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

"They left offended?" Poor babies....I bet they will feel even worse on Judgement Day!


The Truth hurts, but it will also set you free!

"Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution."

Cried?! What the.........heh. This is just as silly as the fine upstanding Christian woman who stopped to hold a flashlight for me one dark and rainy night while I was changing a flat tire. She saw the DARWIN fish with two legs on the back of my jeep and got pissed off and told me she felt sorry for me, and then left me in the dark.

Buh-bye, nice Christian lady!

Crying? Crying? There's no crying in science.

reply to post by nismo1


Judgement day?

Does it make you happy that people get judged? Does it make you happy that in YOUR mind people will go to Christian hell?

Reply to post by krzyspmac

Just for the record and for anyone on ATS who in the future reads this thread: I do not fear God, I love Him. He gives me peace that passes all understanding. Instead I fear someone who does not believe in God. There is no riding the fence when it comes to belief in God. Either you do or either you dont. The reason I fear such a person is because that person will be the one who joins the Anti-Christ movement which will be another Holocaust. People who feel as I do will be slaughtered because of our belief and maybe rightly so since the church strayed from God and slaughtered people for not believing in Him. Just desserts? Maybe. Deny if you will, you have been given freewill to do so and that is your God-given right but when the final day is here you cannot say "I did not know".


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

*yawn*

All this talk of finality is very morbid.

If God loves us all, then why does he find the need to judge us?

If he's omnipotent then surely he already knows the truth and the answers anyway. If he's given us free will, then on what basis has he got to judge us on anything....

After all, it's his fault.

I just find it sad, that in the 21st century we still have god-fearing, preachers telling us that we must OBEY a set of out-dated rules designed for a more barbaric culture.

Grow up people. Quit judging people and maybe just maybe we can make a difference.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Yes I believe in God. Absolutely. Yes I believe there are creatures other than us in this universe (and other universes) that travel here. No I do not believe in evolution but I do believe in some kind of adaptation and natural selection (which are different then evolution).[edit on 7/2/2009 by FlyersFan]

Hey there- please do not take this question as "trolling" or "flaming":

How is "some kind of adaptation and natural selection" different than evolution? Over time, I think they would become one in the same- unless you are implying that these adaptations do not take as long to present themselves as evolution would suggest (example- it only takes a matter of months/years to adapt to different elevation levels, as opposed to centuries for other unproven evolutionary ideas such as bone structure).

Thanks for the food for thought.

The thing that bothers me is how people still defend religion period.

Doesn't it say something that the bible always has to be "interpreted" a certain way to understand the word of god?

The new testament is a mishmash of fragmented christian documents that has been manipulated, tweaked, and reinterpreted many times during its evolution. The earliest versions of the new testament probably reads very differently from our current western edition.

People just can't accept that a lie of this magnitude is possible. Everybody lies every single day about something, so what makes people thing that religious documents written by human hands are any different?

religion is a tool used by certain individuals for power. Look at the Vatican, sitting on a speculated billions of dollars worth of assets. They have the power to help people in this world in a big way. Will they? No, I don't think they are really interested in helping anyone. They have unquestioned powered by their followers, so why would they?

People stop believing in Santa Claus, the tooth fairly, and the boogey man, but they just can't let go of region because they fear life and death.

Let me have a shot at this...

The Bible says that God created man from the earth
Evolution says that man came from the earth.

God said "Let the earth bring forth the living creature..."
Science says that life came from the earth itself.

The Bible says that man is unique, in the image of God.
Science says that man is a unique creature of mind and thought.

The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and that it started out in a blaze of light energy.
Science says that the universe started with a bang followed by light where all of the universe was once pure light energy.

The Bible says that God separated the light from the darkness.
Science says that the light gas condensed to form stars (points of lights in the darkness of space).

The Bible says that the earth was without life until God put it here in a rapid event.
Science says that life began on the earth suddenly and diversely.

New science claims that the universe is a membrane, not a sphere, that it is more like a sheet among other sheets called membranes.
The Bible says that God spread out the heavens as a curtain.

The Bible says that the universe will one day fade away and dissolve.
Science says that if expansion doesn't slow, the universe will end with the very fabric of matter and energy ripping itself to shreds in infinity and dissolve.

The Bible says man knows right from wrong.
Science says that man is self aware and has a conscience.


I could go on and on but that's just some of the agreement science has with the Bible. As for the age of the Earth. The Bible does not say how old the Earth is, only that it was made habitable for mankind to live on it.

reply to post by Hung Lo


I think I know the passage you are thinking of.

2Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.

What this means is that you cannot read a passage of the Bible and believe it any way you wish.

reply to post by jackflap


And yet this is what zealots continually do - like the saying about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

The passage was subverted and given new meaning by people who didn't want to relinquish their wealth, when all the evidence says that it means EXACTLY what it says and maybe even points to Jesus having a sarky side to his nature.

Of course it's not just in christianity this happens, and it's not all christians who do this.

Organised religion must carry a large proportion of the blame - vicars, priests, call them what you will have no more right to interpret the word of god than you or I.

In fact I'll go further, and borrow from the muslim world - no man has the right to stand between a man and his god.

That's what happens in the anachronistic world of organised religion, and that's why we end up with a lot of false interpretations.

Did these people ever stop to think that maybe god or jesus meant exactly what they said (assuming they actually said it of course) or was the power trip too much to resist...

Originally posted by budski
And yet this is what zealots continually do - like the saying about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

wasn't there some rich guy a couple of years ago that bought a really big blender, a really small funnel and a couple of camels? seems he's cracked the problem.

couldn't agree with you guys more. i believe this interpretation issue, and the control it allows, is alleged to be the reason the catholic church insisted for so long that the bible only be printed in latin.


[edit on 2/7/09 by pieman]

reply to post by max.is.awake

the bible states that eve was made out of bones of adam so saying that the statement is that if true eve would have been made by stemcells from the
bones of adam so they are genetically the same only difference is that eve is female soo they are sort a like brother and sister.. or like genetically alteration of a clone.
so it would have been incest of the ultimate form of mastrubation .. doing it with yourself.
so the offspring would have been incestious.
I would like to know what the bible and the religions view is to all the different catogories of man. We have asians , we ahve people with dark skin ect bone structures aren't even always the same within our species.,. so there has to be multiple adam and eve's or like another theorie states we are offspring or the result of alien interference and there would have been different species of aliens crossbreeding with our incester making the aliens the missing link.

reply to post by budski


There is a rather good story in the Bible about someone who needed help interpreting what was being said in the scriptures.

Acts 8:30-35 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaiah, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the Scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

I think Ethiopia is still a Christian nation.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by jackflap]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by jackflap]

isolated people tend to make things up to explain what they are ignorant about. this applies at the individual, tribe, and planentary level. that's all i'm saying.

I agree it is too bad, that science and religion cant coincide. I believe science tells us how, and religion tells us why...so to speak. we really need to stop focusing on our differences, and come together as a people.

reply to post by max.is.awake


lot offered up his daughters to be gang raped. no matter what, the bible was written by flesh and blood men who will always interject their own personal beliefs. no matter what. women in those times were even more so the property of their fathers or husbands. do you honestly believe that is what happened? "gee dad has lost mommy and has no one to carry on his name. lets forget that he offered us to be gang raped and get him drunk and sleep with us." lot got drunk and raped his daughters. knowing that even then that was a huge sin, he said that they were the ones who took advantage of him. they come out of the caves and hills and who would the people believe? a man or two young girls? as much as i do love the bible, there are some things you must seriously question.

reply to post by blackthorne


I believe it was the daughters that tricked Lot because they were afraid that there were no other men. They wanted children.

Genesis 19:30-36 30 And Lot went up out of Zo'ar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zo'ar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32 come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

As for the part about offering up his daughters to be gang raped. I would like to see what you would have done after talking and being with two angels from God. In that culture a house guest came above all else. Especially these two.

Hmmm. It would seem that to criticise the museum is to criticise free speech. It's the whole creationism vs evolution that gets me.
A scientific theory begins as a series of hypotheses which are compared to observation & honed or discarded. Then fitted together in a mutually consistent way which explains all observed phenomena. It may then be honed further or discarded as new observations are made. I've got doubts about that part of 'the theory of conservation of energy' which deals with 'potential energy'. Its just a way to balance equations: a 'plug-in' math construct that describes the effect of gravity on mass. Still, it allows us to make useful predictions from the equations that derive from the rest of the theory.
Creationism has its 'plug-in' too: God. Except that he is used to explain anything which contradicts the 1st hypothesis: that the bible is truth. Fossil record? Put there to test our faith. Mitochondrial DNA shows we've been here 50,000yrs? God works in mysterious ways. Now this latest: T-Rex was vegetarian until Adam ate the apple. T-Rex was extinct before the 1st humans were born? See fossil record. We have a word for an inviolable hypothesis which is 'dogma'.
Now, if the proponents of creationism wish to teach religious dogma, they should say so. Trying to dress it up in the clothes of science; to provide reasoned explanation from a position which denies the tools of reason (doubt, enquiry, observation & revision) does nobody any good. Creationism & the theory of evolution are not alternatives, they are in totally seperate spheres of thought. They're like apples & oranges & cannot be compared.
If you bought a carton of orange juice & discovered it was 10% orange 90% apple, you'd be vexed right? I would. We have laws against that! Mislabelling: it's not free speech, it's taking advantage.

reply to post by Totakeke


Did you read the article? It said one of the scientists is an elder at his presbyterian church. Perhaps, you should READ the article before you comment on it. Talk about ignorant.

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.