Creationism Museum

[serenity]

Apparently this nonsense is remarkably popular. :(

Dinosaurs of all kinds abound here, from the stegosaurus silhouettes rearing atop the iron gates as you first reach the parking lot to the numerous and impressively convincing animatronic pterosaurs wagging their giant tails and chewing plastic cud inside. At America's newest public museum dedicated to exploring the origins of man and our planet, dinos are big box office, especially with kids.

Yet, there is something askew about the exhibits here and it doesn't take long to see. It's not just the "Thou shalt not touch" signs or the biblically named Noah's Café, offering respite for lunch. How about a stroll down the Trail of Life, first stop, the Garden of Eden with faux cypress trees and gurgling streams? Look, there are Adam and Eve taking a dip, and not far away another dinosaur lurks, and a lion too.

It's not just the presence of the naked pair, with niftily placed lily pads to cover their naughty bits, that seems barmy. Wouldn't they have been gobbled up by now, before they had the chance to do any eating themselves, say of the forbidden fruit? What were the designers of this place thinking?

Here is what. That Adam and Eve really did beget us and that before they sinned, all creatures were vegetarian, meaning dinosaurs were no more likely to eat them than butterflies. They were thinking also that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. As you proceed on your walk, a few more surprises await. We are told how the world is no more than 6,000 years old and Noah's Flood created all the world's fossils as well as its topography as we know it (including the Grand Canyon, gouged by its ebbing waters). And yes, the Earth and the entire universe were indeed created in six momentous days.

The Museum of Natural History in New York this is not. Welcome, rather, to the Creation Museum, a $27m facility that opened in May – to a veritable onslaught of enthusiastic visitors – on a 49-acre site in northeast Kentucky close to Cincinnati. There is no shortage of references to Darwin, whose teachings about evolution most of us are familiar with and more comfortable accepting. But the clear purpose is to demolish not celebrate them. You get the idea of where you are also when you learn that the folk behind it are the founders of a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Answers in Genesis.

Theirs is a seductively simple, if controversial, thesis – that to solve the eternal conundrum of where we come from we need look no further than the first book of the Old Testament. And their contention here is that there is nothing scientists can throw at us – in paleontology, geology or astronomy – that will disprove this. Indeed, the point of the museum is to demonstrate that the more we consider the clues to our origins found by scientists – and there are a dozen thoroughly respectable sounding ones on the museum's own staff – the more they fit better with the Genesis version of creation than with Darwin's.



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2872252.ece

[Lumpen Prole]

The only thing worse than creationists with money is giving them publicity.

[mataj]

And to think that the USA was flying to the Moon just a couple of decades ago... How could they sunk so low so fast? :(

[AgentM]

And to think that the USA was flying to the Moon just a couple of decades ago... How could they sunk so low so fast? :(

The un-educating of the American populace begins.

[Lumpen Prole]

Well, this still doesn't mean they're going to win any court cases.

[Groucho]

On one hand, it would be nice to say this is just some lunatic fringe, but when you see how many Americans apparently agree with creationism, it is quite scary.

[Antipathy]

Apparently this nonsense is remarkably popular. :( Sadly, it's not just in the US either...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/07/evil-creationism-is-not-just-in-the-us/

[green lantern]

ahh yes, another religion bashing thread...gotta love it :rolleyes:

[burntgorilla]

ahh yes, another religion bashing thread...gotta love it :rolleyes:

It is as much religion bashing as the threads about Islamic terrorists are.

[Lumpen Prole]

ahh yes, another religion bashing thread...gotta love it :rolleyes:

I always look forward to your insightful commentary, greeny.

[green lantern]

I always look forward to your insightful commentary, greeny.as you should. i do know that you look forward to reading everything i type, and i know your day just wouldnt be complete without reading a few of my posts.

[Lumpen Prole]

I rest my case.

[green lantern]

I rest my case.wasnt aware that you made one :confused:

[Atticus]

The thing is, we've already had a thread on this topic: http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59206&highlight=Creation

[serenity]

ahh yes, another religion bashing thread...gotta love it

I don't see any religion bashing whatsoever. Most religious people don't believe in creationism.

[Groucho]

I think it's not religion bashing.

Denying science is <unwise>. The fact that you base your <decisions> in religion is irrelevant.

[steveksux]

I think it's not religion bashing.

Denying science is <unwise>. The fact that you base your <decisions> in religion is irrelevant.Can't find any flaws in this argument whatsoever.

I suppose if we had a thread making light of those who think the Earth is flat due to Biblical interpretation we'd be accused of bashing religion also?

I suppose any threads decrying the Catholic pedophile priests would be accused of religion bashing as well? Its ludicrous. Greenie, you should know better than this.

There's a reason they describe some things as the "lunatic fringe" to distinguish them from the mainstream. And religion is mainstream. This garbage is not.
Do we also have to avoid disparaging comments about Jim Jones and the guys that committed suicide thinking they were going to Heaven on Halley's Comet to avoid ridiculous accusations of "religion bashing"? Just asking. Hard to tell which lunatic fringe group is sacrosanct and which isn't.


Randy

[Lumpen Prole]

Calling creationism the "lunatic fringe" isn't entirely accurate. Nearly 50% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years.

[steveksux]

Calling creationism the "lunatic fringe" isn't entirely accurate. Nearly 50% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years.I remember a thread on that a while ago. If I'm not mistaken, the poll questions were not terribly well designed. THey were obviously trying to make their position look mainstream.

If that figure is really accurate, God help us as a country, we're doomed. Our standing and military strength are based on technology, not superstition. If you can produce a link to well designed polls that back that up, I'll gladly remove the "fringe" label... :lol:

Randy

[Atticus]

Calling creationism the "lunatic fringe" isn't entirely accurate. Nearly 50% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years.The details of what's in this museum go rather a distance beyond the claims of intelligent design.

EDIT: The actual poll question asks if "God created" humans in their "present form." That's pretty ambiguous. It certainly does not include a time frame: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

[steveksux]

The details of what's in this museum go rather a distance beyond the claims of intelligent design.

EDIT: The actual poll question asks if "God created" humans in their "present form." That's pretty ambiguous. It certainly does not include a time frame: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtmlAnd that question includes the position whereby God created man in his present form using evolution. Essentially the Catholic, and mainstream religious viewpoint. No bashing there.

The 10,000 year old claim in a major distinguishing feature. Look in the night sky. There are stars millions and billions of light years away. We see them. We know how fast light travels. We know how far away they are. This is grade school math. The fact we can see them proves is no question the universe is > 10,000 years old, not without throwing science out the window entirely.

Its that medieval worldview that qualifies as fringe by any definition, unless you go back to the middle ages where the belief actually was widespread because they didn't know any better. In the present day, however, its no different than belief in unicorns and leprechauns and any other medieval nonsense we abandoned centuries ago. If anyone knows of a flattering way to describe that, by all means let me know.

Randy

[Lumpen Prole]

God forbid there has been more than one poll, eh? Some highlights:

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at least about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently.

That's one of my favorite statistics.

1991 results:

47% of American believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

How many believed that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process."? 9%

A CBS poll from 2004 has 55% of all Americans believing God created humans in their present form. I highly doubt that most of these people had a 3.5 billion timeline in mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml


Note that I simply stated that "lunatic fringe" was probably not an accurate assesment of the views of the American populace. And the Intelligent Designers are more "moderate" because they have difficulty winning court cases as it is. It is a halloween costume for creationism, and nothing more.

[Lumpen Prole]

One of the striking characteristics of statistics related to these questions is that the numbers have been more or less constant for the past two decades.

[steveksux]

God forbid there has been more than one poll, eh?

That's one of my favorite statistics. You'll love this then.. They parodied the list of 700 creation "scientists" by creating a list of scientists who acknowlege (not merely "believe in") evolution, but restricting the list only to scientists named "Steve", which is held by about 1% of the population. :lol: You've probably heard of it, dubbed "Project Steve".

The "Steve-o-meter" can be found here, there's currently > 800 on the list...

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html

Randy

[Lumpen Prole]

You'll love this then.. They parodied the list of 700 creation "scientists" by creating a list of scientists who acknowlege (not merely "believe in") evolution, but restricting the list only to scientists named "Steve", which is held by about 1% of the population. :lol: You've probably heard of it, dubbed "Project Steve".

The "Steve-o-meter" can be found here, there's currently > 800 on the list...

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html

Randy

I remember that, actually. I believe it was restricted to Steve as well as Stephanie in at least one instance.

