Science Museums Adapt in Struggle against Creationist Revisionism

Scientific American ^ | July 12, 2007 | Elizabeth Landau

[jim35]

[If the universe is pointless and “has no meaning”, then you couldn’t trust your own conclusion about anything.”]

[[That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.]]

It makes sense. In a universe with purpose, we can find meaning. In a universe without purpose, there is no meaning to anything. Any conclusion would be just as meaningless and pointless as any other.

[ndt]

"Any conclusion would be just as meaningless and pointless as any other."

Are you guys all smoking the same stuff?

Just because there is a lack of purpose does not alter the objective nature of reality.

[GodGunsGuts]

Well, time for me to go. I’m off to the Grand Canyon to learn why it is powerful proof for the flood, and against uniformitarianism. See you all in a few days.

[Porterville]

I got two cents to rub together and that is still light years ahead of you zealots.

[jim35]

[You only know about the complexity of the genomes of several animals and plants (and fungi) because the information was made available to you by people, who nearly to the man accept evolution.]

That is the most ignorant statement I’ve read in several minutes.

The founders of all sciences, nearly to the man, accepted God, until very recently.

Are you so blind to reality that you think that all of history’s great scientific thinkers were evolutionists?

Those of whom you speak merely stood on the shoulders of giants, adding to a body of work that was hundreds, or even thousands of years in the making.

[ndt]

"Well, time for me to go. I’m off to the Grand Canyon to learn why it is powerful proof for the flood"

Do be sure to try to ignore all the fossil footprints the appear about a 1/3 of the way down the trail that show the signature of waves on a beach even though a flood origin would place those sediments under many a cubit of water.

And all those meanders, a signature of mature rivers and not catastrophic flooding.... Just don't look at them, they will go away.

[jim35]

[I got two cents to rub together and that is still light years ahead of you zealots.]

That statement is meaningless. I suspect you have a low-level IQ, probably further exacerbated by a deficient education.

[ndt]

"The founders of all sciences, nearly to the man, accepted God, until very recently."

When exactly is it you think we discovered the complexity of genomes?

[Wings-n-Wind]

(1) Circular reasoning... no point; IMHO

(2) The best man can do is continue to discover the greatness of God and the glory of his awesome creation... JMHO... (3) Check with Sir Anthony Flew, who followed the evidence, and today continues his quest to understand the creation... In light of his own acknowledgement that this design... has to have a Designer... (December 2005)....

FYI -- To the great dismay and chagrin of his atheistic, Darwinist friends...

FMI - Flew did not become a Christian or a Muslim or a Catholic or a Jew... but he won my great respect for intellectual honesty as made his jump from "No God!" to "Maybe" based on the evidence uncovered within his own journey!

For the record --
I do not subscribe to all of the creationist sub-theories and time lines... but I do subscribe to the proposition that all of this mind-boggling beautiful creation is highly charged with the glory and power of God, our Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer...

It takes a lot more "blind faith" to believe in abiogenesis and some of the other Darwinists' rough-sketch theories of the beginning... than to accept the foundational tenets of Biblical faith... (It's God's gig! -- just enjoy the beauty, the ongoing and unfolding mystery, and the music!)

In the presence and power of an almighty and loving God,
...Nothing is impossible...

The "wise and learned men" of godless Darwinism would do well to stop trying to write God out of the script....

THEY.... ARE THE REVISIONISTS...

[CottShop]

[[Nonsense. True is or isn’t. It is objective.]]

If true is objective, that means it’s an absolute and further a universal absolute, whihc points to an absolute truth determiner/creator, yet i’m sure your next argument will be the absolute universal morals, ie: truth, ie: Evil is bad, good is the right thing, is subjective- round and round we go. Philosophers and theologins have tackled this problem of objectiveness for centuries and have gotten exactly nowhere except right back where they started, and that is that ‘one can’t be certain if their is an absolute universal truth, but on the other hand one can’t rule it out either because htere are evidences that point to both a subjective nature of a universal morality, while htere are also evidences for an objective universal morality/truth

[jim35]

[When exactly is it you think we discovered the complexity of genomes?]

I think it was over the last 5 decades, with the final genome-project completing the mapping human genomes just a few years ago. Why? Is that somehow germane?

Perhaps you’d like to argue that 20th/21st century scientists thought of everything by themselves? It seems to me that those who made these discoveries had to be educated men to begin with.

What knowledge did they enter their respective fields with? Naturally, it was the knowledge accumulated over centuries, or millennia by others. Those who were, nearly to the man, believers in God.

So... What’s your point?

[CottShop]

[[Just because there is a lack of purpose does not alter the objective nature of reality]]

There’s a lack of purpose? Wow- then I guess we just stop seeking answers to life’s ills because quite frankly, non of it will matter in the end- I mean who cares if we help people with cancer? They’re going ot die anyways and their purposeless life will ramin purposeless after death with no memory of the puposeless direction their lives had while alive.

I suspect you’ll argue that the hear and now has a purpose because it will ‘help others’ in the future if we discover cures along the way? My comment ot htat is whoopidity doo- since life has no purpose, I don’t care about what the future holds for anyone because as soon as they are dmeised, that’s it- nothing, according to the purposless mantra.

Three cheers for puposelessness.

[Gritty]

[CottShop]

[[Just because there is a lack of purpose does not alter the objective nature of reality]]

Sorry, posted too soon- meant ot expound a bit on the last few words/sintiment- Objective reality? Who’s objective reality? The objective reality as determined by opinions from purposless men? If there is no point, then really, there is no point in me believing any subjective interpretation of what you or anyone else determines to be objective reality because, it would be pointless.

This needs further fleshing out- but it’s a solid enough foundation to work from- but mind you- this problem has really been philosophised into ground meat.

[Dmitry Vukicevich]

You are quite smug, are you sure you don’t belong at DU?

[Caesar Soze]

And all those meanders, a signature of mature rivers and not catastrophic flooding.... Just don't look at them, they will go away.

Don't tell him to do that ... I haven't seen the Grand Canyon yet, and I don't want it to go away before I get that chance :(

I would like to apply our fascinating new philosophy of the Pointless Universe to Free Republic:

1. The point of Free Republic is to teach fellow conservatives and influence their opinions.
2. No one on crevo threads ever learns anything or changes their opinion.
3. Therefore, crevo threads have no point.
4. Furthermore, no "point" made in a crevo thread is a valid point; it's simply some kind of noise or illusion.
5. Black is white; watch out for the zebra crossings.

[Porterville]

Oh, you throw 'em out there, but you are still a superstitious oaf. Look, read a 3 grade book from the library. Not all books tell lies that are not written by the church of the lunatic-insane. I know you think you are smart... and that is a start... so, if you channel that desire belief in your intelligence, you may be able to learn from a 3rd grade level book.... It really isn't that hard to read.

To give you an example, News Papers are generally written at a 6-8th grade level. I imagine that Newspapers are rather difficult for you to read (other than Beetle Bailey)... but if you start with an earlier grade level you can work your way up... but then I digress. If reading is beyond you or you don't know where the library is, turn off the big pink haired lady on the church channel and turn the tube to Discovery, PBS, or National Geographic.... get yourself some fried mayonnaise, dip it in some ranch dressing and have a party.

[ndt]

"There’s a lack of purpose?"

Did you even bother to read the thread? It was a "what if".

[betty boop]

For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.” -- A. Huxley

And that's the "bottom line." Sounds like devolution to me. Scrap culture, scrap history, hold one's ancestors in contempt, erase the human past, scrap all rules: and then let me show you the beast I truly am....

Actually, that association seems pretty insulting to "beasts." And so I apologize to the animals....

Thank you ever so much, GGG, for the excellent excerpts, and for writing!

[ndt]

"Why? Is that somehow germane?"

Considering that my original point which you poo pooed was that you only know what you know about genomes due to people who accept evolution, yes it is entirely germane.

"So... What’s your point?"

Well my new point is that you aren't even trying to stay on topic.