Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum
Reuters ^ | 1 hour, 39 minutes ago | Andrea Hopkins

Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long

PETERSBURG, Kentucky - Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.

A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.

"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.

The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.

For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.

While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.

"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis (news, bio, voting record), and his family, who have toured the site.

FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN

While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.

Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.

Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.

"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.

Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.

The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.

"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.

"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.

Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.

"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.

The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.

The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly.

The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: darwinismisareligion; darwinismsnotscience; evolutionisareligion; flintstonesministry; goddidit; ignoranceisstrength; yecapologetics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 701-716 next last
To: CottShop

I didn't make the claim.


251 posted on 01/15/2007 11:22:39 AM PST by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Many people hear see what we see. But we tend to get drowned out by voices whose volume is inversely proportional to content.


252 posted on 01/15/2007 11:23:30 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
God and Evolution can co-exist. One could say, only God could create a mechanism as ingenious as evolution.

Paleontology was a boyhood interest - this idea of humans and dinosaurs co-existing is ridiculous.

Regards, Ivan

253 posted on 01/15/2007 11:25:38 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior

i don't care- my previous post stands- The info is there- putting your hands over your eyes won't change that fact


254 posted on 01/15/2007 11:29:11 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Whatever.


255 posted on 01/15/2007 11:32:01 AM PST by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

evolution? The biologically impossible theory and God can coexist? You'd have to prove evolution overcame impossible biological hurdles in order for that to be fact. The scientific evidences show more that God and His word are consistent and true- not that evolution happened and God's directive. It is impossible for mutations to create NEW cell information- ALL mutations do is alter celular information that is ALREADY present- evolution demands NEW information from outside the source (outside the species- from another species) in order to be viable- lateral gene transference however has it's own set of impossible problems- but beyond even htose impossiblities, amino acids couldn't make the impossible leap to protiens in order for evolution to even get a head start were it even remotely possible- Not to mention that all experiments on 'primordial soups' with lightening strikes in CAREFULLY controlled envirnments that were set up to reproduce what would have been necessary for the creation of life from non life (ie life from chemicals) have proven that the WRONG type of amino acids were created and did NOT live long enough anyways.- they were left hand amino acids- precisely the wrong type needed for life.

These aren't just some inconsequential hurdles- these are MAJOR impossibilities that evos' have not been able to explain or even suggest an explaination. No- it takes a HUGE amount of FAITH in order to bleeive the impossible was possible.

http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/amino.shtml

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/design.html

http://www.evolutionisimpossible.com/chemistry.html

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm


256 posted on 01/15/2007 11:38:17 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I'm really not interested in regurgitated tracts, thank you.

I do believe God and evolution can co-exist. I'm sorry you are not open to that possibility. However, arguing with people like yourself rarely achieves anything - so therefore, I conclude this discussion.

Ivan

257 posted on 01/15/2007 11:40:19 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
However, arguing with people like yourself rarely achieves anything

But they do get wound up rather quickly ;-)

258 posted on 01/15/2007 11:47:36 AM PST by mgstarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

lol gosh whaT a surprise- discount the evidences because they carry the word God in them- Tracts? No sir- facts- conclude if you like- didn';t expect any less.


259 posted on 01/15/2007 11:55:57 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I don't think God smiles very kindly on people being spiteful and petty in His name.

Think about it. I'm done talking to you; don't post to me again, thanks.

Ivan

260 posted on 01/15/2007 11:57:13 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

As predicted- people scream for facts and links- when provided- they throw their hands over their ears and say 'nuh uh'

Want to know why dating methods aren't reliable? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059

Want ot ignore it because it's on a Christian website despite hte fact that SCIENCE proves the facts listed? Fine-


261 posted on 01/15/2007 11:58:29 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

ah the classic bow out- and you're right- God did state that we're not to argue facts when confronted with lies- Being spiteful? I'm sorry- you're right- calling those sites that present scientific facts as 'gospel tracts' isn't being spiteful- Don't dish it out of you don't like the return serve.


262 posted on 01/15/2007 12:01:34 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

The scary thing is they'd have argued just as hard for the geocentric universe if they'd been born a few centuries earlier.


263 posted on 01/15/2007 12:06:33 PM PST by mgstarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
The theocons want us not to think, to blindly accept dogma and stop doing what comes natural to mankind, using our brain. Oddly, so do the muslims, they both fear us using our potential fully.

It is interesting that you are attempting to propose an alternate theory to a creationist. They only have one source and if you refute "their interpretation" of the source you are branded a heathen ... this is their answer, they have no other answer to offer.

