't be corrupt politicians, there wouldn't be horrible car accidents, there wouldn't be deadly diseases, there wouldn't be horrible acts of violence; yeah, it's religion that causes all of the problems. [/sarcasm]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


So we all evolved from monkeys and everything else evolved from something else, despite the lack of evidence for it and the existing evidence against it?

Forget it, I give up trying to understand fairy tales.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Totakeke]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Well they better get used to it cause there are a lot of dissimilar thoughts and stories for almost any topic.
"Stories" being the operative word.

Control has a purpose to keep the young and unwise out of trouble.
That sounds like you're advocating people being kept ignorant. If so, please explain how "out of trouble" in the short term equates to their best interests in the long term.

One reason the scientists think alike. They are the ones that are the weakest of humans as they herd together like the wildebeest to strengthen their theories while the rest of humanity interprets their words as foolishness.
Please define "weak". Do you mean physically not as powerful as lumberjacks, or emotionally weak?
Do you consider it emotionally weaker to investigate the universe, knowing that by doing so one may discover something which rocks the foundations of one's beliefs, or to accept the beliefs of people dead so long ago they still believed that the entire world consisted of what they had heard about & that to sail beyond that risked falling off the edge of a self evidently flat world?
"Foolishness"? Let's hope you never need heart surgery, but if you do, remember that the church espoused Galen's ideas, which were fine for bovine hearts, but sadly incorrect regarding those of humans.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


The problem with what you have posted is that science does not say anything about how the world was created and where humans come from. Science has theory's. These theory's state and idea about how things might have been but no scientist will state with 100% certainty that those theory's are how things happened. That is why it's call "the big bang theory", or "the theory of evolution".

The thing about religion is that there is a lot of room left for interpretation. Cleaver individuals will always be able to interpret the bible, or even the Qur'an in a way where it does not conflict with science. This is necessary, because if this was not possible then religion would become obsolete at some point in time.

Someone in this post stated that at some point in time there is going to be a war against Christians. It's a common Christian teaching to place Christians against everyone else. It makes them look like the underdog, like the world is against them and they need to defend their beliefs. Forget about all the other religions in the world, everybody has it in for the Christians. In a way it almost makes scene because everybody who does not believe in the Christian God is going to suffer in hell in their eyes.

I just want you Christians to know that the world is not after you. We don't hate you. There will be no war against Christians where you are going to have to defend your beliefs at all costs. We just want you to respect our opinions and live our lives in peace.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by max.is.awake
The Bible says God made man from earth which coincides with the whole amoeba microbe theory. And in case no one knows there are numerous times where the Bible says man and is referring to mankind. Adam is generic like John Doe and Eve is generic like Jane Doe so we do not have to worry about any inbreeding going on in the Book of Genesis except for Lot and his daughters after the flood but from what I read they were just a couple of ho's and Lot was passed out drunk. ANYHOO, so yea considering God is capable of using the Big Bang to get the ball rolling, um yea , Science and Christians are both right. Only Science refuses to give God the credit but instead toss it over to chance. Amazing isnt it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



This explanation may work only if you believe in a god. Many of us don't, we just believe we ourselves are eternal and spiritual and have no need to believe in a creator. Personally, I believe both creationism and evolution are way off of the path to the true origins of humanity. Neither has provable evidence, only theory and speculation.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
www.alternet.org


The Presbyterian says:

"I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.


The Christian said:

Daryl Domning, professor of anatomy at Howard University, held his chin and shook his head at several points during the tour. "This bothers me as a scientist and as a Christian, because it's just as much a distortion and misrepresentation of Christianity as it is of science," he said.


I'm all for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but when this is offending believers as well as non-believers, it's not just a science vs religion debate anymore, it seems like a religion vs religion debate as well.

If you don't take the "7 days" interpretation too literally, the parallels between God's creation of the universe and the earth in Genesis and the Big Bang/Evolution are striking, so religion and science don't have to be at odds.

Religious and non-religious people alike need to work together to educate the community regarding the truth about "Creation science". The only way that the Earth could be 8000 years old, is if God created the earth 8000 years ago, to LOOK like it's over 4 billion years old, and while that's possible, if it's true, we have no need for science anymore because we can't trust any of our observations which are the foundation for science. In any case, that is not the argument that creation science advocates use. It is a very difficult education process because typically a Christian Science believer will interpret all evidence to reach a predetermined conclusion, so there really is no seeking of truth in that mindset making typically otherwise persuasive arguments ineffective.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
To be clear: I believe in a spiritual force which is outside our current scientific understanding. It may be that this force is divine, therefore I must consider it possible that such divinity created the universe that I live in.
That does not mean that I must accept the beliefs of people dead hundreds or thousands of years as fact.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




If you don't take the "7 days" interpretation too literally, the parallels between God's creation of the universe and the earth in Genesis and the Big Bang/Evolution are striking, so religion and science don't have to be at odds.


But that's the thing. Genesis was literal. The Hebrew word for "day" that's used in Genesis is the one that literally means "24 hours" or "a period of time like day and evening".



It is a very difficult education process because typically a Christian Science believer will interpret all evidence to reach a predetermined conclusion, so there really is no seeking of truth in that mindset making typically otherwise persuasive arguments ineffective.


There are plenty of scientists whom aren't objective any more.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Totakeke]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I think the creation museum is great, it shows people how loony creationist beliefs truly are. I do feel sorry for the young minds poisoned by this nonsense though, it's really sad.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
This kind of Biblical literalism is a pretty recent phenomenon among Christians, and most Christians are not Biblical literalists.

Even the Catholic Church now accepts the theory of evolution as a scientific reality.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


Just remember: the big bang theory, the theory of evolution; they're all just theories.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Totakeke
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


Just remember: the big bang theory, the theory of evolution; they're all just theories.


Yes I know they're "theories". Unfortunately I fear that you're using the term "theory" as used in common usage to describe passing speculation rather than a scientific theory.

Gravity is also a theory but I assume you don't question it's veracity.

[edit on 7/3/2009 by ZombieOctopus]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join