To: DaveLoneRanger; SubGeniusX
Geez, if the creationists are so wacky, why not just ignore them. Of course that is never enough for these professional evos; they must stamp out every last vestige of the heresy of Intelligent Design, or their lucrative gig of fooling our school kids about darwinism might be up.
posted on 07/29/2007 2:23:27 PM PDT
(Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
Private money....private museum.
You do have to wonder why these guys (scientists) are so unsure of their belief structure that the creation museum would scare them..
posted on 07/29/2007 2:31:12 PM PDT
(There is no plan B.)
Evolutionists feel that they are right. That's fine. But they also clearly feel that they cannot make a compelling case for their position. For a great many people, if they are presented with the views of the Evolutionists, and the views of the Creationists, many people will find that the Creationists seem more likely to be on the right path.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Creationists are right. Science is not a popularity contest. But it does point out why Evolutionists are so afraid the Creationists.
Personally, I find that I don't have enough faith to believe in Evolution.
posted on 07/29/2007 2:31:56 PM PDT
(Progressives like to keep doing the things that didn't work in the past.)
I went to the exhibit for the first time yesterday.
It's a beautiful building and the grounds have been presented in a very appealing manner.
Some exhibits are animatronic. Other than the place was busier than flies on stink and navigating the exhibits was thus a pain, I was overall impressed. Due to a time contstraint, I was unable to see the plantarium exhibit.
Less impressed was the justification they used in the exhibits. There was a Disney like video (seats that rumble and spritzes of water when the appropriate action is seen on the screen)that had a young girl wondering about the purpose of life. The video was heavy on saying the secular worlds version of events had conflicts and was based on theories, yet they only referred to an apologetic way of looking at scripture to justify the theories of the Genesis believer. It was also heavy on dissing public education rather than telling how working in concert with public education, fuller and better explanations could support the fact of God in science.
There was another portion of the exhibit that had two palentologists working a find. The speaker was a believer. The other person was not. They had been schooled together and work many of the same digs. The believer simply said they came to different conclusion using the same set of facts because of where they set their beginning. Of course the believers was in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The remainder of the exhibits contained a lot of claims of proof, yet they was a strong use of the word "could". While the secular world claims X happened, we believe it "could" be explained as Y. The canyons of the Mt. Saint Helens eruption was often cited to explain the Grand Canyon "could" have been formed in less than 10,000 years.
It was a exhibit to plant doubt of the secular and scientific view of the world rather than provide conclusive evidence of the biblical view.
posted on 07/29/2007 2:32:50 PM PDT
The SVP is a buncha snooty-nosed @-holes.
Definitely a bunch of elitists in the world of paleontology.
posted on 07/29/2007 2:49:07 PM PDT
(Dorothy Parker, on Ernest Hemingway: “Deep down, he’s really superficial.”)
why are they so scared of free speech?
posted on 07/29/2007 2:55:11 PM PDT
First you have physical evidence, that must be interpreted. Then you have those willing to interpret.
You will always have more than one way to interpret the evidence and you will always have those with a presupposition the interpret.
Evolutionary scientist will always have a presupposition of long ages to make evolution work (and they will just make ages longer if and when they need it to fit their religious theory) and therefore make the theory fit the evidence.
Creation scientist will always have a presupposition that the Bible is true 100% and will interpret the evidence to fit the Bible and the Global Flood.
posted on 07/29/2007 4:01:04 PM PDT
( Evolution is a faith based science with no proof. Scientist are the prophets, teachers the preacher)
Gotta love this. Starts out with “Professional...”. To me that means paid to provide their opinions and their opinions better agree with those of the scientific community.
Hey! I'm an invertebrate paleontologist, and these vertebrate guys are discriminating against me!!!!
posted on 07/29/2007 8:06:46 PM PDT
(Hunter if we can; Thompson if we can't; Romney if we must, Rudy if we wanna lose.)
Say what you want but no Young Earth Creationist ever tried to outlaw my automobile.
posted on 07/30/2007 5:26:02 AM PDT
(Michael Moore bought Haliburton)
Someone finally woke up the biologists.
posted on 08/01/2007 3:48:40 PM PDT
(Six bullets and Lennon goes down. Yet not one hit Yoko. Discuss.)
To: EveningStar; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; ..
You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me
posted on 08/02/2007 12:39:21 PM PDT
("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
I don’t need any expensive museum. Seeing Victoria Vetri and Raquel Welch in bikinis evading dinosaurs was enough to convince me. I’ll protect you, honey!
What do a bunch of scientists know?
posted on 08/03/2007 12:17:19 PM PDT
("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson