Comments on: Part 2: My Day Inside the Creation Museum http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/ Atheism with Positivity Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:04:45 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Hi-Ho Pampers Awaaaayyyy! « http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-2/#comment-355650 Hi-Ho Pampers Awaaaayyyy! « Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:58:25 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-355650 [...] I’m not talking about the obvious stuff like talking snakes, magic fruit and boats full of pineapple-eating velociraptors. Oh no. The buybull is stuffed full of even fucking weirder [...] [...] I’m not talking about the obvious stuff like talking snakes, magic fruit and boats full of pineapple-eating velociraptors. Oh no. The buybull is stuffed full of even fucking weirder [...]

]]> By: Friendly Atheist » My New Mission: To Be More Popular Than Ken Ham http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-2/#comment-143003 Friendly Atheist » My New Mission: To Be More Popular Than Ken Ham Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:00:59 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-143003 [...] Creation Museum founder and Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham and six of his young fans wearing “I [...] [...] Creation Museum founder and Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham and six of his young fans wearing “I [...]

]]> By: Creation Museum « Political Cartel http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-2/#comment-142368 Creation Museum « Political Cartel Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:10:46 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-142368 [...] can read some skeptical firsthand accounts of the museum here and [...] [...] can read some skeptical firsthand accounts of the museum here and [...]

]]> By: Kevin http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-2/#comment-138916 Kevin Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:10:10 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-138916 Your friend Herb Silverman said, " Creationism is not good enough to be called "bad science." I find that interesting considering the THEORY of evolution is just that. It is not science by definition. It is not even based on information that is scientific, with the main ideas of the theory changing all the time. Only microevolution can be replicated today. The theory of evolution is the theory of macroevolution which is absurd. Creationism is a better description of the human race and it's beginnings. Life just doesn't happen. The highly complex animals and beings did not slowly become themselves over time. What about the soul? Human beings are different than the animals in a way that you cannot attribute to evolutionary change. Am I going against the mainstream of science? Yes. I can think for myself and not have to be fed all of my information from the so-called scientists. The Bible is a credible source of information for history and many other things. It has been studied for many years and nothing has brought it down as an indisputable source for so much important information that has changed the world. Creationism is based upon this amazing history book. Evolution is based upon seeing some different looking birds. Evolution cannot be used to explain all of the different species. The genetic pool only has so much water. Ask yourself which idea is more credible. One from a history book, or one from "scientists" with an agenda? Creationism hasn't changed. Evolutionary theories come and go... Your friend Herb Silverman said, ” Creationism is not good enough to be called “bad science.”

I find that interesting considering the THEORY of evolution is just that. It is not science by definition. It is not even based on information that is scientific, with the main ideas of the theory changing all the time. Only microevolution can be replicated today. The theory of evolution is the theory of macroevolution which is absurd.
Creationism is a better description of the human race and it’s beginnings. Life just doesn’t happen. The highly complex animals and beings did not slowly become themselves over time. What about the soul? Human beings are different than the animals in a way that you cannot attribute to evolutionary change.
Am I going against the mainstream of science? Yes. I can think for myself and not have to be fed all of my information from the so-called scientists. The Bible is a credible source of information for history and many other things. It has been studied for many years and nothing has brought it down as an indisputable source for so much important information that has changed the world.
Creationism is based upon this amazing history book. Evolution is based upon seeing some different looking birds. Evolution cannot be used to explain all of the different species. The genetic pool only has so much water. Ask yourself which idea is more credible. One from a history book, or one from “scientists” with an agenda? Creationism hasn’t changed. Evolutionary theories come and go…

]]> By: daveloneranger http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-2/#comment-120202 daveloneranger Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:00:14 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-120202 I've been to the Creation Museum and had a wonderful time. My mom even bought me some dino eggs that hatched when I put them in a bowl of water. I also thought I recognized the Adam mannequin. He looked so familiar and just like I imagined him. Your complaints sound like tired old Christian bashing to me. I stand up to and rebutt similar religious intolerance disguised as "scientific fact" by my college professors. I wish this museum was around back when my mom was homeschooling me. What a great field trip that would've been! As it is, if anyone out there is looking for a place to go for the next family vacation I highly recommend the Creation Museum. It's educational and fun. Live long and piously! DaveLoneRanger I’ve been to the Creation Museum and had a wonderful time. My mom even bought me some dino eggs that hatched when I put them in a bowl of water. I also thought I recognized the Adam mannequin. He looked so familiar and just like I imagined him.

Your complaints sound like tired old Christian bashing to me. I stand up to and rebutt similar religious intolerance disguised as “scientific fact” by my college professors.

I wish this museum was around back when my mom was homeschooling me. What a great field trip that would’ve been! As it is, if anyone out there is looking for a place to go for the next family vacation I highly recommend the Creation Museum. It’s educational and fun.

Live long and piously!

DaveLoneRanger

]]> By: B Rad of the W » Blog Archive » Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Theory http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-2/#comment-104603 B Rad of the W » Blog Archive » Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Theory Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:15:50 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-104603 [...] which is chuck full of bull shit they have all sorts of tall tales to weave for you. Here is an entertaining review of the museum. Even if you want to be all religious there is a place for evolution and god. They don’t have [...] [...] which is chuck full of bull shit they have all sorts of tall tales to weave for you. Here is an entertaining review of the museum. Even if you want to be all religious there is a place for evolution and god. They don’t have [...]