A scientist proposes a theory along with the empirical and "objective" evidence and research he has gathered to support the theory. The theory can then be tested by others and is either substantiated as valid or found faulty. A discourse can ensue, actual intelligent conversation, that may lead to a better understanding of our universe. You can't do this with a creationist.
264 posted on 01/15/2007 12:12:03 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Here's how your sources distort:

" When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent."

They have deleted the number "70 million years" and replaced it with "recent"!

If your sources believe recent is 70 million years ago, then you lose the YEC argument.


265 posted on 01/15/2007 12:28:13 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

BTW, your "Cook" was a creationist.


266 posted on 01/15/2007 12:28:44 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Want to know why dating methods aren't reliable? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059

Your link leads to a page of additional links. Rather than try to wade through them all I looked at the first link (which I have examined before).

The article deals with radiometric dating, and the section on radiocarbon dating (which is what we have been discussing) concludes with:

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.


Want ot ignore it because it's on a Christian website despite hte fact that SCIENCE proves the facts listed? Fine-

Anyone who attempts to calibrate a scientific method by reference to a mythical flood is not doing science. They are doing apologetics (defense of religion).

Is there any better science on any of the other links? So far, your links are just a waste of our time.

267 posted on 01/15/2007 12:28:56 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

--The scary thing is they'd have argued just as hard for the geocentric universe if they'd been born a few centuries earlier.--

Not that bad. They lost.


268 posted on 01/15/2007 12:29:24 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; CottShop

--Is there any better science on any of the other links?--

No. See my 264.


269 posted on 01/15/2007 12:30:21 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

Typical creationist, ask him to back up a silly claim and you get nothing but dodging.


270 posted on 01/15/2007 12:30:54 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

---SCIENCE proves the facts listed?---

One of their scientists they use to support their position.

Dr Andrew Snelling ... now works full-time with the Creation Science Foundation


271 posted on 01/15/2007 12:36:33 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail where they use "logic" to determine if someone is a witch.

BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,...she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore?
VILLAGER #2: A witch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcBXuFxMYd0


272 posted on 01/15/2007 12:41:41 PM PST by mgstarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

Aw crap. A perfectly good thread turned over to the EVO vs. Creationist people. Thats enought for me....


273 posted on 01/15/2007 12:43:05 PM PST by subterfuge (Today, Tolerance =greatest virtue;Hypocrisy=worst character defect; Discrimination =worst atrocity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

and this disproves that he presented scientific facts how now?


274 posted on 01/15/2007 12:46:38 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

No sir that wasn't the only point being made on that site- and attempting to disprove every point made based on ONE point being discussed is disingenuous and amounts to dismmissing everything simply because somehwere in the article the name God or flood or some similiar point is mentioned- there ar lots of FACTS in those articles that do NOT rely on the mention of that one point about hte flood- and you're attemptiong to misrepresent the whole by picking and choosing something you perceive as innacurate- The site also goes on the explain WHY adjustments could JUST AS validly be used to account for the anomilies that throw off the radio carbon dating-

the trueorigin site also goes into great detail the facts showing why different dating methods are wrong and can't be trusted and why those asserting old age MUST make assumptons based on error in order to come up with hteir findings-

Sure they'rew a waste of your time because you autom atically dismiss somethign hwen they make a point like a flood could very well have accouinted for for what they are findijng- incase you missed it- the article ALSO said the flood model has to be very carefully applied-

Take a look at that trueorigin site- but the creationontheweb site also has plenty of scientific fact for you to noodle over if you can get around the fact that they might mention God now and again


275 posted on 01/15/2007 12:57:55 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

and these are by no means the only sites- there are sites that are quite technical and featured in peer reviewed scientific journals- but alas, they too might mention God & so the 'cast out anyone who does so' crowd will automatically discount any of the evidences

UpallNight- Sure- yep- every other point in that article is automatically thrown out- Facts swept under the rug- you're right- argument lost-


276 posted on 01/15/2007 1:01:28 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You are doing apologetics (defense of religion), while I am doing science.

Many things that are called science are not science.

Science does not require faith because it is based on facts and theory.

This is true of real science. So there must be a "scientific" field of origins. This is where we step deep into faith. We can never verify the past but we must believe a stack of things about the past to accept any belief about our origin.

When people accept these assumptions about an unprovable past, no matter which ones they accept, the result is to form religion. We may think we see light coming from a source that is 10 billion light years away, and we may believe that the only way for that light to have gotten here is for it to have traveled the whole distance at a fixed speed, but we can never know that to be true.

277 posted on 01/15/2007 1:02:17 PM PST by DungeonMaster (Acts 17:11 also known as sola scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

"and this disproves that he presented scientific facts how now?"

Not by itself, but I have shown other 'distortions' (lies) and you have not addressed those. This is just an example that your 'scientific sources' are paid to generate pre-determined' facts.


278 posted on 01/15/2007 1:02:41 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232

look- stop with the petty little accusations- IF you have an argument for or against what is being discussed- then present it- otherwise all you're doing is getting your little anti-Christian jabs in- feel good does it? Yeah? well it's still petty and childish- stay on topic- do some research- counter what I am stating with facts if you can rather than indulging in the irresistable temptation of bakcbiting and bickering- you can do it- I have faith


279 posted on 01/15/2007 1:05:14 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

--UpallNight- Sure- yep- every other point in that article is automatically thrown out- Facts swept under the rug- you're right- argument lost--

It would take forever to address each 'fact' on your link. I did, however, show how they deliberately lied to make results that showed something was 70 million years old to match the YEC hypothesis. Address that lie and we will go on to another.


280 posted on 01/15/2007 1:05:41 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

Gee- ya mean they get paid for a job? By golly- ya gots a point there- argument over- Cripes- Paid or not- facts are STILL facts- don't pull the bull crap tactic of trying to discredit facts by avoiding the facts and pointing out someones affiliation- IF you have counter facts to the facts presented- spell it out- then we can have a serious conversation- otherwise- all you're doing is sniping from the outside- taking pot shots at those who bring facts to the table.


281 posted on 01/15/2007 1:08:11 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

'recent is a 'lie'? Gosh- yup- right full of lies that site- if this is your only 'proof' then you're really grasping at straws when presented with numerous facts.

Takin a nap- will be up later


282 posted on 01/15/2007 1:10:39 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

You have without a doubt proven the substance of the first sentence of my post.


283 posted on 01/15/2007 1:10:41 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Take a look at that trueorigin site

I have just done so. I do not find their argument concerning the inaccuracy of carbon 14 dating convincing.

All of their examples have long since been rebutted. In fact, its the same material we see on many of the creationist websites, which is accepted as truth due to a mix of wishful thinking, lack of scientific knowledge concerning the subject, and agreement with a priori religious beliefs.

284 posted on 01/15/2007 1:11:28 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

and by the way- care to counter the fact that evolution is a biological impossibility? Or would you rather simply discount it all because the evidences are presented on Christian sites for the most part? (Depsite the fact that they do appear in peer reviewed journals as well)


285 posted on 01/15/2007 1:12:03 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

sur3 they've been rebutted- anyone can take a theory that measured by incidents can't be observed and rebutt anything- why? simply because the knowns are not infact known- You failed to mention they have not been succesfully rebutted-


286 posted on 01/15/2007 1:14:42 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
I'm not here to rile up trouble but have a question.

I am a Catholic who believes in elements of Theistic Evolution as well as Old-Earth creationism. Don't flame me for that, at least not here and now.

In Genesis 1:6-7, it says:

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.

We know that this is not a literal "dome" or we would have crashed through it when we launched satellites and space shuttles. It's metaphorical. Therefore, if the dome isn't literal, how would we know the "days" as mentioned in Genesis are literal? Care to explain your thoughts on that?

287 posted on 01/15/2007 1:19:54 PM PST by RockinRight (To compare Congress to drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors. - Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

your 'science' relies as heavily on specualtion as does creation science- yet- somehow, because your 'science' leaves God out of the equasion- you think it's more 'fact'? sorry- but you NEED a heapiong amount of faith to trust in something that delves into unknowns- for instance the coinstants or -non constants- that can not be determined. dating steps outside the element of science and goes straight to the beleif system- science studies knowns and observables- If you are going to discount creation science, then you also have to discount secular science as beingh a 'priori of dogma' as well-


288 posted on 01/15/2007 1:19:59 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
Interesting..............

But not as interesting as Rachel Ray!

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

289 posted on 01/15/2007 1:22:03 PM PST by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

and just one more point- it is untrue that the matter has been ev4n close to being settled and succesfully rebutted- if that were true- the matter would be settled once and for all in the peer reviews and that is FAR from the truth- You can assert that if you like- but it's not true.


290 posted on 01/15/2007 1:25:50 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
You have shown you are unwilling to consider scientific arguments. Each of your links or arguments that is rebutted leads to, "But wait! There's more!" Then you furiously cut and paste more fluff from creationist websites.