[steveksux]

I remember that, actually. I believe it was restricted to Steve as well as Stephanie in at least one instance.

I think you're right, they allowed variations based on Steve, such as Stephan and Stephanie. A tribute to Stephen Jay Gould, if memory serves.

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

The article ends by indicating that as far as the writer could tell, he was the only "non-believer" present, and that conversions were unlikely...and he didn't do the "preaching to the converted" joke.

[Bicycleman]

It is as much religion bashing as the threads about Islamic terrorists are.

Didn't you once tell me you were a born-again believer? What are you doing here?

[Dangerrmouse]

Why on earth would he say that? He must have been playing you but you didn't see it.

[Sauniere]

The un-educating of the American populace begins.

That shipped sailed years ago with the Scopes Trial. If this stuff happens in the USA, despite all evidence to the contrary, in the secondmost powerful country in the world, how does this not make us any different than any other fundamentalist country on the planet? :shrug:

[Sauniere]

On one hand, it would be nice to say this is just some lunatic fringe, but when you see how many Americans apparently agree with creationism, it is quite scary.

The statistics are freigthening, unless, of course, you believe in this sort of thing, which apparently many do:
belief in God = 91%
belief in Heaven = 87%
belief in miracles = 84%
belief in Angels = 79%
belief in Hell = 74%
belief in the Devil = 67%
belief in ghosts = 34%
belief in astrology = 34%
belief in reincarnation = 27%
belief in witches = 24%
belief in vampires = 4%

Of course, this is FOX, so the stats could be misleading... :rolleyes:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173838,00.html

[Sauniere]

ahh yes, another religion bashing thread...gotta love it :rolleyes:

Religion bashing? You believe "creationism" to be a religion? :shrug:

[billygardener]

It is as much religion bashing as the threads about Islamic terrorists are.
Just my cup of tea. I seem to be one of the few people here who can equally enjoy both types of threads.

Mataj, we have not sunk low. This element of our country has always been like this.

This reminds of a speaker I saw on C-Span. His name was Michale Behe and he was speaking at the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute. He brought up a very interesting point. He said that the best evidence of a Darwinian adaptation in humans was our resistance to Malaria. Remember, this was the best evidence science has available of actually observing what he called a "Darwinian process." However, our adaptation to Malaria resistance is manifested in the loss of just one link in an amino acid. This adaptation to resist Malaria, he said, was akin to people who destroy a bridge so an ensuing army cannot reach them. This process does not show us how complex bridges are built. Likewise, organisms and parts of organisms are astoundingly complex. Darwinian theory has yet to explain this complexity. It's only source for complexity is lots and lots of time. Now I realize that an absence of evidence of other Darwinian process is not evidence of an absence of such processes, but this is still a damn neat concept. It leaves much room for further biological discoveries. And while it may be easy to discount the possibility of the involvement of a higher being, it is dumb to pretend we have all the answers.

[burntgorilla]

Didn't you once tell me you were a born-again believer? What are you doing here?

Well, you know how devout I am...

[Ben K.]

Just my cup of tea. I seem to be one of the few people here who can equally enjoy both types of threads.

Mataj, we have not sunk low. This element of our country has always been like this.

This reminds of a speaker I saw on C-Span. His name was Michale Behe and he was speaking at the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute. He brought up a very interesting point. He said that the best evidence of a Darwinian adaptation in humans was our resistance to Malaria. Remember, this was the best evidence science has available of actually observing what he called a "Darwinian process." However, our adaptation to Malaria resistance is manifested in the loss of just one link in an amino acid. This adaptation to resist Malaria, he said, was akin to people who destroy a bridge so an ensuing army cannot reach them. This process does not show us how complex bridges are built. Likewise, organisms and parts of organisms are astoundingly complex. Darwinian theory has yet to explain this complexity. It's only source for complexity is lots and lots of time. Now I realize that an absence of evidence of other Darwinian process is not evidence of an absence of such processes, but this is still a damn neat concept. It leaves much room for further biological discoveries. And while it may be easy to discount the possibility of the involvement of a higher being, it is dumb to pretend we have all the answers.

Behe? :lol:
This is the problem with analogies. How exactly is it like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army? I mean, it makes no sense. If he's talking about the loss of an amino acid (it's actually a substitution of a nucleotide leading to an an amino acid conversion not a loss) then he ignores many examples of gene duplications (how a new, clone "bridge" is built:rolleyes:) that alleviate selective pressure on one copy and allow it to diverge to yield different functions, hence becoming a completely new "bridge".

And no one pretends we have all the answers, that's the last thing rational people believe. We don't know what caused abiogenesis or what exactly is 'first cause' however there is no assumption made that ignorance of something means a higher power did it. Was it not dumb to think the sun was God or a god riding a chariot of fire because we didn't know what that was?

However when we have evidence of something and we link that evidence together into a hypothesis and it withstands rigorous testing we have every right to believe it.

[billygardener]

Behe? :lol:
This is the problem with analogies. How exactly is it like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army? I mean, it makes no sense. If he's talking about the loss of an amino acid (it's actually a substitution of a nucleotide leading to an an amino acid conversion not a loss) then he ignores many examples of gene duplications (how a new, clone "bridge" is built:rolleyes:) that alleviate selective pressure on one copy and allow it to diverge to yield different functions, hence becoming a completely new "bridge".

And no one pretends we have all the answers, that's the last thing rational people believe. We don't know what caused abiogenesis or what exactly is 'first cause' however there is no assumption made that ignorance of something means a higher power did it. Was it not dumb to think the sun was God or a god riding a chariot of fire because we didn't know what that was?

However when we have evidence of something and we link that evidence together into a hypothesis and it withstands rigorous testing we have every right to believe it.

I can pretty much agree with you there. I just thought it was interesting. And you seem to have a mildly better grasp on biology.

[Sauniere]

What the hell?
No one to respond to me?
Be I poison, or y'all be uniformed?

[Lumpen Prole]

I'll probably make a post about Behe in my evolution thread eventually. Until then, you can PM me with your e-mail address if you want a scientific critique of his last book, which includes sources that thoroughly dissect all of his claims.

[billygardener]

No thanks. I only watched him on C-Span, I didn't read his book. I'll just wait for your post;

[jamesrage]

Apparently this nonsense is remarkably popular. :(


Oh yes the theory that the universe came from a single tiny speck of dust to form billions of stars and planets that made up of different minerals and another theory that suggest man came from monkeys and that all life evolved from a single organism and magically developed physical features such clumping together to form multicellular organisms,producing electricity,poison,wings,legs and anything else sounds way more believable.

[Lumpen Prole]

There are currently no scientific theories that contend that every atom in the universe came from a speck of dust or that humans evolved from monkeys. Multicellularity has evolved multiple times in life's history, and the mechanisms of morphological diversification (fins, limbs, wings) are understood quite well. I'd be happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability and point you to relevent scientific literature if you're interested.

[jamesrage]

There are currently no scientific theories that contend that every atom in the universe came from a speck of dust or that humans evolved from monkeys.

The Bing bang theory and the theory of evolution.

[serenity]

Oh yes the theory that the universe came from a single tiny speck of dust to form billions of stars and planets that made up of different minerals and another theory that suggest man came from monkeys and that all life evolved from a single organism and magically developed physical features such clumping together to form multicellular organisms,producing electricity,poison,wings,legs and anything else sounds way more believable.


If you believe in Creationism--a laughable, amusing bit of drooling, knuckledragging nonsense (which itself gives some credence to the theory of evolutionary descendence from lower primates)--then we have nothing to discuss.

I do not like to insult faith. But Creationism is another matter, because it's a moronic idea.

[burntgorilla]

The Bing bang theory and the theory of evolution.

Neither of them claim that everything came from a speck of dust or that humans descended from monkeys.

But hey, it's easier to bash something if you have no idea what it is, right?

[Lumpen Prole]

The Bing bang theory and the theory of evolution.

Incorrect. According to the Big Bang Theory all matter present after the Big Bang existed prior to it, in a hypercondensed and very unstable form. Also, it is a common misconception that we are descended from monkeys. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor; our lineages split millions of years ago, but human beings did not evolve from monkeys.

[steveksux]

Incorrect. According to the Big Bang Theory all matter present after the Big Bang existed prior to it, in a hypercondensed and very unstable form. Also, it is a common misconception that we are descended from monkeys. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor; our lineages split millions of years ago, but human beings did not evolve from monkeys.Sometimes I'm not so sure. Sometimes it seems not only did we evolve from monkeys, but the apple didn't fall too far from the tree... :lol:

As always, evidence is in order whenever such a claim is made:
"Evolution" thwarted (http://smirkingchimp.com/)

Randy

[Alvin T. Grey]

Incorrect. According to the Big Bang Theory all matter present after the Big Bang existed prior to it, in a hypercondensed and very unstable form. Also, it is a common misconception that we are descended from monkeys. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor; our lineages split millions of years ago, but human beings did not evolve from monkeys.
You never met my dad, did you?:D

[burntgorilla]

Incorrect. According to the Big Bang Theory all matter present after the Big Bang existed prior to it, in a hypercondensed and very unstable form. Also, it is a common misconception that we are descended from monkeys. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor; our lineages split millions of years ago, but human beings did not evolve from monkeys.

And even if we did, that's no reason for it to be "nonsense" just because you don't like the fact that we did evolve from monkeys. If there was a firm scientific basis for believing it, it wouldn't be nonsense. Whereas creationism has no firm scientific basis...

[Ethos]

Oh yes the theory that the universe came from a single tiny speck of dust to form billions of stars and planets that made up of different minerals...

This concept isn't so hard to comprehend when you understand that all elements are simply combinations of hydrogen atoms. When hydrogen atoms fuse (as in star fusion), helium is produced. Stars begin to burn that helium, the result of which is carbon. Carbon and helium combine to form oxygen, etc.

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

This concept isn't so hard to comprehend when you understand that all elements are simply combinations of hydrogen atoms. When hydrogen atoms fuse (as in star fusion), helium is produced. Stars begin to burn that helium, the result of which is carbon. Carbon and helium combine to form oxygen, etc.

Ethos

Furthermore, the Big Bang is just a logical extenstion of the fact that the universe is expanding and things are moving apart as time goes on. If we reverse this observation (that is, go backwards in time) then the universe is contracting and all matter moves closer and closer together.

[steveksux]

Bah, humbug. The "Big Bang" is obviously just more propaganda from the homosexual lobby.

Who else would name a theory the "Big Bang". James, help me out here, you must have a link to corroborate that, right?

Randy

[Groucho]

Oh yes the theory that the universe came from a single tiny speck of dust to form billions of stars and planets that made up of different minerals and another theory that suggest man came from monkeys and that all life evolved from a single organism and magically developed physical features such clumping together to form multicellular organisms,producing electricity,poison,wings,legs and anything else sounds way more believable.

I am amazed that people who deny scientific theory that can be substantiated through observation prefer instead a theory that involves a magical man waving his arm and producing everything. Between the two, I know which one sounds more rational to me.

[::Major_Baker::]

I am amazed that people who deny scientific theory that can be substantiated through observation prefer instead a theory that involves a magical man waving his arm and producing everything. Between the two, I know which one sounds more rational to me.

be careful, you are trivializing religion. <edit Moderator>

[steveksux]

I am amazed that people who deny scientific theory that can be substantiated through observation prefer instead a theory that involves a magical man waving his arm and producing everything. Between the two, I know which one sounds more rational to me.

My favorite is when they blame the lack of evidence for evolution or the big bang when doing so. :thinking: :laughter:

You just can't make **** up like that, ya know?

Randy

[Mickey Shane]

I've always thought that the story of Adam and Eve was a nice story that you could tell your children before they were old enough to go to school.

It fits in with the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Santa, etc.

I'm even willing to give the story a chance. Just back it up a few hundred million years.

[steveksux]

This first attempt is an obvious flop, but someday a Creationism Museum will be a fascinating place. People will go there and marvel at how such beliefs persisted into the 21st century in such a technologically advanced society. They will come to see how Creationism flourished as long as it did, how it eventually became extinct.

Randy

[Groucho]

This first attempt is an obvious flop, but someday a Creationism Museum will be a fascinating place. People will go there and marvel at how such beliefs persisted into the 21st century in such a technologically advanced society. They will come to see how Creationism flourished as long as it did, how it eventually became extinct.

Randy

You mean... the theory of creationism will evolve?

[heel31ok]

I am amazed that people who deny scientific theory that can be substantiated through observation prefer instead a theory that involves a magical man waving his arm and producing everything. Between the two, I know which one sounds more rational to me.
actually He spoke and it came to be. what can be substantiated is fine but you give more credit than truth to what has actually been observed in your world of so called scientific theory. The imagination of man is a vast wasteland that can produce many things if given enough idle time.I have to hold scientists to a little higher standard than "could be" , "probably" , and "more than likely" which should amaze any free thinking individual.

[Dangerrmouse]

We observe galaxies receding from us at speed. Using mathematics, we can reverse that process, and conclude from our calculations that not only did all the matter in the universe start off from the same point, It did so roughly 13 billion years ago.

[Groucho]

actually He spoke and it came to be. what can be substantiated is fine but you give more credit than truth to what has actually been observed in your world of so called scientific theory. The imagination of man is a vast wasteland that can produce many things if given enough idle time.I have to hold scientists to a little higher standard than "could be" , "probably" , and "more than likely" which should amaze any free thinking individual.

Yes, but imagination isn't science; it can't be tested.

I could imagine that the universe came into being through the great Googlymoogly blowing us all out of his nose, but that doesn't make it true. Every religion on earth has some sort of creation myth, most of which contradict each other.

The fact is that there is no evidence for creationism -- none. Zero. Zilch. There may not be 100% evidence for the Big Bang, but even if you give it 50% that is a lot more than zero.

Believing in something really really strongly doesn't make it so.

[steveksux]

You mean... the theory of creationism will evolve?:lol: I hadn't thought of that angle, but I guess you're right...

I was thinking of the name "Creationism museum" like a museum that contains extinct stuff like dinosaurs.... or finally at some time in the future, extinct creationist beliefs..

I suppose they could do that now, but might not like highlighting the vast array of creationist beliefs of various religions and cultures throughout history, since every single one of them are all "wrong" according to even the creationists.

I differ from them in only one minor point, which is that their theory is just as wrong as all the others they also agree are wrong... to paraphrase the quote about atheists... :D

Randy

[steveksux]

actually He spoke and it came to be. what can be substantiated is fine but you give more credit than truth to what has actually been observed in your world of so called scientific theory. The imagination of man is a vast wasteland that can produce many things if given enough idle time.Funny, that is precisely my problem with the many thousands of different fables about how the earth was created from thousands of cultures and religions over time. Until something substantiates one over the other, to be fair I'm forced to give equal credence to the gentleman with voodoo stripes painted on his face, shaking chicken bones and making potions. All religions, as I'm sure you'll agree, deserve respect.

I have to hold scientists to a little higher standard than "could be" , "probably" , and "more than likely" which should amaze any free thinking individual.They hold themselves to a much higher standard than that, which should be readily apparent to anyone making an honest assesment of the state of science.

The "could be", "probably" standard might have been applicable to science in its infancy during the Middle ages, back when it was only barely more rigorous than religion. Back when Galilleo was being treated so harshly for daring to defy the religious orthodoxy and propose that science indicated the real world conflicted with the religious theories of the universe.

My how far we have NOT come since the Middle Ages, eh?

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

"Make it so, number one!"

[heel31ok]

Yes, but imagination isn't science; it can't be tested.

I could imagine that the universe came into being through the great Googlymoogly blowing us all out of his nose, but that doesn't make it true. Every religion on earth has some sort of creation myth, most of which contradict each other.

The fact is that there is no evidence for creationism -- none. Zero. Zilch. There may not be 100% evidence for the Big Bang, but even if you give it 50% that is a lot more than zero.

Believing in something really really strongly doesn't make it so.
Which is my point , imagination is driving this not science.It just happens to be mixed in.The Big bang is imagination and assumption coupled with what is observed.The science is only as good as the conclusion and imagination of the scientist. That is the problem ,discounting anything before concluding is not letting science tell the story but the scientists own imagination. Then more conclusions are based on this presidence and so on and so on. Soon you have a spare key that does not turn the lock at all.Start off wrong and that is where you stay.
50% of the big bang or 100% is still zero. It does not make sense. What you have is things that have been observed and a need to make what is observed fit the co. line.It does not and it cannot because "nothing" cannot explode into something on its own. There is no ring of truth to come to that conclusion unless someone wants it to be so.

You can say there is no evidence but it is more that the evidence is not examined with that possibility which is not letting science do what it does but is letting man decide what science should be.

[Atticus]

Funny, that is precisely my problem with the many thousands of different fables about how the earth was created from thousands of cultures and religions over time. Until something substantiates one over the other, to be fair I'm forced to give equal credence to the gentleman with voodoo stripes painted on his face, shaking chicken bones and making potions. All religions, as I'm sure you'll agree, deserve respect.
Actually, "fable" is an incorrect term. Fable means a story in which animals or forces of nature are anthropomorphized (made to talk and think like humans): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable

Your use of it here, in this sense, is (at least by this wiki definition) pejorative.

A more correct term would be "myth."

[Lumpen Prole]

The Big Bang theory does not assert that something came from nothing. This is a common misconception. What went "bang" was a hypercondensed, unstable mass of matter.

[Ethos]

Actually, "fable" is an incorrect term. Fable means a story in which animals or forces of nature are anthropomorphized (made to talk and think like humans): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable

Your use of it here, in this sense, is (at least by this wiki definition) pejorative.

A more correct term would be "myth."

Talking snakes don't count I suppose?

[Atticus]

Talking snakes don't count I suppose?He said "thousands." Surely not all of them are fables.

[Ethos]

He said "thousands." Surely not all of them are fables.

Apparently not if you take Wikipedia's definition as a universal resource.

I prefer to subscribe to one of 10 definitions listed under the Random House Dictionary, only the first of which happens to reference animals.

Although I suspect if you looked into each you would find a majority of creation "myths" do indeed involve anthropomorphization.

Ethos

[Atticus]

Apparently not if you take Wikipedia's definition as a universal resource.

I prefer to subscribe to one of 10 definitions listed under the Random House Dictionary, only the first of which happens to reference animals.

Although I suspect if you looked into each you would find a majority of creation "myths" do indeed involve anthropomorphization.

EthosCan I depend on my own authority then, to assure you that "fable" in the literary sense means a moral story containing anthropomorphized characters? The sources I would depend upon are written, and there are many of them.

Also, fable has that nasty additional sense of being a "lie" and of being pejorative. A "Fabulist" for example, is an illegitimate story teller--someone not to be trusted (see: Stephen Glass, The Fabulist (http://www.amazon.com/Fabulist-Stephen-Glass/dp/0743227123)).

"Myth" is certainly the more accurate term.

[Ethos]

Can I depend on my own authority then, to assure you that "fable" in the literary sense means a moral story containing anthropomorphized characters? The sources I would depend upon are written, and there are many of them.

Also, fable has that nasty additional sense of being a "lie" and of being pejorative. A "Fabulist" for example, is an illegitimate story teller--someone not to be trusted (see: Stephen Glass, The Fabulist (http://www.amazon.com/Fabulist-Stephen-Glass/dp/0743227123)).

"Myth" is certainly the more accurate term.

Ah, more of your personally labeled "pejoratives".

Since a myth is no less fictional than a fable, I'm inclined to allow the substitution without objection.

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
fa·ble /ˈfeɪbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fey-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -bled, -bling.
–noun 1. a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters; apologue: the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop's fables.
2. a story not founded on fact: This biography is largely a self-laudatory fable.
3. a story about supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents; legend: the fables of gods and heroes.
4. legends or myths collectively: the heroes of Greek fable.
5. an untruth; falsehood: This boast of a cure is a medical fable.
6. the plot of an epic, a dramatic poem, or a play.
7. idle talk: old wives' fables.
–verb (used without object) 8. to tell or write fables.
9. to speak falsely; lie: to fable about one's past.
–verb (used with object) 10. to describe as if actually so; talk about as if true: She is fabled to be the natural daughter of a king.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1250–1300; ME fable, fabel, fabul < AF, OF < L fābula a story, tale, equiv. to fā(rī) to speak + -bula suffix of instrument]

—Related forms
fabler, noun


—Synonyms 1. See legend. "

According to these definitions emphasis on the pejorative aspect would seem to be a narrow view. I like No 4, personally.

[Atticus]

Ah, more of your personally labeled "pejoratives".

Since a myth is no less fictional than a fable, I'm inclined to allow the substitution without objection.

EthosThere is a difference between fiction and falsehood, which anyone who has studied literature must know.

[Ethos]

There is a difference between fiction and falsehood, which anyone who has studied literature must know.

A fiction is something imagined and untrue, a falsehood is something which is false or untrue. Obviously we could trade a dozen different and subtle definitions for each, and we could spend time parsing the "literary" variations of each, however the exercise would be pointless.

Your primary goal is to ensure there is no potential negative connotation applied to describing creation stories as factually inaccurate. My primary goal is to maintain they are indeed factually inaccurate. As long as the term applied satisfies both objectives, there is no need for further debate.

Ethos

[steveksux]

Actually, "fable" is an incorrect term. Fable means a story in which animals or forces of nature are anthropomorphized (made to talk and think like humans): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable

Your use of it here, in this sense, is (at least by this wiki definition) pejorative.

A more correct term would be "myth."
I stand corrected, I had assumed myths and fables were synonymous.

Randy

[steveksux]

Can I depend on my own authority then, to assure you that "fable" in the literary sense means a moral story containing anthropomorphized characters? The sources I would depend upon are written, and there are many of them.

Also, fable has that nasty additional sense of being a "lie" and of being pejorative. A "Fabulist" for example, is an illegitimate story teller--someone not to be trusted (see: Stephen Glass, The Fabulist (http://www.amazon.com/Fabulist-Stephen-Glass/dp/0743227123)).

"Myth" is certainly the more accurate term.Myth is just as false as a fable, isn't it? I would hate to mistakenly give any credence to the various thousands of creation myths by my choice of terminology.

Randy

[Ethos]

I stand corrected, I had assumed myths and fables were synonymous.

Randy

They are synonyms, but only in a technical sense.

[Dangerrmouse]

Do you mean that technically, they are similar?

[Ethos]

Do you mean that technically, they are similar?

I mean technically as in yes, they are synonyms, but apparently not in the literary context Atticus wishes to use.

Ethos

[Atticus]

Words have many nuances depending on how they are used. "Fable" is used frequently in the pejorative, is associated with children, and additionally is less accurate because it's literary definition deals with the personification of animals or forces of nature. "Myth" has different connotations, which I've discussed in this forum before. Synonym don't mean precisely the same things as each other; if they did, we'd have need of considerably fewer words.

[steveksux]

Words have many nuances depending on how they are used. "Fable" is used frequently in the pejorative, is associated with children, and additionally is less accurate because it's literary definition deals with the personification of animals or forces of nature. "Myth" has different connotations, which I've discussed in this forum before. Synonym don't mean precisely the same things as each other; if they did, we'd have need of considerably fewer words.Is "myth" backpedalling far enough? Is it ok to lump the Christian version of creationism in with other creation myths from other cultures/religions/time periods? I think fundamentalist Christians would not take kindly to calling that a myth. At what point are we using the correct terminology and they are being overly sensitive?

And I'm really not trying to be difficult here. Its sort of an interesting intellectual exercise trying to find an agreed upon vocabulary that would be agreeable to both sides. I feel the bottom line is anything that implies creationism is not the literal historical truth is going to offend them, IMO. Sometimes two opposing camps have overlapping territory where compromise is possible. Sometimes there is not. I think what you're searching for here is a term that is not deemed offensive, yet will still causes offense. I don't think that's possible from a theoretical standpoint.


______________|Compromise area|___________________
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
_______________bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb


________________________|No common ground|______________________
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
__________________________________________bbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Randy

[Atticus]

Is "myth" backpedalling far enough? Is it ok to lump the Christian version of creationism in with other creation myths from other cultures/religions/time periods? I don't think I said you couldn't do this. I think fundamentalist Christians would not take kindly to calling that a myth.Then we'd have to explain to them what "myth" means and why we use terms like that in this forum. Let me know if that comes up--I'll do it. I've discussed these rules with fundamentalist Christians many times before, both in the forum and through PMs. At what point are we using the correct terminology and they are being overly sensitive? When they insist that their way is right and everyone else's is wrong. It's pretty simple really.

[steveksux]

I don't think I said you couldn't do thisNo, you didn't, you actually suggested we use that term... I was just wondering if that was enough of an accomodation to satisfy them. I just can't see that it would be.
Then we'd have to explain to them what "myth" means and why we use terms like that in this forum. Let me know if that comes up--I'll do it. I've discussed these rules with fundamentalist Christians many times before, both in the forum and through PMs. Fair enough. When they insist that their way is right and everyone else's is wrong. It's pretty simple really.:lol: Seems to me that argument is what every discussion ultimately boils down to. With an appropriate Bible verse offered as "proof".

Randy