Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon
Lexington Herald-Leader ^ | March 26, 2007 | Andy Mead

Posted on 03/26/2007 12:18:38 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-272 last
To: GourmetDan
So, can we now say that you take the ICR's word on creation? Or is that only when they agree with what you already believe?

I take rational argument wherever it occurs. Setterfield is such an obvious fraud that he embarrasses creation scientists.

251 posted on 03/31/2007 12:24:24 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: DaGman

Curiosity has already refuted your allegation, but you still didn't answer the question I posed: why is your assertion that AiG should have no freedom of speech anything but fascism?


252 posted on 03/31/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I posted an answer and I don't agree that it was at all refuted.


253 posted on 03/31/2007 3:43:26 PM PDT by DaGman (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

...and I still think that's a strange question given that fascism, among other things, makes strong appeals to religious values as well as nationalistic fervor to control it's people.


254 posted on 03/31/2007 3:50:39 PM PDT by DaGman (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: camle; DaveLoneRanger
my guess is that this would do more harm than good - it will paint non-evolutionists as utopian crackpots (vegan T-rex's and adam & eve)

Wouldn't "Creationist" describe you better than "non-evolutionist" or "anti-evolutionist?"

When you begin to use the labels placed on you by those who disagree with you, you have already lost.

255 posted on 03/31/2007 3:59:26 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Muttering Mike
Makes one wonder if people who believe in this pine for the good ol' days when non-believers could be tortured or killed as heretics.

It's also good that the people who built this didn't try to do it in the former USSR or modern day China. They would be tortured or killed by enlightened atheists!

256 posted on 03/31/2007 4:06:47 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

The odd thing is; the Bible contains no claims of a "flat earth." It does describe a "circle" or "Sphere" that God "hung upon nothing."


257 posted on 03/31/2007 4:08:56 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83; El Cid

Your post just made me cry. All my tax money spent on education (yours) wasted...absolutely wasted.


El Cid,

How DARE you think for yourself! Don't you know that USMMA_83 chooses what all of us are to believe??!!


258 posted on 03/31/2007 4:13:49 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: El Cid

...if believing that the Bible is the unvarnished Truth means being cast amongst the 'foolish' -- then I am more than happy to be cast amongst the 'foolish'...


Jesus said that Christians should expect that to happen.


259 posted on 03/31/2007 4:16:02 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad; USMMA_83
Thank you 50sDad! That is the most sensible thing I've ever seen written on any of these Crevo VS Evo threads!

Maybe the knuckleheads on BOTH sides of the argument can learn something from this. I won't hold my breath.

260 posted on 03/31/2007 4:29:14 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
You're obviously not familiar with the edict of 1492 that gave the Jews the choice of death, conversion, or leaving Spain. The Jews who left included at least one of my ancestors as well as at least one of my wife's.

From where I'm sitting, your comments are akin to Holocaust denial.


The Nazis didn't want the Jews to escape (leave Nazi Germany). They demanded other countries to round them up for slaughter.

The inquisition was bad, but not quite the same as the Holocaust.

However; if not for the inquisition and the Mongols attacking the Moslems, Europe would never had pushed Islam back out.

The Holocaust had no such redeeming qualities.

261 posted on 03/31/2007 4:34:27 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: DaGman; DaveLoneRanger
This type of thing should be flat out illegal. Lying and misleading children like this affects their education. Corrupting children's education affects the country and puts us at an ever increasing disadvantage in science. This is counter-productive on so many levels, it's unbelievable that its even allowed to exist. This is not a free speech issue. This type thing only steadies the course for the U.S. to ultimately be an uneducated third world cuntry.

Have you any idea of what passes for an "Edjukashun" in our "Publick Skoolz" system these days? I can assure you, it is NOT Godly!

262 posted on 03/31/2007 4:46:10 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
However; if not for the inquisition and the Mongols attacking the Moslems, Europe would never had pushed Islam back out.

Sultan Beyazid II of the Ottoman Empire sent ships to take as many of the Jews as were willing to the Ottoman Empire. He comemented that "the Catholic monarch Ferdinand was wrongly considered as wise, since he impoverished Spain by the expulsion of the Jews, and enriched Turkey."

Indeed the Jewish population was welcomed into the Ottoman Empire and greatly strengthened it. If anything, the Inquisition strengthened the Moslems.

But then, it was hardly the first or last time the Ottoman Empire came to the rescue of Jews in Europe. When Constantinople fell in 1454, the Jews welcomed the Ottoman Empire. In the mid-16th century Suleyman the Magnificent, among other deeds, rescured a group of Jews being held by the pope, by declaring them to be Ottoman citizens.

Up until several hundred years ago, Jews were generally safer in Islamic nations than Christian. It's only in the last 60 that Christian nations have generally been safer.

By the way, the Mongol empire was gone by the early 15th century. The height of Islamic expansion in Central Europe was the 16th and 17th century, when they were twice stopped at Vienna.

Considering what originated in Austria in the first half of the 20th century, maybe it would have been better had the Ottoman Empire captured Vienna.

263 posted on 03/31/2007 6:23:09 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (WWGD -- What would Groucho do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Yes, that's correct. The *distance* does not change. It is the transit time that changes with a changing speed of light, as Setterfield explains so well here:

You really are math-dense. The third leg of the triangle between the supernova and the gas emission it induced one year later arises from the speed of light being the same 170,000 years ago as it is today.

Now, lets say the speed of light was much faster in the past than today. That means that the distance for the third leg of this triangle would have to be much greater than 1 light year long. That would mean that the distances between here and there are much greater than 170,000 light years. So why would it take 170,000 light years for the light to reach us here, but only 1 year for the light to travel at a much higher speed between the two astronomical objects? Mathematically, there is no solution. Either that, or you must reject the 170,000 light year distance you so readily embraced a few posts ago.

Setterfeild's theories have been debunked by others before. Intersting observations, but bad technique. Cherry picked data is being used to support a nonsense theory. That's why the WWW is his publishing medium.

But it is strange you are a fan of his. His work does not support an Earth centered universe. Do you always contradict yourself?

264 posted on 03/31/2007 7:00:14 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Again, the distance in meters, miles or any other pure distance measure between the supernova and the gas cloud and the separation of the light rays traveling to earth does not change with a higher historical speed of light. As the speed of light slows, however it takes longer for those light rays to travel that distance. This shows up as the 1 year lag time at current speeds. Were the speed of light 12x faster than current from occurence to observation, the lag time would be observed as 1 month rather than one year but the *distance* would remain the same. The quoted source says that and is correct.

BS. If that were the case, the illumination of the gas cloud would have happened a lot sooner. You can't draw a triangle where the sum of two sides is greater than the third side. Setterfield is simply wrong.

265 posted on 03/31/2007 7:04:07 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
It means that the furthest star we see can be no more than 4000 to 6000 light years away. Otherwise the light would not have reached us yet.

Not necessarily. Maybe the photons reaching earth were all created at the same time the star was.

266 posted on 03/31/2007 7:18:43 PM PDT by Aarchaeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Aarchaeus
Not necessarily. Maybe the photons reaching earth were all created at the same time the star was.

Of course they were. Or maybe the universe was actually created billions of years ago.

267 posted on 04/01/2007 4:59:29 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Ah, the fallacy of argument from ridicule.

Common when there are no others.


268 posted on 04/04/2007 3:33:14 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: doc30
"You really are math-dense. The third leg of the triangle between the supernova and the gas emission it induced one year later arises from the speed of light being the same 170,000 years ago as it is today.

This is your constant error. The source said, and I agreed, that the distance is the same no matter what c was when the supernova exploded. I have posted this several times, yet it continues to escape your understanding.

From post # 25:

"Consequently, supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down."

Are you still confused by the source's use of the term 'light-year' as a distance measure? Do you not see how he equates 170,000 light-years with 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles? It is a pure distance measure and has nothing at all to do with elapsed time.

"Now, lets say the speed of light was much faster in the past than today. That means that the distance for the third leg of this triangle would have to be much greater than 1 light year long."

Nope. The distance is the same regardless of the speed of light. The transit time would be shorter with a faster speed of light but the distance would not change.

"That would mean that the distances between here and there are much greater than 170,000 light years. So why would it take 170,000 light years for the light to reach us here, but only 1 year for the light to travel at a much higher speed between the two astronomical objects?"

You are confusing light-year as a measure of distance and light-year as a measure of time. They cannot be conflated. Setterfield explained this, if you had read it.

"Mathematically, there is no solution. Either that, or you must reject the 170,000 light year distance you so readily embraced a few posts ago."

Light-year as a distance measure is not the problem. Light-year as a *time* measure cannot be inferred. There is no problem and mathematics has nothing to do with it. The distance is the same, the transit time would be different. You are confusing light-year when commonly used as a measure of distance and light-year as a measure of time. The source that was quoted was using light-year purely as a measure of distance, not of time.

"Setterfeild's theories have been debunked by others before. Intersting observations, but bad technique. Cherry picked data is being used to support a nonsense theory. That's why the WWW is his publishing medium."

Lots of people like to say that because they don't like the implications of his claims. Had you bothered to research this at all, you would have found that he documented the same effect when he included the outliers previously excluded. Also, his work is not based solely on historical c measures, but you would know that had you spent some time reading his work.

"But it is strange you are a fan of his. His work does not support an Earth centered universe."

Please support this statement since both geometric and relativistic models are indistinguishable where the heliocentric vs geocentric discussion are concerned. I think you are making philosophical assumptions that are not uniquely supported by the evidence again.

269 posted on 04/04/2007 3:57:27 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: doc30
"BS. If that were the case, the illumination of the gas cloud would have happened a lot sooner. You can't draw a triangle where the sum of two sides is greater than the third side. Setterfield is simply wrong."

No, you are simply wrong.

A faster speed of light means that 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles would be covered in less than one year when the supernova exploded. As the speed of light slows, it still must cover 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles and that takes 1 year at current speeds. When the event happened, it may have taken 10 minutes, but the distance remains at 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you?

270 posted on 04/04/2007 4:01:36 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Ah, the fallacy of argument from ridicule.

What specifically is wrong with the article published by the Institute for Creation Research. Are they not Christian enough for you, or is their some logical or mathematical error that you would like to point out?

271 posted on 04/04/2007 4:06:15 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Setterfield’s model is not based solely on one uncorrected Cassini measurement.

For the response to Aardsma’s article, click here:

http://www.setterfield.org/data.htm#challenge

I recommend that you look at Setterfield’s site for rebuttals before posting such old articles.


272 posted on 04/05/2007 3:09:22 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-272 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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