At this point, I'm going to let my posts, particularly post #237 stand until you can come up with better arguments.

Bye

291 posted on 01/15/2007 1:25:56 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

-- facts are STILL facts- don't pull the bull crap tactic of trying to discredit facts by avoiding the facts and pointing out someones affiliation- --

I first pointed out a 'fact' but you chose to (even after a second request) to ignore my post.


292 posted on 01/15/2007 1:26:29 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

--'recent is a 'lie'? Gosh- yup- right full of lies that site- if this is your only 'proof' then you're really grasping at straws when presented with numerous facts. --

I doubt they would have posted those several paragraphs only to conclude that it was 70 million years old. Better to say "recent" and let the duped reader believe it was less than 6000 years old. Which is what you believed, right?


293 posted on 01/15/2007 1:30:02 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

--the fact that evolution is a biological impossibility?--

I have never seen that fact.


294 posted on 01/15/2007 1:31:15 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
FYI: I have browsed these thread for a number of years, but your comment finally irritated me enough to make a reply. I am by training a scientist (microbiology/biochemistry). I have worked in a number of disciplines both in the military and after retirement in the civilian sector. I currently teach computer information systems courses at a small private and conservative university. I have kept up on and studied origins of the universe and life on earth for many years. 40 years ago what passed for "scientific" research on creationism was at best trying to prove that concepts such as the earth is only 6000 years old. It has changed little up to today.

Creationism puts forth a dogmatic view that a much edited collection of books details to modern man exact history and science. I thought that Christ brought forth the new era with a new testament that swept aside the old books. If you adhere to the old books then you do not fully accept that Christ brought about a new era that did not base its faith and belief on strict adherance to the old testament.

Are there parts of the old testament that have elements of truth historically? Sure there are. There was a great flood for instance, but that along with many other events in the OT are also written in the sacred books of other religions and have differences which would be expected in stories brought down through thousands of years and thousands of authors. The OT was written and rewritten for peoples who were uneducated and very much limited to knowledge of their own piece of the world and for many their "world" was limited to maybe a 100 square miles.

I know about the various ideas of the origins of man and the earth and the universe. You believe what you like, but don't imply that those who may disagree with you are leftists, ignorant or uninformed, once again, that is the self-important view of that cult out there. I did not say that you were a terrorist, just that your statement carried the same smug self-centered view of others beliefs that muslims do.

295 posted on 01/15/2007 1:31:47 PM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

How can one trust a 'scientist' that takes this pledge and is paid for his 'research'.

"The Bible is the written, word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout [sic] all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of historical truth."


296 posted on 01/15/2007 1:36:16 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: bulldozer
No, you don't have to have "faith" in the theory of evolution or any other theory. You do need to have the knowledge and analytical skills to understand a theory, the basis and evidence that led to the theory and to place that theory in context with the world, man and the universe as we see it today with our capability to observe and analyze our universe in a way unknown to ancient man.

When a theory can be shown to carry enough weight of evidence to make it fact then it becomes a scientific fact. Coprenicus had a theory that the earth and planets revolved around the sun and the church branded him a heretic. With the advances in astronomy, math and physics it was shown that he was right and the theory became fact. There are other theories that have been disproved, not by dogmatic biblical means but by physical proof. The theory of evolution has neither been fully proved nor disproved and remains a theory. It is a theory based on a large number of physical proofs, not faith. If you choose not to believe the physical evidence then that is up to you. If your faith sustains you in respect to evolution then that is wonderful for you. My faith separates Christ and God and their message from the OT which was swept aside by the word of Christ and does not rely on a testament most recently rewritten by an English King for political ends. The universe, evolution are all part of God's plan and he gave us the intelligence and free will to learn how to discern his hand in the patterns of the universe and man.

297 posted on 01/15/2007 1:47:49 PM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy

Yum.

And the turkey looks good too.


298 posted on 01/15/2007 1:50:20 PM PST by RockinRight (To compare Congress to drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors. - Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

Pretty much. Although the rest of the time he is probably busy with the other universes he is creating.....


299 posted on 01/15/2007 1:52:04 PM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight
You have to throw away everything we know about science in order to make your case that the earth is 6000 years old. Why, even the bible does not make the claim on the age of the earth.

And what kind of cruel nasty Deity would give us the curiosity to explore that universe and the ability to try and understand it, while making the entire exercise a sham?
300 posted on 01/15/2007 1:54:25 PM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 701-716 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson