Skip to comments.Society Of Vertebrate Paleontology Speaks Out On Creation Museum
Posted on 07/29/2007 2:13:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
click here to read article
Yeah, pretty much.
Ya know, I really think some creationist would try to develop a “scientific” proof for everything in the Bible.
These people just keep re-inventing the wheel over and over again.
For me the water into wine thing stands as a miracle and needs no further explanation, as does creation. It’s better for me to believe in the mystery than to flail about making up nonsensical pseudoscience.
God created the heavens and the Earth. Who gives a rats fanny how or in what time period. He did it the way he did it and that’s good enough for me.
Isn’t there some evidence that King David had the original pentateuch altered? Could that have happened?
You will find many here who care quite a bit. I've seen some freepers go as far as to say that if the literal Genesis is not the truth, then the Bible is a fraud and none of it is to be believed.
"Either its all literal, or none of it", as one creationist freeper put it.
These people have a lot more to lose in this argument than I do, which makes their motives suspect.
If evolution and an old Earth were proven wrong tomorrow, my worldview would not change much. However, disproving a literal Bible would send many here into a crisis of faith. More the reason to cast pejoratives on people who believe in evolution. Calling them monkey worshipers who bow to the Church of Darwin should stave off the creeping inevitability of facts for a few moments longer.
One huge problem is that they, creationists, state that people like me believe in evolution. Belief is for religion, but belief has no place in science.
I don’t believe in evolution. I understand evolution and I accept evolution as a theory and I appreciate the beauty of such an elegant system. And....I believe that God uses evolution as His mechanism for development of the universe.
I ain’t a monkey worshiper and I ain’t a Darwinist, I am a Christian and a scientist.
Like you I do not predicate my belief system on the absolute precise *words* of the Bible, especially the pentateuch. I think it’s a mysterious story that gives us a clue about the nature of God. That in no way diminishes my faith in God.
Then science is evil, from Satan? All science or just some science?
Or do you mean that science is religion and lectures in science are sermons? Are all science lectures sermons?
Or are you saying that buildings where science is taught are churches? Maybe then science teachers and professors are priests?
And science texts are scripture? Then people who write science texts are divinely inspired and they write the word of Satan?
Do you REALLY believe that?
Science, as the observation of the natural world, is not of the devil. But false science, like evolution, was created by Satan to weaken people’s faith. It’s worked more than any other creation of his too. Those people propagating macro evolution and old earth theory, as fact, are doing Satan’s pleasure.
There are sure a lot of people who are wrong about science then, aren’t there!? Like most of the scientists in the world are wrong, right?
Because sciences like embryology and histology, anatomy, paleontology, archeology, geology, anthropology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, astrophysics, atomic physics, nuclear physics...are in one way or another tied to evolution and an old universe.
Just think, it’s amazing that so many scientists are so wrong and yet we have so many wonderful things in our lives because of those wrong scientists......kinda makes ya wonder how people doing the work of Satan can discover so many things that benefit mankind.
That’s quite a religion you’ve got there. Almost all the scientists in the history of the world are wrong. But you know the truth that all those people somehow missed.
“Just think, its amazing that so many scientists are so wrong and yet we have so many wonderful things in our lives because of those wrong scientists......kinda makes ya wonder how people doing the work of Satan can discover so many things that benefit mankind.”
So I’m wrong because I’m in the minority? And what does evolution have to do with discoveries that benefit mankind?
Didn't you Bible literalists learn your lesson after persecuting Copernicus and Galileo?
I guess not. Thank God I live in an age where religious zealots like yourself don't hold the reins.
You mean it isn’t a geocentric universe after all?
Evolution accepts an old Earth as do all other mainstream sciences. The foundation of most of the scientific discoveries that have benefited modern man are therefore sciences that accept an old Earth.
You aren’t wrong because you are in the VAST minority. But you are bucking a very well accepted trend, to say the least.
And calling most of the scientists in the history of the world wrong and working for Satan is just plain silly. It’s hard for people to take you seriously when you sound so silly.
I mean compared to Newton, Galileo, Leonardo, Einstein, Fermi, Feynman.....
Issac Newton calculated the earth was created in 3988 bc (and will end by 2060 by the way). He was the greatest scientist of all time and was a young-earth creationist.
answer: Because they are afraid the goofy museum happens to be right (or at least conforms to the evidence better than darwinism).
Newton believed in many things that we know to be pretty far out. Astrology for example. And his religion was heretical especially since he was not a believer in the trinity as are most modern Christians.
It is clear that Newton rejected the Anglican church.
Newton was probably a millenialist.
Newton discovered scientific principles that are the foundation for modern physics.
And.....had Newton been able to know what modern physics tells us about the universe he could not have been a young Earth creationist. After all, he started the ball rolling toward what we now know about the age of the universe.
Do you think Ptolemy would have held onto his geocentric beliefs if he could know what we know now? Even the Catholic church gave up on geocentrism and they excommunicated Galileo over that issue. Newton could not have held onto his false beliefs either if he could have known what his science was leading to.
So do you accept Newton totally? Or do accept what is true and disregard the false?
Newton discovered the very principles that allow us to know the truth about the universe.
Frightened is not the correct concept. The concept is that science must not be hijacked and changed to suit beliefs.
I am not afraid. You shouldn’t be afraid either. Scientists do not hold onto falsehood. Scientists are willing, in fact eager, to prove theories false. If it’s false we want to know that as soon as possible.
That’s why it’s never good enough to do science once. It has to be replicated by many other people at different locations over a long time before it is accepted as true.
Science never tries to defend it’s theories. It tries to find the truth regardless of where truth leads. Science defends truth, it doesn’t fear truth.
Science is dispassionate.
Abortion and global warming are similar to evolution? I'm against embryonic stem cell research, however those embryos are hardly "aborted fetuses". Get your facts straight before trying to preach.
You are closer to the enviro wackos and the pro-aborts because you already have a set conclusion that you wish to make the facts conform to. Whereas they morph facts around their principles of socialism and abortion, you do the same for a literal Old Testament. That's not science; science exists independently from your dated creation myths.
The basis of scientific method is the elimination of bias.
You seem to not accept that fact, therefore you argue from a world view that excludes you from the scientific community.
It’s fine with me if you want to interpret the natural world, made by God, according to your biases.
But, there exists a worldwide community of scientists who are dedicated to discovering the true nature of the universe we live in. Even you are a recipient of benefits made possible because of that dedication.
I stand by my statement that science is dispassionate. Good science never attempts to mould the world into a preconceived view. That’s what creationists do to science. That’s why creation science is not good science. It comes at the process of finding truth with a preconceived notion of what truth ought to be, not with a mind open to whatever the truth will be.
When science proved that the solar system was not geocentric the Catholic church changed it’s dogma. That was a pretty smart thing to do, otherwise the Church would have had to maintain a position based in ignorance of the truth. That change did not undermine the fundamental belief system within the Church which is salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Maintaining a position against science does not improve on the fundamental message of Christianity. And looking to the Bible for scientific information does not improve the fundamental knowledge we have of the universe.
The idea of a creation museum is exactly like what Dan Rather pulled when he said his news report on Bush was based on documents that were fake, but accurate.
Exactly the same thing. The creation museum is based on fake science. That doesn’t seem like a good way to lead people to the truth. In fact, it’s probably counter productive because people who understand science even a little bit will probably be pushed away from religion if they perceive that religion needs fake science to validate the message.
Better to leave religion in the faith department and leave science to real scientists.
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.