]]> By: Friendly Atheist » Video of My Creation Museum Speech http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-2/#comment-69754 Friendly Atheist » Video of My Creation Museum Speech Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:24:21 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-69754 [...] gave a speech at the Rally for Reason the evening before the Creation Museum [...] [...] gave a speech at the Rally for Reason the evening before the Creation Museum [...]

]]> By: William http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-2/#comment-49172 William Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:49:03 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-49172 So, let me get this straight. One museum showing biblical creation compared to how many "scientific" museums in this country? Why in the world would you waste your money on something you evidently know is false? If you already knew this museum was a waste of time, it doesn't seem like a very smart move to pay money to see it, let alone have people come from all over the country to protest it. Paranoia willl destroy ya. So, let me get this straight. One museum showing biblical creation compared to how many “scientific” museums in this country? Why in the world would you waste your money on something you evidently know is false? If you already knew this museum was a waste of time, it doesn’t seem like a very smart move to pay money to see it, let alone have people come from all over the country to protest it. Paranoia willl destroy ya.

]]> By: Chris Ho-Stuart http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-1/#comment-40535 Chris Ho-Stuart Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:10:33 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-40535 <blockquote>They said “Only 1 in 3…” as if that was exact, then gave us the actual statistic of 30%.</blockquote> I am pretty sure it is worse than that. The original source was the Barna group, and they do appear to have used 1 in 3. The original also used 3 in 10 for a different statistic; so <i>they</i> knew the difference. This original did not use percentages at all; so the 30% seems to have been added when the poster was made, which would indeed make it a straight bit of mathematical incompetence by whoever produced the poster. The poster seems to be based on a report from Jan 2000, by the Barna group; a conservative Christian polling organization. The report is "<i>Teenagers Embrace Religion but Are Not Excited About Christianity</i>". Extracts, links, and more details at my blog, as <a href="http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2007/06/creation-museum-does-maths.html" rel="nofollow">Creation Museum Does Maths</a>. I'll also update the blog to credit you with being the first to notice this. Well done -- you may go to the top of the class and pass out the erasers. Chris

They said “Only 1 in 3…” as if that was exact, then gave us the actual statistic of 30%.

I am pretty sure it is worse than that. The original source was the Barna group, and they do appear to have used 1 in 3. The original also used 3 in 10 for a different statistic; so they knew the difference. This original did not use percentages at all; so the 30% seems to have been added when the poster was made, which would indeed make it a straight bit of mathematical incompetence by whoever produced the poster.

The poster seems to be based on a report from Jan 2000, by the Barna group; a conservative Christian polling organization. The report is “Teenagers Embrace Religion but Are Not Excited About Christianity“. Extracts, links, and more details at my blog, as Creation Museum Does Maths.

I’ll also update the blog to credit you with being the first to notice this.

Well done — you may go to the top of the class and pass out the erasers. Chris

]]> By: Mriana http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/comment-page-1/#comment-36759 Mriana Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:11:40 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-2-my-day-inside-the-creation-museum/#comment-36759 <blockquote>An athiest cannot believe in anything beyond the material world - not even fairies as Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy.</blockquote> As a non-theist, I see more than just the material world. I see love, compassion, awe and wonder, joy in children, and a lot of other things that are non-material. However, I do not attribute them to the god you do though. Even my 18 y.o. son knows of the energy we emit. Everything emits electrical energy. As a Buddhist, he attributes it to Chi. I'm not Buddhist, but he is. <blockquote>If, as an athiest, you do not think that there is anything more than matter to the universe, you will not see God through arguments.</blockquote> This leads me to your mentioning God. God is a human concept. Theism is only one definition of god. So many theists mistake even Spong for an atheist, but even he will tell you he is a non-theist and has his own non-theistic concept of god. Again, since God is a human concept, one cannot judge as what is god to another person. I do look at the various human views of a deity- some are natural concepts and others are supernatural. The difference is how we label it. Not everyone has the same concept and some have no concept. Sometimes I think having no concept is better than having a personal concept, for it is more open to different possibilities.

An athiest cannot believe in anything beyond the material world – not even fairies as Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy.

As a non-theist, I see more than just the material world. I see love, compassion, awe and wonder, joy in children, and a lot of other things that are non-material. However, I do not attribute them to the god you do though. Even my 18 y.o. son knows of the energy we emit. Everything emits electrical energy. As a Buddhist, he attributes it to Chi. I’m not Buddhist, but he is.

If, as an athiest, you do not think that there is anything more than matter to the universe, you will not see God through arguments.

This leads me to your mentioning God. God is a human concept. Theism is only one definition of god. So many theists mistake even Spong for an atheist, but even he will tell you he is a non-theist and has his own non-theistic concept of god.

Again, since God is a human concept, one cannot judge as what is god to another person. I do look at the various human views of a deity- some are natural concepts and others are supernatural. The difference is how we label it. Not everyone has the same concept and some have no concept. Sometimes I think having no concept is better than having a personal concept, for it is more open to different possibilities.

]]>