Creation Museum
Ron O
stopped off at the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati in Kentucky.
It was a Thursday and for a time when school has already started for
many, there were quite a few people in attendance. It is a sad
comment on our times that armed security people were, likely
purposely, openly displayed. The people were friendly and helpful.
We were lucky enough to come when a tour group was going in and they
had extra two-for-one coupons that they handed out to other visitors,
so we got an instant discount to start the day off right. The full
price is around $23.00 a pop if you are thinking of going.
They have put a lot of effort into this facility, and we had a
pleasant walk through the garden outside the museum. It is sad that
if I have to sum up the fruit of their efforts it would be that it was
a monument to ignorance. The science content was minimal and
obfuscation and denial were prevalent. The main focus was
indoctrination of their specific theology with a view that they seemed
to deny with their efforts in putting up the physical displays. The
main message was that faith was more important than the physical
evidence. If you accepted their narrow literal interpretation of the
Bible then you had to deny everything contrary to that view. All
their “science” displays meant nothing, and that is about what anyone
would have gotten out of them besides “hey, this looks niffty” You
didn’t really learn anything. There were a lot of dinosaurs scattered
around, but you didn’t learn much about them except that they were all
vegetarians before the fall.
I hadn’t really thought about it before, but a lot of the old
patriarchs overlapped each other. One exhibit indicated that
Methuselah and Noah may have known each other. They coexisted for
around 400 years. The claim was that Methuselah died 200 years before
the flood, so he wasn’t among the unworthy. Noah was 600 when the
flood came. I recall Karl Crawford claiming that Noah was around 500
when he started building the ark and it took him around a hundred
years, so that fits his time line. There is apparently another
timeline in the septuagint that would have Methuselah living until
after the flood, and the claim is that, that timeline is in error.
They had one exhibit where they had some claim that meat wasn’t eaten
until after the flood. They seemed to be talking mainly about people,
but I don’t know how they interpret the story of Cain and Abel (Abel
was the shepherd and brought the best of his flock to the Lord) and
what people did with the carcasses after they made their clothes from
the animal skins. They had an interesting exhibit about the Ark.
They showed a three layered hull and an inner bracing configuration
similar to Comstock square set timber bracing. I don’t recall seeing
any specific number for the kinds that were on the Ark, but their
displays were woefully inadequate to portray taking care of the 30,000
different kinds (pairs of most and and 7 pairs of the birds and
ritually clean) that is the Woodmorappe estimate. There seemed to be
the hope that all the dinos and other animals on the ark were still
vegetarians. They acknowledged that God brought the animals, but Noah
was tasked with taking care of them. They claimed that the flood
lasted 5 ½ months, but my Bible says that Noah was on the ark from the
seventeenth day of the second month to the twenty seventh day of the
second month when God told Noah to come out of the ark. According to
Woodmorappe the median size of an animal on the ark was the size of a
sheep. No mention was made of the hellish conditions that must have
existed for 8 people trying to take care of 10s of thousands of
animals for a year. Someone should try to pack 60,000 plus sheep into
an ark sized volume and try to get 8 people to keep them alive for a
year. Even without the ventilation problems it would be a neat trick
to take care of the liquid and solid waste along with feeding each
pair in their individual pens.
They had a method of getting the animals spread across to the
continents that they needed to go to in order to get back to where the
fossils of their ancestors can be found. They claimed that there were
massive amounts of logs that would spend years floating around the
oceans moving with the currents that could have transported the ark
survivors to where they needed to go. These log rafts seemed to be
different from the “floating forests” that they claimed were
responsible for forming the coal deposits during the flood.
Apparently, during the flood there were living forests floating around
that grew and produced massive amounts of biomass that would sink and
form the coal deposits.
According to guys like Ray the people responsible for the Creation
Museum are not “true creationists.” My guess is that most of the
security is to take care of true believers that disagree with the
exhibits. There is no big tent atmosphere that is prevalent in the
intelligent design scam, only a narrow view of their literal
interpretation of the Bible. They had several panels indicating that
they believed in massive amounts of evolution before and after the
flood. The entire history of the earth has to be crammed into around
6,500 years. People might be surprised that all canids are derived
from one kind on the ark. They even listed foxes as being derived
from one dog kind. True foxes are more than twice the genetic
distance from wolves and domestic dogs as chimps are to humans. This
is a massive amount of genetic change in just a few thousand years.
Like Woodmorappe they have to limit the number of kinds on the ark as
much as they can, and so a kind seems to be anything that they think
that they can get away with on the genus or family level. According
to one display your house cat is descended from the same pair of cats
that gave rise to tigers, jaguars and probably those saber toothed
monsters that evolved during the cold period after the flood. Just a
few thousand kinds produced all the millions of species that exist
today and evolved after the flood, but are now extinct. They claim
that a lot of the fossil record is of the various species that evolved
after the flood. One display claimed that marsupials could travel
farther and faster from the ark than eutherian mammals (because they
could carry their young in pouches) and that is why you find marsupial
fossils in sedimentary layers under the layers containing most of the
eutherian mammalian fossils. I am not making this stuff up. This
would mean that in order to explain the fossil record they have to
claim that the evolution and extinction of the Eocene mammalian
megafauna, along with the Pliestocene megafauna had to occur after the
flood in just a few thousand years. The sedimentary layers that they
a likely talking about that hold the marsupial fossils are likely over
a hundred million years old.
The planetarium show likely contained more scientific information than
in the rest of the entire museum (worth the 7 or 8 dollars extra if
only to get some useful information out of the museum). They tried to
give an accurate portrayal of the vastness of the universe. Our
star’s place on the edge of one arm of a galaxy that is one of
hundreds of billions of other galaxies was depicted in an interesting
way. Then they discounted everything to claim that we are special.
They went to great lengths to explain about stars and stellar
progressions that should take millions of years, and then said nothing
about supernovas that have been observed that indicate that if it
really does take these young stars millions of years to die there have
been stars that reached that limit, and died as predicted. They were
trying to claim that because it only took millions of years for some
stars to blow up that the existence of such stars proved that the
universe could not be billions of years old. They discount any new
star formation, and of course ignore what supernova tell them about
how much time must have passed already.
My wife and I discussed the theology during the drive home and since
she teaches Sunday school at our church I asked if they teach the
basic theology portrayed in the museum. She claimed that they did
not. YEC interpretations isn’t mentioned. As far as I know
Methodists have no official stance on young earth creationism, and it
isn’t part of the Sunday school lesson program. It wasn’t part of
what we learned in Sunday school when I went decades ago, but for some
reason it is one of the most important parts of the theology of the
people responsible for this museum.
I was curious about what the museum was like and it was a nice way to
spend a few hours. I did not expect much and I was not disappointed.
I even learned a few things about what these guys believe. This is
hard to believe since I’ve read TO since around 1993. It indicates to
me that ignorance is a way of life for YECers, and that most of the
YEC posters do not even know what they are supposed to believe.
Ron Okimoto
Louann Miller
@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> My wife and I discussed the theology during the drive home and since
> she teaches Sunday school at our church I asked if they teach the
> basic theology portrayed in the museum. She claimed that they did
> not. YEC interpretations isn't mentioned. As far as I know
> Methodists have no official stance on young earth creationism, and it
> isn't part of the Sunday school lesson program.
Methodists are one of the Godless Liberal denominations. Heck, most of them
don't even hate gay people.
Ray Martinez
Straight thinking, logic and evidence says this is true.
> My guess is that most of the
> security is to take care of true believers that disagree with the
> exhibits. There is no big tent atmosphere that is prevalent in the
> intelligent design scam, only a narrow view of their literal
> interpretation of the Bible. They had several panels indicating that
> they believed in massive amounts of evolution before and after the
> flood.
Imagine that; "Creationists" who accept "massive amounts of
evolution" (= buffoons)?
The Fundies are in Darwin-Dawkins camp (thank God).
Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species
immutabilist.
VoiceOfReason
> It is sad that
> if I have to sum up the fruit of their efforts it would be that it was
> a monument to ignorance.
I admire your patience at being able to get through it, but I know I
just couldn't do it myself. It would be too depressing.
Reddfrogg
> On Aug 29, 3:20 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > According to guys like Ray the people responsible for the Creation
> > Museum are not “true creationists.”
>
> Straight thinking, logic and evidence says this is true.
Ray, you know nothing about straight thinking, or logic, and you run
away from evidence...
>
> > My guess is that most of the
> > security is to take care of true believers that disagree with the
> > exhibits. There is no big tent atmosphere that is prevalent in the
> > intelligent design scam, only a narrow view of their literal
> > interpretation of the Bible. They had several panels indicating that
> > they believed in massive amounts of evolution before and after the
> > flood.
>
> Imagine that; "Creationists" who accept "massive amounts of
> evolution" (= buffoons)?
Imagine a creationist who claims that all species are fixed, despite
the massive evidence to the contrary (= a buffoon)
>
> The Fundies are in Darwin-Dawkins camp (thank God).
No, Ray, the "Fundies" are yours. They are the "anti evolutionists"
you cite so often.
>
> Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species
> immutabilist.
ie. someone who denies the evidence.
DJT
Chris
Personally, I think this is an open-and-shut case, given today is the
29th.
Ron, thanks for presenting this in a calm, reasoned, pleasant manner.
The last 'evo' account I read about the Creation Museum frothed at the
mouth, shed virions everywhere, and was afraid of water. I was looking
over my shoulder hoping to see Atticus Finch with a rifle. Yours, in
contrast, was, a pleasure. Thanks, and kudos to you for being even-
handed in your evaluation.
Chris
Friar Broccoli
.
> Imagine that; "Creationists" who accept "massive amounts of
> evolution" (= buffoons)?
So then, how many different kinds were in the ark?
VoiceOfReason
Chris wrote:
> Nominated for being a fine report on the Creation Museum.
>
> Personally, I think this is an open-and-shut case, given today is the
> 29th.
>
> Ron, thanks for presenting this in a calm, reasoned, pleasant manner.
> The last 'evo' account I read about the Creation Museum frothed at the
> mouth, shed virions everywhere, and was afraid of water. I was looking
> over my shoulder hoping to see Atticus Finch with a rifle. Yours, in
> contrast, was, a pleasure. Thanks, and kudos to you for being even-
> handed in your evaluation.
>
> Chris
Seconded.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> There were a lot of dinosaurs scattered
> around, but you didn?t learn much about them except that they were all
> vegetarians before the fall.
Kind of OT:
What exactly _is_ this cretinist crap about dinosaurs anyway? When exactly
did their collective pipe dream that evolutionary theory
abso-fucking-lutely depends on the dinosaurs having lived more than 60
millions of years ago start? And who started it?
Or is that just a kind of instinctual result of dropping out of
kindergarten?
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Ron O
> Nominated for being a fine report on the Creation Museum.
>
> Personally, I think this is an open-and-shut case, given today is the
> 29th.
>
> Ron, thanks for presenting this in a calm, reasoned, pleasant manner.
> The last 'evo' account I read about the Creation Museum frothed at the
> mouth, shed virions everywhere, and was afraid of water. I was looking
> over my shoulder hoping to see Atticus Finch with a rifle. Yours, in
> contrast, was, a pleasure. Thanks, and kudos to you for being even-
> handed in your evaluation.
>
> Chris
>
SNIP:
I view the visit as a positive experience. I got to meet some of
these people face to face and they are just like any of your
neighbors. There isn't any underlying sense that this is a used car
lot and they are trying to sell you something that you shouldn't
really buy. If the poor people that are working there are guilty of
anything it is simple ignorance. It is sad that some would abuse that
ignorance, but I find it difficult to blaime the ignorant. The
exhibits may have been designed by the incompetent and or dishonest.
My statement about the museum being a "monument to ignorance" is just
how I would describe the museum to anyone. The purpose of the museum
was obviously not science education.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in news:bf0170a5-84b5-46c1-94da-b611b55622d0
Methodists are as human as anyone else. The church hierarchy is still
negative against homosexuals. I believe that "all" are still welcome
in the church, but no same sex marriage, no gay pastors. There is
some kind of movement to change this that I've heard about, but I
don't think anything has changed.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
It wasn't that depressing. On TO we deal with the junk all the time,
but there were actually new things to discover about what these guys
believe. Most of it makes about as much sense as the regular stuff we
see on TO. It is probably just the weird scientist part of me that
just likes to learn something new. If you go into it as a learning
experience it probably will not be so bad. You just have to take it
as a given that the exhibits are not supposed to make any consistent
sense. They are just snippet arguments of the moment that only have
to make sense for that moment before the next bogus bit comes along.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
<MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> Ron O:
>
> > There were a lot of dinosaurs scattered
> > around, but you didn?t learn much about them except that they were all
> > vegetarians before the fall.
>
> Kind of OT:
>
> What exactly _is_ this cretinist crap about dinosaurs anyway? When exactly
> did their collective pipe dream that evolutionary theory
> abso-fucking-lutely depends on the dinosaurs having lived more than 60
> millions of years ago start? And who started it?
Dinosaurs are likely just a means of drawing interest. As far as I
know the YECers used to deny that they ever existed. Morris (past
president of the Institute of Creation Research) used to claim that
the bones were planted by the devil. Dinosaurs have become such an
integral part of our culture that they are forced to acknowledge
them. In the case of this museum, dinamation is used as the draw to
bring in the shills. They are pretty much an embarassment for the
YECers, and I really don't know how many people you can fool about T.
rex being a vegetarian before the fall. They, of course, obfuscate
the issue and a lot of pertinent information is left out. They
minimize the fact that the entire biosphere that the dinos inhabited
was very different from what we see today. Basically they use the
dinos as entertainment. Kids can even get on one with a saddle.
>
> Or is that just a kind of instinctual result of dropping out of
> kindergarten?
They just ignore a lot of the data. These guys are young earthers.
They are the flat earthers of our era. Most of them don't know any
better, and some are willing to lie to the rest.
Ron Okimoto
Burkhard
I only know about the British Methodists - the last attempt to have a
full official recognition was made in 2006 and failed with the
"Pilgrimage of faith" resolution, but with the compromise to give gay
marriages an informal "pastoral prayers" but not a formal blessing. Gay
ministers are accepted.
A practical manual on how to deal with "Living with Contradictory
Convictions in the Church" that came out of the debate is here:
www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/co_living_with_contradictory_guide_0707.doc
There was obvious anger amongst OUTCOME, the British Methodist gay and
lesbian caucus groups of the church, but ultimately I think they felt
they can life with this document for the time being
Victor Eijkhout
> Nominated for being a fine report on the Creation Museum.
Seconded, if that's needed.
> Ron, thanks for presenting this in a calm, reasoned, pleasant manner.
Without once using the term "rube" :-)
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Steven L.
>> According to guys like Ray the people responsible for the Creation
>> Museum are not “true creationists.”
>
> Straight thinking, logic and evidence says this is true.
>
>> My guess is that most of the
>> security is to take care of true believers that disagree with the
>> exhibits. There is no big tent atmosphere that is prevalent in the
>> intelligent design scam, only a narrow view of their literal
>> interpretation of the Bible. They had several panels indicating that
>> they believed in massive amounts of evolution before and after the
>> flood.
>
> Imagine that; "Creationists" who accept "massive amounts of
> evolution" (= buffoons)?
>
> The Fundies are in Darwin-Dawkins camp (thank God).
>
> Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species
> immutabilist.
OK, here's a "thought experiment" for you:
If YOU were trying to design a museum that would explain YOUR theories
to the masses (especially to children who are trying to understand our
origins), what would you show? What exhibits would you put in it?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Aug 29, 7:09 pm, Chris <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nominated for being a fine report on the Creation Museum.
>>
>> Personally, I think this is an open-and-shut case, given today is the
>> 29th.
>>
>> Ron, thanks for presenting this in a calm, reasoned, pleasant manner.
>> The last 'evo' account I read about the Creation Museum frothed at the
>> mouth, shed virions everywhere, and was afraid of water. I was looking
>> over my shoulder hoping to see Atticus Finch with a rifle. Yours, in
>> contrast, was, a pleasure. Thanks, and kudos to you for being even-
>> handed in your evaluation.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> SNIP:
>
> I view the visit as a positive experience. I got to meet some of
> these people face to face and they are just like any of your
> neighbors. There isn't any underlying sense that this is a used car
> lot and they are trying to sell you something that you shouldn't
> really buy. If the poor people that are working there are guilty of
> anything it is simple ignorance.
That may be true of the developers of the Museum, but not of the
audience it's trying to reach.
The audience are those folks who fear their religious faith is being
challenged by modern society, and are looking for some "scientific"
justification for continuing to believe what they believe. And their
religious faith is the basis for their personal moral codes, and how
they manage their families.
If they didn't fear that mainstream evolutionary biology would destroy
their religious faith, they wouldn't flock to places like the Creation
Museum.
Unfortunately, it will. There are some (but by no means all) religious
views that are just incompatible with modern science. We happen to be
living in an era where science has discovered so much that it is
refuting ancient beliefs that existed for thousands of years.
Steven L.
> On Aug 29, 11:54 pm, Thurisaz the Einherjer
> <MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>> Ron O:
>>
>>> There were a lot of dinosaurs scattered
>>> around, but you didn?t learn much about them except that they were all
>>> vegetarians before the fall.
>> Kind of OT:
>>
>> What exactly _is_ this cretinist crap about dinosaurs anyway? When exactly
>> did their collective pipe dream that evolutionary theory
>> abso-fucking-lutely depends on the dinosaurs having lived more than 60
>> millions of years ago start? And who started it?
>
> Dinosaurs are likely just a means of drawing interest. As far as I
> know the YECers used to deny that they ever existed. Morris (past
> president of the Institute of Creation Research) used to claim that
> the bones were planted by the devil. Dinosaurs have become such an
> integral part of our culture that they are forced to acknowledge
> them.
A big change happened after the movie "Jurassic Park" in 1993, which
finally made dinosaurs look like animals rather than stunt artists
walking around in rubber suits. Young children, in particular, love
dinosaurs because they're big and ferocious (like their parents!). If
creationists went around claiming that dinosaurs didn't exist, all those
kids would walk away.
If Pixar made a movie about trilobites and Dimetrodons, I'm sure that
the creationists would start showing trilobites and Dimetrodons to
children too.
Matt Silberstein
<roki...@cox.net> in
<bf0170a5-84b5-46c1...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>I just got back from taking my son to college. On the way back we
>stopped off at the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati in Kentucky.
>It was a Thursday and for a time when school has already started for
>many, there were quite a few people in attendance. It is a sad
>comment on our times that armed security people were, likely
>purposely, openly displayed.
I wonder if that is a comment on our times or on their sense of
victimhood.
[snip]
>They had one exhibit where they had some claim that meat wasn’t eaten
>until after the flood. They seemed to be talking mainly about people,
>but I don’t know how they interpret the story of Cain and Abel (Abel
>was the shepherd and brought the best of his flock to the Lord) and
>what people did with the carcasses after they made their clothes from
>the animal skins.
This is a good example of how they distort the ahistorical narrative
of the Bible to fit their position. The Adam and Eve story ends with,
among other things, a food law and a covenant. The Noah story ends
with a food law and a covenant. The Torah ends with a whole bunch of
food laws and a covenant. The pattern is not one of sequential
ordering of events, but a conceptual expansion.
[snip]
>They claimed that the flood
>lasted 5 ½ months, but my Bible says that Noah was on the ark from the
>seventeenth day of the second month to the twenty seventh day of the
>second month when God told Noah to come out of the ark.
There are two Noah stories interspersed. If you don't recognize that
then you have to pick which you want to assert.
>According to
>Woodmorappe the median size of an animal on the ark was the size of a
>sheep. No mention was made of the hellish conditions that must have
>existed for 8 people trying to take care of 10s of thousands of
>animals for a year.
I took a great Flood course at a local synagogue. We "play acted" the
Flood on class and the big issue was how horrible the conditions were
and how wonderful it was to land.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
VoiceOfReason
I guess the depressing part to me is knowing that some children are
going to be seriously f*cked up by being exposed to that garbage.
VoiceOfReason
I feel the need to study Judaism just to understand the *real* meaning
of the stories in what Christians call the Old Testament.
Maybe if I dated a nice Jewish girl...
Matt Silberstein
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> in
<d9aa9a5c-a275-4e6a...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
It would help, but it takes time. There is a few thousands years of
study and discussion in front of you and you have to learn some of it.
Not that I think there is a Platonic real meaning, but I do think we
can find some specified realish meanings. Or, at least, work at it. I
am most interested in trying to figure out what was meant at the time
of the writing of the Torah and the writing of the stories.
>Maybe if I dated a nice Jewish girl...
Wouldn't help. You still have to study.
Burkhard
Louann Miller
news:7YydnXBK68hDDQfX...@earthlink.com:
> If Pixar made a movie about trilobites and Dimetrodons, I'm sure that
> the creationists would start showing trilobites and Dimetrodons to
> children too.
Funny you should say that.
http://io9.com/5347214/whats-behind-pixars-dinosaur-concept-art
Louann, who watches anything they make anyway.
Louann Miller
> OK, here's a "thought experiment" for you:
>
> If YOU were trying to design a museum that would explain YOUR theories
> to the masses (especially to children who are trying to understand our
> origins), what would you show? What exhibits would you put in it?
(does not set stopwatch to measure how long Ray takes to give a
straightforward, substantive answer to a straightforward, substantive
question.)
(nor a calendar.)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1j598oy.1emzjn5d0c13wN%s...@sig.for.address>):
> Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nominated for being a fine report on the Creation Museum.
>
> Seconded, if that's needed.
>
>> Ron, thanks for presenting this in a calm, reasoned, pleasant manner.
>
> Without once using the term "rube" :-)
>
He didn't have to. The place is in _Kentucky_. Rubes abound there.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Ray Martinez
You are mistaken. They accept, according to Rom Okimoto, "massive
amounts of evolution." This places them in Darwin-Dawkins camp.
I am a fixist. I accept an old earth; reject the concept of
"selection" to exist in nature; I am a Democrat; I support Obama; I am
against the death penalty; I am pro-abortion.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> Chris <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nominated for being a fine report on the Creation Museum.
>
> Seconded, if that's needed.
>
> > Ron, thanks for presenting this in a calm, reasoned, pleasant manner.
>
> Without once using the term "rube"
He couldn't rightly call persons who "accepts massive amounts of
evolution" rubes, could he?
Ray
Reddfrogg
Yep, if those "rubes" still cling to creationist dogma...
DJT
Ernest Major
<2caac129-e624-4a79...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
AIG insist that the Earth is young. You accept a great age for the
Earth. From AIG's viewpoint this places you in the "Darwin-Dawkins" (and
Miller-Collins) camp.
>
>Ray
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Reddfrogg
> On Aug 29, 5:08 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 5:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 29, 3:20 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > > According to guys like Ray the people responsible for the Creation
> > > > Museum are not “true creationists.”
>
> > > Straight thinking, logic and evidence says this is true.
>
> > Ray, you know nothing about straight thinking, or logic, and you run
> > away from evidence...
>
> > > > My guess is that most of the
> > > > security is to take care of true believers that disagree with the
> > > > exhibits. There is no big tent atmosphere that is prevalent in the
> > > > intelligent design scam, only a narrow view of their literal
> > > > interpretation of the Bible. They had several panels indicating that
> > > > they believed in massive amounts of evolution before and after the
> > > > flood.
>
> > > Imagine that; "Creationists" who accept "massive amounts of
> > > evolution" (= buffoons)?
>
> > Imagine a creationist who claims that all species are fixed, despite
> > the massive evidence to the contrary (= a buffoon)
>
> > > The Fundies are in Darwin-Dawkins camp (thank God).
>
> > No, Ray, the "Fundies" are yours. They are the "anti evolutionists"
> > you cite so often.
>
> You are mistaken.
Nope, I'm spot on.
> They accept, according to Rom Okimoto, "massive
> amounts of evolution." This places them in Darwin-Dawkins camp.
No, Dawin, and Dawkins were scientists, the creationists are not.
>
> I am a fixist.
For no apparent reason.
> I accept an old earth;
But not the age of the earth established by scientists.
> reject the concept of
> "selection" to exist in nature;
Which is just silly. Selection exists anytime one individual out
competes another in a population.
> I am a Democrat; I support Obama;
Yet Obama accepts evolution and science in general, .
> I am
> against the death penalty; I am pro-abortion.
But you are still wrong about evolution, and totally out to lunch
about how science works. You are still on the same side as the
"fundies". You deny evolutionary theory for purely religious
reasons, and mistakenly assume that evolution is "pro atheism".
DJT
Ray Martinez
> In message
> <2caac129-e624-4a79-84ac-0f40aa3d9...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> - Show quoted text -
It places Dawkins in the camp of Scripture.
The Bible supports an old earth.
Ray
Reddfrogg
Odd then that many of your "British Natural Theologians" before Lyell
felt the Earth was young.
DJT
Ray Martinez
They accept "massive amounts of evolution." Refusing to acknowledge
mistakes is an ego problem.
> > They accept, according to Rom Okimoto, "massive
> > amounts of evolution." This places them in Darwin-Dawkins camp.
>
> No, Dawin, and Dawkins were scientists, the creationists are not.
>
I agree that these evolution accepting "Creationists" are not
scientific.
>
>
> > I am a fixist.
>
> For no apparent reason.
>
> > I accept an old earth;
>
> But not the age of the earth established by scientists.
>
It takes a very long time (more than 10,000 years) for a planet just
to cool after initial formation. I think Young Earth, evolution
accepting Fundies, deny this fact, unlike myself.
> > reject the concept of
> > "selection" to exist in nature;
>
> Which is just silly. Selection exists anytime one individual out
> competes another in a population.
>
> > I am a Democrat; I support Obama;
>
> Yet Obama accepts evolution and science in general, .
>
I didn't say that he was perfect.
> > I am
> > against the death penalty; I am pro-abortion.
>
> But you are still wrong about evolution, and totally out to lunch
> about how science works. You are still on the same side as the
> "fundies". You deny evolutionary theory for purely religious
> reasons, and mistakenly assume that evolution is "pro atheism".
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have been shown to be mistaken. My positions are not the positions
that Fundies hold----but just the opposite, scientifically and
politically. The person who shaped my thinking had a Ph.D. from
Stanford. This Ph.D. was routinely honored by the top liberal
Democrats that ran the state of California during the 1980s and 1990s.
Do you know of ANY Fundie that has a Ph.D. from Stanford, or the
support of Willie Brown, Maxine Waters, Mike Roos etc,etc.?
And denying the unanimous support of evolution by Atheists makes you
look dishonest, if not stupid. It is impossible to hide a bull in a
china shop. Since you claim to be a Christian there is no reason for
you to persist in this pointless denialism.
Ray
Friar Broccoli
.
> It places Dawkins in the camp of Scripture.
>
> The Bible supports an old earth.
And the Bible supports evolution.
remember: Gen 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind ...
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just the opposite is true: BNT accepted an old earth, tens of millions
of years in age.
Ray
Devils Advocaat
Boy are you a bundle of contradictions and thats no mistake.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
So evolution is evidence supporting the scientific veracity of
Genesis?
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
What contradictions?
Ray
Ray Martinez
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:0OydnYZ7Ce9yEAfX...@earthlink.com:
Louann: there is always work to be done in my bedroom and kitchen,
email me.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> stopped off at the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati in Kentucky.
> It was a Thursday and for a time when school has already started for
> many, there were quite a few people in attendance. It is a sad
> comment on our times that armed security people were, likely
> We were lucky enough to come when a tour group was going in and they
> had extra two-for-one coupons that they handed out to other visitors,
> so we got an instant discount to start the day off right. The full
> price is around $23.00 a pop if you are thinking of going.
>
> They have put a lot of effort into this facility, and we had a
> pleasant walk through the garden outside the museum. It is sad that
> if I have to sum up the fruit of their efforts it would be that it was
> obfuscation and denial were prevalent. The main focus was
> indoctrination of their specific theology with a view that they seemed
> to deny with their efforts in putting up the physical displays. The
> main message was that faith was more important than the physical
> evidence. If you accepted their narrow literal interpretation of the
> Bible then you had to deny everything contrary to that view. All
> their “science” displays meant nothing, and that is about what anyone
> would have gotten out of them besides “hey, this looks niffty” You
> didn’t really learn anything. There were a lot of dinosaurs scattered
> around, but you didn’t learn much about them except that they were all
> vegetarians before the fall.
>
> I hadn’t really thought about it before, but a lot of the old
> patriarchs overlapped each other. One exhibit indicated that
> Methuselah and Noah may have known each other. They coexisted for
> around 400 years. The claim was that Methuselah died 200 years before
> the flood, so he wasn’t among the unworthy. Noah was 600 when the
> flood came. I recall Karl Crawford claiming that Noah was around 500
> when he started building the ark and it took him around a hundred
> years, so that fits his time line. There is apparently another
> timeline in the septuagint that would have Methuselah living until
> after the flood, and the claim is that, that timeline is in error.
>
> They had one exhibit where they had some claim that meat wasn’t eaten
> until after the flood. They seemed to be talking mainly about people,
> but I don’t know how they interpret the story of Cain and Abel (Abel
> was the shepherd and brought the best of his flock to the Lord) and
> what people did with the carcasses after they made their clothes from
> They showed a three layered hull and an inner bracing configuration
> similar to Comstock square set timber bracing. I don’t recall seeing
> any specific number for the kinds that were on the Ark, but their
> displays were woefully inadequate to portray taking care of the 30,000
> different kinds (pairs of most and and 7 pairs of the birds and
> ritually clean) that is the Woodmorappe estimate. There seemed to be
> the hope that all the dinos and other animals on the ark were still
> vegetarians. They acknowledged that God brought the animals, but Noah
> was tasked with taking care of them. They claimed that the flood
> lasted 5 ½ months, but my Bible says that Noah was on the ark from the
> seventeenth day of the second month to the twenty seventh day of the
> Woodmorappe the median size of an animal on the ark was the size of a
> sheep. No mention was made of the hellish conditions that must have
> existed for 8 people trying to take care of 10s of thousands of
> an ark sized volume and try to get 8 people to keep them alive for a
> year. Even without the ventilation problems it would be a neat trick
> to take care of the liquid and solid waste along with feeding each
> pair in their individual pens.
>
> They had a method of getting the animals spread across to the
> continents that they needed to go to in order to get back to where the
> fossils of their ancestors can be found. They claimed that there were
> massive amounts of logs that would spend years floating around the
> oceans moving with the currents that could have transported the ark
> survivors to where they needed to go. These log rafts seemed to be
> different from the “floating forests” that they claimed were
> responsible for forming the coal deposits during the flood.
> Apparently, during the flood there were living forests floating around
> that grew and produced massive amounts of biomass that would sink and
> form the coal deposits.
>
> According to guys like Ray the people responsible for the Creation
> security is to take care of true believers that disagree with the
> exhibits. There is no big tent atmosphere that is prevalent in the
> intelligent design scam, only a narrow view of their literal
> interpretation of the Bible. They had several panels indicating that
> they believed in massive amounts of evolution before and after the
> 6,500 years. People might be surprised that all canids are derived
> from one kind on the ark. They even listed foxes as being derived
> from one dog kind. True foxes are more than twice the genetic
> distance from wolves and domestic dogs as chimps are to humans. This
> is a massive amount of genetic change in just a few thousand years.
> Like Woodmorappe they have to limit the number of kinds on the ark as
> much as they can, and so a kind seems to be anything that they think
> that they can get away with on the genus or family level. According
> to one display your house cat is descended from the same pair of cats
> that gave rise to tigers, jaguars and probably those saber toothed
> monsters that evolved during the cold period after the flood. Just a
> few thousand kinds produced all the millions of species that exist
> today and evolved after the flood, but are now extinct. They claim
> that a lot of the fossil record is of the various species that evolved
> after the flood. One display claimed that marsupials could travel
> farther and faster from the ark than eutherian mammals (because they
> could carry their young in pouches) and that is why you find marsupial
> fossils in sedimentary layers under the layers containing most of the
> eutherian mammalian fossils. I am not making this stuff up. This
> would mean that in order to explain the fossil record they have to
> claim that the evolution and extinction of the Eocene mammalian
> megafauna, along with the Pliestocene megafauna had to occur after the
> flood in just a few thousand years. The sedimentary layers that they
> a likely talking about that hold the marsupial fossils are likely over
> a hundred million years old.
>
> The planetarium show likely contained more scientific information than
> in the rest of the entire museum (worth the 7 or 8 dollars extra if
> only to get some useful information out of the museum). They tried to
> give an accurate portrayal of the vastness of the universe. Our
> star’s place on the edge of one arm of a galaxy that is one of
> hundreds of billions of other galaxies was depicted in an interesting
> way. Then they discounted everything to claim that we are special.
> They went to great lengths to explain about stars and stellar
> progressions that should take millions of years, and then said nothing
> about supernovas that have been observed that indicate that if it
> really does take these young stars millions of years to die there have
> been stars that reached that limit, and died as predicted. They were
> trying to claim that because it only took millions of years for some
> stars to blow up that the existence of such stars proved that the
> universe could not be billions of years old. They discount any new
> star formation, and of course ignore what supernova tell them about
> how much time must have passed already.
>
> My wife and I discussed the theology during the drive home and since
> she teaches Sunday school at our church I asked if they teach the
> basic theology portrayed in the museum. She claimed that they did
> not. YEC interpretations isn’t mentioned. As far as I know
> Methodists have no official stance on young earth creationism, and it
> isn’t part of the Sunday school lesson program. It wasn’t part of
> what we learned in Sunday school when I went decades ago, but for some
> reason it is one of the most important parts of the theology of the
> people responsible for this museum.
>
> I was curious about what the museum was like and it was a nice way to
> spend a few hours. I did not expect much and I was not disappointed.
> I even learned a few things about what these guys believe. This is
> hard to believe since I’ve read TO since around 1993. It indicates to
> me that ignorance is a way of life for YECers, and that most of the
> YEC posters do not even know what they are supposed to believe.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Ron: is the snack bar any good?
Ray
Ernest Major
<cf969a72-e1c4-440f...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Are you sure that your not a fundie? You've got their misogyny down pat.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> I am a fixist.
But (and you know what I'm going to say) you and the other creationists
_never_ tell us what maintains that fixity. What is the process or
mechanism?
Or is it not a normal biological process? You've said that you believe
in divine intervention in earthly affairs, as plenty of people do. Does
this mean for you that God supervises every single individual birth,
hatching, fission, and germination to stop the progeny becoming too
unlike its parents? If so, where does he draw the line?
> I accept an old earth; reject the concept of
> "selection" to exist in nature;
It really would be best to stop using that sentence structure: "I reject
X to be Y" is just not standard English.
> I am a Democrat; I support Obama; I am
> against the death penalty; I am pro-abortion.
>
Good man.
--
Mike.
Reddfrogg
> On Aug 30, 3:00 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Bible supports an old earth.
>
> > And the Bible supports evolution.
> > remember: Gen 1:24
> > And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
> > kind ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So evolution is evidence supporting the scientific veracity of
> Genesis?
No, evolution is a scientific theory that describes the diversity of
life. Genesis was a creation story, which was not meant to be seen
as scientific in any way.
DJT
>
> Ray
Reddfrogg
> On Aug 30, 3:00 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 3:00 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Bible supports an old earth.
>
> > And the Bible supports evolution.
> > remember: Gen 1:24
> > And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
> > kind ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So evolution is evidence supporting the scientific veracity of
> Genesis?
No, evolution is a scientific theory that describes the diversity of
Reddfrogg
Actually, many did not. Bishop Ussher was the one who came up with
the idea of the creation being 4004 BC, based on taking the
generations of the Bible and working backwards.
The idea the Earth was older than the Biblical ages added up by
Ussher was established by early geologists such as William "Strata"
Smith, and James Hutton,who studied the evidence from the Earth
itself, not by any Biblical means. Those were the same devout
Christians who showed the Bible should not be taken literally.
Just as the idea that the Earth was young was abandoned by scientists,
they also abandoned the idea that species were fixed.
DJT
Friar Broccoli
.
.
> So evolution is evidence supporting the scientific veracity of
> Genesis?
Among other things, the Bible contains descriptions of
many SUPER-natural events. Science cannot verify
events that occur outside of nature because there is
no way of testing for them.
So the Bible can (and does) confirm evolution,
but the rules of science limit it, and thus make
it impossible to confirm many things in the bible.
If you think, the Bible contradicts evolution, why don't
you quote me the text where it does that?
Reddfrogg
> On Aug 30, 2:22 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > > > No, Ray, the "Fundies" are yours. They are the "anti evolutionists"
> > > > you cite so often.
>
> > > You are mistaken.
>
> > Nope, I'm spot on.
>
> They accept "massive amounts of evolution." Refusing to acknowledge
> mistakes is an ego problem.
When do you feel you will overcome your ego problem, and admit you
were wrong? I'll freely admit to any mistakes I make.
>
> > > They accept, according to Rom Okimoto, "massive
> > > amounts of evolution." This places them in Darwin-Dawkins camp.
>
> > No, Dawin, and Dawkins were scientists, the creationists are not.
>
> I agree that these evolution accepting "Creationists" are not
> scientific.
They aren't scientific because they accept creationism. Accepting
what evolution they do, is because denying it just makes them look
even more silly.
>
>
>
> > > I am a fixist.
>
> > For no apparent reason.
>
> > > I accept an old earth;
>
> > But not the age of the earth established by scientists.
>
> It takes a very long time (more than 10,000 years) for a planet just
> to cool after initial formation.
Not if God wanted it to cool quickly. Why do you assume God
created the planet hot?
> I think Young Earth, evolution
> accepting Fundies, deny this fact, unlike myself.
YECs apparently believe that God can make the Earth however he
wants. Evolution denying "fundies" like yourself, simply ignore
anything that's inconvenient to their beliefs.
>
> > > reject the concept of
> > > "selection" to exist in nature;
>
> > Which is just silly. Selection exists anytime one individual out
> > competes another in a population.
No response here, Ray?
>
> > > I am a Democrat; I support Obama;
>
> > Yet Obama accepts evolution and science in general, .
>
> I didn't say that he was perfect.
He is intelligent, and well read. There's no reason why he'd reject a
scientific theory.
>
> > > I am
> > > against the death penalty; I am pro-abortion.
>
> > But you are still wrong about evolution, and totally out to lunch
> > about how science works. You are still on the same side as the
> > "fundies". You deny evolutionary theory for purely religious
> > reasons, and mistakenly assume that evolution is "pro atheism".
>
> > DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You have been shown to be mistaken.
When?
> My positions are not the positions
> that Fundies hold
Sure they are, Ray. You simply wish to distance yourself from your
"brethren" because you are embarrassed by them. Why their science
denial is any worse than your own is anyone's guess. Religious
fundamentalists hold many of the same ideas you have, ie, the idea
that the Bible must be taken literally to be true, and that if
evolution is true, God doesn't exist.
>----but just the opposite, scientifically and
> politically.
Ray, "fundies" hold many different political positions. Many of them
are far right wing (and so are you, on many issues), but not all. As
for science, you deny science, and run away from the evidence just as
fast as Ham, Gish, or any other YEC.
> The person who shaped my thinking had a Ph.D. from
> Stanford.
So? That doesn't mean that person must be informed on all matters,
able to overcome his personal prejudices, or mentally stable. All it
means is that he passed a set course of study from a particular
university. There are YECs who have advanced degrees from Harvard,
and UC Berkley, and other prestigious schools.
> This Ph.D. was routinely honored by the top liberal
> Democrats that ran the state of California during the 1980s and 1990s.
Again, that is irrelevant to the fact that you are espousing
fundamentalist religious dogma. The idea that the Bible is
inerrant, and that science that contradicts the Bible must be wrong
are deeply fundamentalist ideas.
> Do you know of ANY Fundie that has a Ph.D. from Stanford, or the
> support of Willie Brown, Maxine Waters, Mike Roos etc,etc.?
Why would that matter? Jim Jones, of the People's Temple infamy
has the support of Jerry Brown, Walter Mondale, and Rosylin Carter.
Willy Brown said of Jim Jones:
"Let me present to you what you should see every day when you look in
the mirror in the early morning hours ... Let me present to you a
combination of Martin King, Angela Davis, Albert Einstein ... Chairman
Mao "
Having the "support" of politicians doesn't make one any less a
"fundy" or any less loony.
>
> And denying the unanimous support of evolution by Atheists makes you
> look dishonest, if not stupid.
Denying the "unanimous" support of Evolution by atheists is just
upholding a fact. Not all atheists are "evolutionists".
Evolution is supported by people of all religious faiths, and by those
who have none. It's supported because it's a well established
scientific theory. Even if every last atheist on Earth supported
evolution, that would not change the fact that Christians who are
educated and reasonable will accept evolution as the best scientific
explanation for the evidence.
The mistake you keep making is assuming that atheists only support
evolution because you think it validates their "worldview". By and
large, Evolution is accepted because it's good science, and no other
reason.
> It is impossible to hide a bull in a
> china shop.
Which is why it's impossible for you to hide your fundamentalism in
this newsgroup. You are a "fundie" whether you like it or not.
You accept the same thing that religious fundamentalists accept, ie.
Biblical inerrancy, and your fear that you can't prove God exists.
For most mainsteam religionists like myself, proving God's existence
is not a problem. God exists, despite what science may say.
> Since you claim to be a Christian there is no reason for
> you to persist in this pointless denialism.
I don't see that upholding a simple truth (ie that not all atheists
accept evolution) to be "denialism". You are the one who is denying
the fact that species change over time. No amount of whining or
trying to deny your cohorts is going to make that go away.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Aug 30, 3:22 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Boy are you a bundle of contradictions and thats no mistake.
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What contradictions?
Perhaps claiming not to be a "fundie" an then holding to
fundamentalist dogma? Claiming that science supports creation, but
never presenting any evidence to that?
DJT
Robert Carnegie: Fnord
so much knowledge about God, as about something that God did. And, so
we're told, he is not going to do again, so what have we learned that
has a practical application?
Ray Martinez
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Obama was actually my second choice. At first I preferred Hillary.
Ray
Burkhard
Not sure about this. Unusual combination, certainly, but
contradictions? Think about it. Ray's god is obviously highly
interventionist (creating new species all the time, e.g.) the reason
is that purely natural mechanisms can't be trusted with bringing
anything new about. And that means that the identification of
"beginning of human life" with conception is not particularly
plausible - how could a purely mechanical act create a new soul? So
god has to intervene at a later stage, making the pro-choice position
entirely plausible. Same for the anti-death penalty position.In
addition to being (possibly) against scripture, it is also often
driven by a "natural selection" (in the absolutely loosest possible
way!!) mindset (have an environment that deselects for criminal
traits). And so on and so forth.
Don't know if it is a pity or a gift by the gods that TO is apart
from the occasional OT post science specific, otherwise we would see
some intriguing shifting alliances ;o)
heekster
wrote:
>I just got back from taking my son to college. On the way back we
>stopped off at the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati in Kentucky.
>It was a Thursday and for a time when school has already started for
>many, there were quite a few people in attendance. It is a sad
>comment on our times that armed security people were, likely
>purposely, openly displayed. The people were friendly and helpful.
>We were lucky enough to come when a tour group was going in and they
>had extra two-for-one coupons that they handed out to other visitors,
>so we got an instant discount to start the day off right. The full
>price is around $23.00 a pop if you are thinking of going.
>
<regretful snippage>
>
>I was curious about what the museum was like and it was a nice way to
>spend a few hours. I did not expect much and I was not disappointed.
>I even learned a few things about what these guys believe. This is
>hard to believe since I�ve read TO since around 1993. It indicates to
>me that ignorance is a way of life for YECers, and that most of the
>YEC posters do not even know what they are supposed to believe.
>
>Ron Okimoto
Thanks for posting this. A good read.
Ray Martinez
Then why do all Atheists and Darwinists maintain Genesis
scientifically inaccurate (Darwin, Autobio:85)?
"Evolution (unintelligent process) is evidence of God (Intelligent
agent)" (FB).
I'll let John Wilkins, John Harshman and other Darwinists handle this
one.
> but the rules of science limit it, and thus make
> it impossible to confirm many things in the bible.
>
> If you think, the Bible contradicts evolution, why don't
> you quote me the text where it does that?
"Evolution" presupposes unintelligent causation. The Bible advocates
Intelligent causation, Creationism. You are confused, Keith (just like
the Fundies, who accept "massive amounts of evolution" (their
enemy)).
Ray
Ray Martinez
Genesis 1:24
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature...."
Interpretation: "God" or Intelligent agent, operating IN reality,
causes "living creature" to exist by speaking. Science calls this
"interventionism."
Evolution accepts unintelligent agent causing "living creature" to
exist. Evolution rejects Intelligent agency operating IN reality.
The contradictions are diametric, irreconcilable.
Ray
Friar Broccoli
God gave an instruction to the earth:
"bring forth the living creatures"
and that is what the earth did using evolution.
No contradiction.
> Evolution accepts unintelligent agent causing "living creature" to
> exist. Evolution rejects Intelligent agency operating IN reality.
>
> The contradictions are diametric, irreconcilable.
God used evolution (an automatic process).
That seems to me to be very intelligent of God.
Why do you believe God must do everything the
hard way?
There may be a contradiction in your mind.
There is none in reality.
Walter Bushell
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> There are two Noah stories interspersed. If you don't recognize that
> then you have to pick which you want to assert.
Why do that when you can confuse the two into one incoherent story. Its
actually more in keeping with the original, which is not written to be
interpreted according to Aristotle, but more like a dream.
VoiceOfReason
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:37:12 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> in
> <d9aa9a5c-a275-4e6a...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:20:06 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Ron O
> >> <roki...@cox.net> in
> >> <bf0170a5-84b5-46c1...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I just got back from taking my son to college. On the way back we
> >> >stopped off at the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati in Kentucky.
> >> >It was a Thursday and for a time when school has already started for
> >> >many, there were quite a few people in attendance. It is a sad
> >> >comment on our times that armed security people were, likely
> >> >purposely, openly displayed.
> >>
> >> I wonder if that is a comment on our times or on their sense of
> >> victimhood.
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >They had one exhibit where they had some claim that meat wasn’t eaten
> >> >until after the flood. They seemed to be talking mainly about people,
> >> >but I don’t know how they interpret the story of Cain and Abel (Abel
> >> >was the shepherd and brought the best of his flock to the Lord) and
> >> >what people did with the carcasses after they made their clothes from
> >> >the animal skins.
> >>
> >> This is a good example of how they distort the ahistorical narrative
> >> of the Bible to fit their position. The Adam and Eve story ends with,
> >> among other things, a food law and a covenant. The Noah story ends
> >> with a food law and a covenant. The Torah ends with a whole bunch of
> >> food laws and a covenant. The pattern is not one of sequential
> >> ordering of events, but a conceptual expansion.
> >>
> >
> >I feel the need to study Judaism just to understand the *real* meaning
> >of the stories in what Christians call the Old Testament.
>
> It would help, but it takes time.
Darn. I was afraid you'd say that.
> There is a few thousands years of
> study and discussion in front of you and you have to learn some of it.
> Not that I think there is a Platonic real meaning, but I do think we
> can find some specified realish meanings. Or, at least, work at it. I
> am most interested in trying to figure out what was meant at the time
> of the writing of the Torah and the writing of the stories.
>
> >Maybe if I dated a nice Jewish girl...
>
> Wouldn't help. You still have to study.
No shortcuts, huh? Still, as you say, it would be interesting to
delve into what the author meant at the time. And I bet that would be
tough without being able to read the original Hebrew as well? Yeesh,
I still haven't gotten around to learning Gaelic so I can read the
Cattle Raid of Cooley in the original...
Earle Jones
<cf969a72-e1c4-440f...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Ray: That is, even for you, a new low point. You have some 'work' for
Louann -- in the "bedroom" or the kitchen?
Is that what you think of women -- their role is in the bedroom or the
kitchen?
You are one sad asshole. If I were you I would apologize to Louann and
in the process, to all women. I don't expect that you will do it
however.
earle
*
Mike Painter
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>
>>> I feel the need to study Judaism just to understand the *real*
>>> meaning of the stories in what Christians call the Old Testament.
>>
>> It would help, but it takes time.
>
> Darn. I was afraid you'd say that.
>
>> There is a few thousands years of
>> study and discussion in front of you and you have to learn some of
>> it. Not that I think there is a Platonic real meaning, but I do
>> think we can find some specified realish meanings. Or, at least,
>> work at it. I am most interested in trying to figure out what was
>> meant at the time of the writing of the Torah and the writing of the
>> stories.
>>
>>> Maybe if I dated a nice Jewish girl...
>>
>> Wouldn't help. You still have to study.
>
> No shortcuts, huh? Still, as you say, it would be interesting to
> delve into what the author meant at the time. And I bet that would be
> tough without being able to read the original Hebrew as well? Yeesh,
> I still haven't gotten around to learning Gaelic so I can read the
> Cattle Raid of Cooley in the original...
Just being able to read it is a good start but there are some 1500 words in
the OT that nobody knows the meaning of. There are about 400 that occur only
once.
Add to that the problem of slang and colloquialisms and it can get real bad.
With out knowing when and where the story was written makes it worse.
Even in English you can't know what was being talked about below without
much more information.
"Me and the boys walked into a blizzard, I lost a foot, Sam was
blinded and the rest died."
It was a cool night.
It was a hot night.
"I made love to his wife on the couch
while he listened to the phonograph"
And it is well known that people think differently in different languages.
Yet teh fundy mindset says they can read English they don't understand and
understand the bible.
Where's a Classic Comic when you need it.
el cid
> In article
> <cf969a72-e1c4-440f-97b7-a93d7283a...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now now, perhaps you misunderstood. Perhaps Louann knows someone who
can
take over for Ray to do the work he is apparently unable to perform
in
the bedroom, or perhaps she has friends who do. For the kitchen, I
suggest "plumbing for dummies" or simply look in the yellow pages.
Wombat
> In article
> <cf969a72-e1c4-440f-97b7-a93d7283a...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
He came out with that sort of misogyny some while ago. As far as I
recall, he didn't apologise then either.
Wombat
Devils Advocaat
Well there is one there that I am surprised you cannot see for
yourself, that being the fact that you are against the death penalty,
but you support abortion.
Or supporting President Obama, who accepts the theory of evolution,
and at the same time you utterly reject the theory of evolution.
Caranx latus
> In article
> <cf969a72-e1c4-440f...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 30, 11:44 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> innews:0OydnYZ7Ce9yEAfX...@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> OK, here's a "thought experiment" for you:
>>>> If YOU were trying to design a museum that would explain YOUR theories
>>>> to the masses (especially to children who are trying to understand our
>>>> origins), what would you show? What exhibits would you put in it?
>>> (does not set stopwatch to measure how long Ray takes to give a
>>> straightforward, substantive answer to a straightforward, substantive
>>> question.)
>>>
>>> (nor a calendar.)
>> Louann: there is always work to be done in my bedroom and kitchen,
>> email me.
>>
>> Ray
>
> *
> Ray: That is, even for you, a new low point. You have some 'work' for
> Louann -- in the "bedroom" or the kitchen?
>
> Is that what you think of women -- their role is in the bedroom or the
> kitchen?
...which is particularly interesting given that the pastor of his church
is a woman.
Burkhard
Mhh, at the danger of a long OT, but that is a contradiction exactly
how? Pretty much my position too, and of a considerable number of
people I know. I'm certain we did a quick consistency check. In a
nutshell, the one kills a human being with a concept of itself and its
own future (which is therefore harmed), the other doesn't
Rolf
Are you pro or con masturbation?
> Ray
Rolf
> On Aug 30, 3:00 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 5:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2:19 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> In message
>>>> <2caac129-e624-4a79-84ac-0f40aa3d9...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>>> Earth. From AIG's viewpoint this places you in the
>>>> "Darwin-Dawkins" (and Miller-Collins) camp.
>>
>> .
>>
>>> It places Dawkins in the camp of Scripture.
>>
>>
>> And the Bible supports evolution.
>> remember: Gen 1:24
>> And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Genesis?
>
Can't you read? Let the EARTH bring forth.
Isn't that exactly what the Earth has been doing for 3 billion years?
> Ray
Robert Carnegie
There's a science fiction story about robots... President Obama is
doing a job on behalf of the American public. No more than a major
household appliance does it matter what his beliefs are, as long as he
does the job right. And it's kind of exciting to have a major
household appliance that isn't white - although you'll notice it costs
more.
Ernest Major
Jones <earle...@comcast.net> writes
>In article
><cf969a72-e1c4-440f...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 30, 11:44�am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> > innews:0OydnYZ7Ce9yEAfX...@earthlink.com:
>> >
>> > > OK, here's a "thought experiment" for you:
>> >
>> > > If YOU were trying to design a museum that would explain YOUR theories
>> > > to the masses (especially to children who are trying to understand our
>> > > origins), what would you show? �What exhibits would you put in it?
>> >
>> > (does not set stopwatch to measure how long Ray takes to give a
>> > straightforward, substantive answer to a straightforward, substantive
>> > question.)
>> >
>> > (nor a calendar.)
>>
>> Louann: there is always work to be done in my bedroom and kitchen,
>> email me.
>>
>> Ray
>
>*
>Ray: That is, even for you, a new low point. You have some 'work' for
>Louann -- in the "bedroom" or the kitchen?
It's not a new low point - he's done it before. Louann was the target
before as well.
>
>Is that what you think of women -- their role is in the bedroom or the
>kitchen?
>
>You are one sad asshole. If I were you I would apologize to Louann and
>in the process, to all women. I don't expect that you will do it
>however.
>
>earle
>*
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 6:39 pm, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in news:bf0170a5-84b5-46c1-94da-b611b55622d0
> >> @v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> My wife and I discussed the theology during the drive home and since
> >>> she teaches Sunday school at our church I asked if they teach the
> >>> basic theology portrayed in the museum. She claimed that they did
> >>> not. YEC interpretations isn't mentioned. As far as I know
> >>> Methodists have no official stance on young earth creationism, and it
> >>> isn't part of the Sunday school lesson program.
> >> Methodists are one of the Godless Liberal denominations. Heck, most of them
> >> don't even hate gay people.
>
> > Methodists are as human as anyone else. The church hierarchy is still
> > negative against homosexuals. I believe that "all" are still welcome
> > in the church, but no same sex marriage, no gay pastors. There is
> > some kind of movement to change this that I've heard about, but I
> > don't think anything has changed.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> I only know about the British Methodists - the last attempt to have a
> full official recognition was made in 2006 and failed with the
> "Pilgrimage of faith" resolution, but with the compromise to give gay
> marriages an informal "pastoral prayers" but not a formal blessing. Gay
> ministers are accepted.
>
> http://www.umc.org/site/c.gjJTJbMUIuE/b.1827285/k.B985/British_Method...
>
> A practical manual on how to deal with "Living with Contradictory
> Convictions in the Church" that came out of the debate is here:
>
> www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/co_living_with_contradictory_guide_070...
>
> There was obvious anger amongst OUTCOME, the British Methodist gay and
> lesbian caucus groups of the church, but ultimately I think they felt
> they can life with this document for the time being-
Methodists are a diverse group. As long as they stick to arguing it
out instead of blowing each other up I'll stick around.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Aug 30, 8:47 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 6:53 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ron O wrote:
> > > > It is sad that
> > > > if I have to sum up the fruit of their efforts it would be that it was
> > > > a monument to ignorance.
>
> > > I admire your patience at being able to get through it, but I know I
> > > just couldn't do it myself. It would be too depressing.
>
> > It wasn't that depressing. On TO we deal with the junk all the time,
> > but there were actually new things to discover about what these guys
> > believe. Most of it makes about as much sense as the regular stuff we
> > see on TO. It is probably just the weird scientist part of me that
> > just likes to learn something new. If you go into it as a learning
> > experience it probably will not be so bad. You just have to take it
> > as a given that the exhibits are not supposed to make any consistent
> > sense. They are just snippet arguments of the moment that only have
> > to make sense for that moment before the next bogus bit comes along.
>
> I guess the depressing part to me is knowing that some children are
> going to be seriously f*cked up by being exposed to that garbage.-
I wondered if this was the type of "science" that home schoolers get.
Probably about as bad as a science class where the students main worry
is what will be on the test.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> > <MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> >> Ron O:
>
> >>> There were a lot of dinosaurs scattered
> >>> around, but you didn?t learn much about them except that they were all
> >>> vegetarians before the fall.
> >> Kind of OT:
>
> >> What exactly _is_ this cretinist crap about dinosaurs anyway? When exactly
> >> did their collective pipe dream that evolutionary theory
> >> abso-fucking-lutely depends on the dinosaurs having lived more than 60
> >> millions of years ago start? And who started it?
>
> > Dinosaurs are likely just a means of drawing interest. As far as I
> > know the YECers used to deny that they ever existed. Morris (past
> > president of the Institute of Creation Research) used to claim that
> > the bones were planted by the devil. Dinosaurs have become such an
> > integral part of our culture that they are forced to acknowledge
> > them.
>
> A big change happened after the movie "Jurassic Park" in 1993, which
> finally made dinosaurs look like animals rather than stunt artists
> walking around in rubber suits. Young children, in particular, love
> dinosaurs because they're big and ferocious (like their parents!). If
> creationists went around claiming that dinosaurs didn't exist, all those
> kids would walk away.
>
> If Pixar made a movie about trilobites and Dimetrodons, I'm sure that
> the creationists would start showing trilobites and Dimetrodons to
> children too.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.-
Probably for the IDiot crowd, but there was a major push at
creationist obfuscation in the 1980s. Kids were eating dinos for
breakfast, and dinamation started coming to museums and TV along with
the bones.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:20:06 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Ron O
> <bf0170a5-84b5-46c1-94da-b611b5562...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I just got back from taking my son to college. On the way back we
> >stopped off at the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati in Kentucky.
> >It was a Thursday and for a time when school has already started for
> >many, there were quite a few people in attendance. It is a sad
> >comment on our times that armed security people were, likely
> >purposely, openly displayed.
>
> I wonder if that is a comment on our times or on their sense of
> victimhood.
> [snip]
>
> >They had one exhibit where they had some claim that meat wasn’t eaten
> >until after the flood. They seemed to be talking mainly about people,
> >but I don’t know how they interpret the story of Cain and Abel (Abel
> >was the shepherd and brought the best of his flock to the Lord) and
> >what people did with the carcasses after they made their clothes from
> >the animal skins.
>
> This is a good example of how they distort the ahistorical narrative
> of the Bible to fit their position. The Adam and Eve story ends with,
> among other things, a food law and a covenant. The Noah story ends
> with a food law and a covenant. The Torah ends with a whole bunch of
> food laws and a covenant. The pattern is not one of sequential
> ordering of events, but a conceptual expansion.
>
>
> >They claimed that the flood
> >lasted 5 ½ months, but my Bible says that Noah was on the ark from the
> >seventeenth day of the second month to the twenty seventh day of the
> >second month when God told Noah to come out of the ark.
>
> There are two Noah stories interspersed. If you don't recognize that
> then you have to pick which you want to assert.
I've tried to estimate a flood timeline and gave up. The stories are
interspersed or just inconsistent.
Their Methuselah time line is screwy too. The New English Bible has
Methuselah 369 years old at the birth of Noah. The flood happened
when Noah was 600 years old, so it looks like Methuselah died (969
years old) around the time of the flood 5 years after his son Lamech
(Noah's father) died. So 100 years before the flood both Methuselah
and Lamech would have been unworthy. I get this starting around
Genesis 5:25. Is it different in the Torah?
>
> >According to
> >Woodmorappe the median size of an animal on the ark was the size of a
> >sheep. No mention was made of the hellish conditions that must have
> >existed for 8 people trying to take care of 10s of thousands of
> >animals for a year.
>
> I took a great Flood course at a local synagogue. We "play acted" the
> Flood on class and the big issue was how horrible the conditions were
> and how wonderful it was to land.
Karl Crawford should come back and reexplain how it all worked.
Ron Okimoto
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Ron O
wrote:
By theology I mean their young earth literal interpretation of the
Bible. The flood story is just one aspect of that literal
interpretation.
Ron Okimoto
TomS
<c227ba35-3e2e-49c5...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
>
>On Aug 30, 11:14=A0am, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:20:06 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Ron O
>> <rokim...@cox.net> in
>> <bf0170a5-84b5-46c1-94da-b611b5562...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >stopped off at the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati in Kentucky.
>> >It was a Thursday and for a time when school has already started for
>> >comment on our times that armed security people were, likely
>> >purposely, openly displayed.
>>
>> I wonder if that is a comment on our times or on their sense of
>> victimhood.
>> [snip]
>>
>> >until after the flood. =A0They seemed to be talking mainly about people,
>> >but I don=92t know how they interpret the story of Cain and Abel (Abel
>> >was the shepherd and brought the best of his flock to the Lord) and
>> >what people did with the carcasses after they made their clothes from
>>
>> This is a good example of how they distort the ahistorical narrative
>> of the Bible to fit their position. The Adam and Eve story ends with,
>> among other things, a food law and a covenant. The Noah story ends
>> with a food law and a covenant. The Torah ends with a whole bunch of
>> food laws and a covenant. The pattern is not one of sequential
>> ordering of events, but a conceptual expansion.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >They claimed that the flood
>> >seventeenth day of the second month to the twenty seventh day of the
>>
>> There are two Noah stories interspersed. If you don't recognize that
>> then you have to pick which you want to assert.
>
>I've tried to estimate a flood timeline and gave up. The stories are
>interspersed or just inconsistent.
>
>Their Methuselah time line is screwy too. The New English Bible has
>Methuselah 369 years old at the birth of Noah. The flood happened
>when Noah was 600 years old, so it looks like Methuselah died (969
>years old) around the time of the flood 5 years after his son Lamech
>(Noah's father) died. So 100 years before the flood both Methuselah
>and Lamech would have been unworthy. I get this starting around
>Genesis 5:25. Is it different in the Torah?
There are, generally speaking, three different text traditions for
Genesis-Deuteronomy: The Masoretic text, which is the predominant
Hebrew scriptures, the Torah; The Samaritan Pentateuch, still used
by the small community of Samaritans; The Septuagint, the ancient
Greek translation, made by the Jewish community in Alexandria, and
widely used by the ancient Christians. These three are quite close,
but one of the ways that they differ is in the numbers. Sometimes
it seems as if someone deliberately changed the numbers to make the
text internally consistent to his interpretation. Modern translations
of the Bible tend to follow the Masoretic where possible.
>>
>> >According to
>> >Woodmorappe the median size of an animal on the ark was the size of a
>> >sheep. =A0No mention was made of the hellish conditions that must have
>> >existed for 8 people trying to take care of 10s of thousands of
>> >animals for a year. =A0
>>
>> I took a great Flood course at a local synagogue. We "play acted" the
>> Flood on class and the big issue was how horrible the conditions were
>> and how wonderful it was to land.
>
>Karl Crawford should come back and reexplain how it all worked.
>
>Ron Okimoto
>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> --
>> Matt Silberstein
>>
>> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>>
>> http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarf=
>ur.org
>>
>> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
>
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Devils Advocaat
Louann Miller
686cc4...@y20g2000vbk.googlegroups.com:
>> I guess the depressing part to me is knowing that some children are
>> going to be seriously f*cked up by being exposed to that garbage.-
>
> I wondered if this was the type of "science" that home schoolers get.
In some cases, exactly so. Fundies are not the only group that home-
schools but they are the largest subset.
> Probably about as bad as a science class where the students main worry
> is what will be on the test.
If there's real science on the test, though, some of the kids may retain
accurate details through personal interest or even sheer accident.
Louann Miller
0d56b4...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
> Now now, perhaps you misunderstood. Perhaps Louann knows someone who
> can
> take over for Ray to do the work he is apparently unable to perform
> in
> the bedroom, or perhaps she has friends who do. For the kitchen, I
> suggest "plumbing for dummies" or simply look in the yellow pages.
My plumbing skills are limited to PVC rather than copper (never learned
to solder) but I install household wiring pretty well. With simple safety
precautions and a basic how-to book it's as modular as Legos these days.
To be insulted by Ray I would have to value his opinion.
hersheyh
> On Aug 30, 4:47 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > So the Bible can (and does) confirm evolution,....
>
> Then why do all Atheists and Darwinists maintain Genesis
> scientifically inaccurate (Darwin, Autobio:85)?
You seem to include many, if not most, Christian ministers in the
group you call "Atheists and Darwinists". Any individual who
understands *science* must maintain that Genesis is *scientifically*
inaccurate. It was never meant to be *scientifically* accurate. It
was meant to convey religious ideas, not scientific ones. You, as an
old earth/young life person which I think you have called yourself,
also maintain, by that statement, that Genesis is *scientifically*
inaccurate, however accurate you may think its religious message.
[snip]
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
As someone who has done a lot of home projects, you can learn to solder
without much problem. Soldering is fairly easy, once you get the hang of
it. You need to heat the entire joint adequately (which may seem longer
than you thought at first, particularly if the flame isn't hitting the
target optimally) before you try to get it to suck the solder in. The
good news is that a bad joint is easily resoldered, so practice can make
perfect.
el cid
> elcid<elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:cb48be24-c299-40ae-98a2-
> 0d56b4ea1...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Now now, perhaps you misunderstood. Perhaps Louann knows someone who
> > can
> > take over for Ray to do the work he is apparently unable to perform
> > in
> > the bedroom, or perhaps she has friends who do. For the kitchen, I
> > suggest "plumbing for dummies" or simply look in the yellow pages.
>
> My plumbing skills are limited to PVC rather than copper (never learned
> to solder) but I install household wiring pretty well. With simple safety
> precautions and a basic how-to book it's as modular as Legos these days.
>
> To be insulted by Ray I would have to value his opinion.
Working with a torch can be intimidating at first but is rather fun
once you warm up to it. Like with painting, preparation of surfaces
and staying clean are the two biggest tricks. A basic understanding
of the phenomenon of capillary action helps one feel like you
understand what the solder does. But there are simpler things like
being able to replace the garbage disposal that any functioning
human being ought to be able to do, or remove and clean out a
trap.
With electrical issues, I find the ability to figure out
how somebody else did things wrong the first time is one of
the key talents I've acquired, though I've never quite become
comfortable with the idea that being able to think like "stupid"
is something I ought to feel good about. Dragging this kicking
and screaming back to semi-on-topic, a similar "talent" of
being able to understand how someone could possibly make a
reasonable approximation of being a viable human and yet believe
certain absurdities is a valuable thing for any teacher.
And if you consider that part of talk.origins which is not
about calling each other poopyhead, it might even be useful
here. YMMV.
Burkhard
In a very trivial sense, yes of course. Just like taking penicillin
does. But it is not _inconsistent_ to make a distinction between them
and attach different legal and moral blame to each. It becomes
inconsistent only if you add quite a lot of background assumptions.
One such assumption could of course be that at the moment of
conception, a human soul is created whose destruction is as bad as
that of a fully developed human. Some, but not all Christian sects
subscribe to this.
If Ray doesn't, then his position is perfectly consistent, though of
course you can disagree with the merit of the distinction on several
grounds. That would be another issue (and I would be with Ray on
this ;o))
Steven L.
> In message
> <cf969a72-e1c4-440f...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>> On Aug 30, 11:44 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> innews:0OydnYZ7Ce9yEAfX...@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>> > OK, here's a "thought experiment" for you:
>>>
>>> > If YOU were trying to design a museum that would explain YOUR theories
>>> > to the masses (especially to children who are trying to understand our
>>> > origins), what would you show? What exhibits would you put in it?
>>>
>>> (does not set stopwatch to measure how long Ray takes to give a
>>> straightforward, substantive answer to a straightforward, substantive
>>> question.)
>>>
>>> (nor a calendar.)
>>
>> Louann: there is always work to be done in my bedroom and kitchen,
>> email me.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>
Ray's male chauvinism comes not from religion but from his supreme egotism.
"Obey, must the woman, and find a depth for her surface. Surface, is
woman's soul, a mobile, stormy film on shallow water.
"Man's soul, however, is deep, its current gusheth in subterranean
caverns: woman surmiseth its force, but comprehendeth it not.
"'Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"
Thus spake Zarathustra."
-- Friedrich Nietzche
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Steven L.
> On Aug 31, 11:15 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> elcid<elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:cb48be24-c299-40ae-98a2-
>> 0d56b4ea1...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Now now, perhaps you misunderstood. Perhaps Louann knows someone who
>>> can
>>> take over for Ray to do the work he is apparently unable to perform
>>> in
>>> the bedroom, or perhaps she has friends who do. For the kitchen, I
>>> suggest "plumbing for dummies" or simply look in the yellow pages.
>> My plumbing skills are limited to PVC rather than copper (never learned
>> to solder) but I install household wiring pretty well. With simple safety
>> precautions and a basic how-to book it's as modular as Legos these days.
>>
>> To be insulted by Ray I would have to value his opinion.
>
> Working with a torch can be intimidating at first but is rather fun
> once you warm up to it. Like with painting, preparation of surfaces
> and staying clean are the two biggest tricks. A basic understanding
> of the phenomenon of capillary action helps one feel like you
> understand what the solder does. But there are simpler things like
> being able to replace the garbage disposal that any functioning
> human being ought to be able to do, or remove and clean out a
> trap.
By "kitchen work" for women, I'm sure Ray meant cooking.
Which insults by implication some of the world's greatest male chefs,
some of whom are now applying biochemistry to cooking.
"I think it is a sad reflection on our civilization that while we can
and do measure the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus, we do not
know what goes on inside our soufflés."
-- Nicholas Kurti
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>el cid wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 11:15 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> elcid<elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:cb48be24-c299-40ae-98a2-
>>> 0d56b4ea1...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Now now, perhaps you misunderstood. Perhaps Louann knows someone who
>>>> can
>>>> take over for Ray to do the work he is apparently unable to perform
>>>> in
>>>> the bedroom, or perhaps she has friends who do. For the kitchen, I
>>>> suggest "plumbing for dummies" or simply look in the yellow pages.
>>> My plumbing skills are limited to PVC rather than copper (never learned
>>> to solder) but I install household wiring pretty well. With simple safety
>>> precautions and a basic how-to book it's as modular as Legos these days.
>>>
>>> To be insulted by Ray I would have to value his opinion.
>>
>> Working with a torch can be intimidating at first but is rather fun
>> once you warm up to it. Like with painting, preparation of surfaces
>> and staying clean are the two biggest tricks. A basic understanding
>> of the phenomenon of capillary action helps one feel like you
>> understand what the solder does. But there are simpler things like
>> being able to replace the garbage disposal that any functioning
>> human being ought to be able to do, or remove and clean out a
>> trap.
>
>By "kitchen work" for women, I'm sure Ray meant cooking.
But Ray is simple, ignorant and foolish. Besides, once you've heated
food with a fire, heating copper is easy.
>Which insults by implication some of the world's greatest male chefs,
>some of whom are now applying biochemistry to cooking.
An insult from Ray is like being attacked by a fruit fly, mildly
annoying if you happen to notice that it happened.
>"I think it is a sad reflection on our civilization that while we can
>and do measure the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus, we do not
>know what goes on inside our souffl�s."
> -- Nicholas Kurti
el cid
Color me a Philistine regards the science of creation
of a fine souffle, the Majesty of which, is found in
the eating.
http://www.godiva.com/recipes/recipe.aspx?id=658
(emphasis on fresh raspberries)
Walter Bushell
Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <cf969a72-e1c4-440f...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 30, 11:44�am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > innews:0OydnYZ7Ce9yEAfX...@earthlink.com:
> > >
> > > > OK, here's a "thought experiment" for you:
> > >
> > > > If YOU were trying to design a museum that would explain YOUR theories
> > > > to the masses (especially to children who are trying to understand our
> > > > origins), what would you show? �What exhibits would you put in it?
> > >
> > > (does not set stopwatch to measure how long Ray takes to give a
> > > straightforward, substantive answer to a straightforward, substantive
> > > question.)
> > >
> > > (nor a calendar.)
> >
> > Louann: there is always work to be done in my bedroom and kitchen,
> > email me.
> >
> > Ray
>
> *
> Ray: That is, even for you, a new low point. You have some 'work' for
> Louann -- in the "bedroom" or the kitchen?
>
> Is that what you think of women -- their role is in the bedroom or the
> kitchen?
>
> You are one sad asshole. If I were you I would apologize to Louann and
> in the process, to all women. I don't expect that you will do it
> however.
>
> earle
> *
Isn't prick a better description?
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<8641f6b8-7837-4933...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com> :
[big snip]
>And denying the unanimous support of evolution by Atheists makes you
>look dishonest, if not stupid.
But as has been pointed out to you a number of times already, support
of evolution among atheists is *not* unanimous.
>It is impossible to hide a bull in a
>china shop.
Yet you'll try to anyway.
>Since you claim to be a Christian there is no reason for
>you to persist in this pointless denialism.
They only person in denial is you.
Louann Miller
news:2asn95d1v5n86kr3e...@4ax.com:
> As someone who has done a lot of home projects, you can learn to solder
> without much problem. Soldering is fairly easy, once you get the hang
of
> it. You need to heat the entire joint adequately (which may seem longer
> than you thought at first, particularly if the flame isn't hitting the
> target optimally) before you try to get it to suck the solder in. The
> good news is that a bad joint is easily resoldered, so practice can
make
> perfect.
Thing is, there's already a perfectly competent solderer in the house. So
I can afford to be lazy.
(Spouse and I, especially spouse, started with an empty shell of a house
and put in doors, windows, interior framing, bathrooms ... okay, not
EVERYTHING. We had a guy run the electric from the transformer to the
outdoor breaker box and another one install the air conditioning. And the
septic tank. Okay, AND the carpet but we've ripped up all but one room in
favor of various forms of tile so that hardly counts.)
(And we haven't built THAT much of our own furniture. Just the six
double-sided bookshelf stacks in the tv room/library, and a few bits here
and there.)
(Don't get me started on the homemade beer and mead.)
Louann, very difficult to impress.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord
Well... more of God's biography. But is that theology? Some say yes,
some say no. "Cosmology" is another way to describe the creation
story.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Probably for the IDiot crowd, but there was a major push at
> creationist obfuscation in the 1980s. ï¿œKids were eating dinos for
> breakfast, and dinamation started coming to museums and TV along with
> the bones.
Thanks for the replies everyone :)
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Ron O
I think that theology is a lot broader than you are thinking. There
are theologies that do not have to include a god, but what if your
theology is basically about some god. Did a god create everything?
Is this creation or some aspect of such a god the meaning of life? Is
there a heaven and hell? Did some god create them? Is there an after
life (does god make such an afterlife possible?)? Can some god
determine where you go after you die?
What you are calling God's biography is a major part of Christian
theology. What God has done or can do has to be a major part of
anyones Christian theology. Most theology isn't scientifically
testable, and when it is it is usually some weird offshoot of some
basic theological notion. A lot of the conflict between science and
religion is when some aspect of a religion is testable. Flat earthers
have a particular notion of what the Bible or Koran is telling them.
They do not really care if the earth is flat (physically) but their
theology is worshiping their interpretation of the texts. Their
interpretation has to be correct or they see no basis for their
beliefs about their religion. It is sort of a form of idol worship,
and is a major part of their theology. The same goes for young earth
creationists and geocentrists. It doesn't matter that you can orbit
the earth in a space shuttle, take pictures of earth from the moon, or
send space probes to the outer planets. The young earthers are no
different from the flat earthers in this respect. The guys
responsible for the Creation Museum invoke biological evolution orders
of magnitude faster than is observed by the actual physical evidence,
but they draw arbitrary lines, such as man is not an ape, but your
tabby had a cousin that was a 400 lb sabertooth cat, lion or tiger.
We can look at the genetic material and it tells us that if foxes are
second cousins to Fido chimp are first cousins to man.
Ron Okimoto
Robert Carnegie
How are they on dolphins and whales? As mammals?
According to another post about the CM - actually a cut-and-post I
think - there probably wouldn't be room for those /and/ all the
dinosaurs. And of course you wouldn't need to put 'em in Noah's Ark.
And, /being/ mammals, they're pretty embarrassing for creationists.
If I can stick for a moment with the "God's biography" point, I think
it really may be inappropriate to call that "theology", which would be
more about God's anatomy and psychology, and, if you're a polytheist,
their family relations. Whereas creationism is more about the world
than about its creator.
There's more than one other non-rude word for trying to make sense of
the bible or other religious document, but as technical terms that I
don't use they are not on the tip of my (as it happens) stylus.
Robert Grumbine
[trim]
> (Don't get me started on the homemade beer and mead.)
Why not? You can start, and then send me the results.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 30, 8:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 30, 4:47 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > So the Bible can (and does) confirm evolution,....
>
> > Then why do all Atheists and Darwinists maintain Genesis
> > scientifically inaccurate (Darwin, Autobio:85)?
>
> understands *science* must maintain that Genesis is *scientifically*
> inaccurate.
Creationists-IDists disagree.
Anyone who understands science must maintain Genesis scientifically
accurate and Darwinism-evolution scientifically inaccurate.
> It was never meant to be *scientifically* accurate.
This comment re-states the claim that Genesis is scientifically
inaccurate.
> It was meant to convey religious ideas, not scientific ones.
This comment, once again, re-states the claim that Genesis is
scientifically inaccurate.
Could we expect any other conclusion from Atheists and Darwinists?
> You, as an
> old earth/young life person which I think you have called yourself,....
Yes, I accept Genesis and science (old earth-young biosphere).
> ....also maintain, by that statement, that Genesis is *scientifically*
> inaccurate, however accurate you may think its religious message.
>
> [snip]
I am not an Atheist or Darwinist. I accept the findings of science:
Genesis is 100 percent scientifically accurate. Science corroborates
Genesis (old earth and young biosphere).
Ray (Creationist-IDist)
wf3h
> On Aug 31, 8:42 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 30, 8:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 30, 4:47 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > > So the Bible can (and does) confirm evolution,....
>
> > > Then why do all Atheists and Darwinists maintain Genesis
> > > scientifically inaccurate (Darwin, Autobio:85)?
>
> > [SNIP....] Any individual who
> > understands *science* must maintain that Genesis is *scientifically*
> > inaccurate.
>
> Creationists-IDists disagree.
>
> Anyone who understands science must maintain Genesis scientifically
> accurate and Darwinism-evolution scientifically inaccurate.
except for every single nobel prize winning scientist in the last 100
years.
you have a problem ray: no scientist agrees with you even though you
just said they did.
WRONG!
Wombat
Interesting then, that the sequence of creation in Genesis is not what
science has discovered.
Wombat
Ray Martinez
> On Sep 1, 1:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 8:42 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 30, 8:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 30, 4:47 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > > So the Bible can (and does) confirm evolution,....
>
> > > > Then why do all Atheists and Darwinists maintain Genesis
> > > > scientifically inaccurate (Darwin, Autobio:85)?
>
> > > [SNIP....] Any individual who
> > > understands *science* must maintain that Genesis is *scientifically*
> > > inaccurate.
>
> > Creationists-IDists disagree.
>
> > Anyone who understands science must maintain Genesis scientifically
> > accurate and Darwinism-evolution scientifically inaccurate.
>
> except for every single nobel prize winning scientist in the last 100
> years.
>
All persons that sit on the Nobel jury are Darwinists.
> you have a problem ray: no scientist agrees with you even though you
> just said they did.
>
> WRONG!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I never said Darwinists agree with me----you are mistaken.
Ray
wf3h
> On Sep 1, 11:11 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 1:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 31, 8:42 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 30, 8:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 30, 4:47 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [snip]
>
> > > > > > So the Bible can (and does) confirm evolution,....
>
> > > > > Then why do all Atheists and Darwinists maintain Genesis
> > > > > scientifically inaccurate (Darwin, Autobio:85)?
>
> > > > [SNIP....] Any individual who
> > > > understands *science* must maintain that Genesis is *scientifically*
> > > > inaccurate.
>
> > > Creationists-IDists disagree.
>
> > > Anyone who understands science must maintain Genesis scientifically
> > > accurate and Darwinism-evolution scientifically inaccurate.
>
> > except for every single nobel prize winning scientist in the last 100
> > years.
>
> All persons that sit on the Nobel jury are Darwinists.
?? which is irrelevant. no one disputes the scientific contribution of
the scientists who've won the nobel prize. are you saying that
einstein, planck, heisenberg, arrhenius, did NOT deserve the nobel? if
so you are unique in the pantheon even of creationists since no one
disputes the conributions of modern scientists who've won the nobel.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 31, 8:42 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 8:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 30, 4:47 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > > So the Bible can (and does) confirm evolution,....
>>
>> > Then why do all Atheists and Darwinists maintain Genesis
>> > scientifically inaccurate (Darwin, Autobio:85)?
>>
>> [SNIP....] Any individual who
>> understands *science* must maintain that Genesis is *scientifically*
>> inaccurate.
>
>Creationists-IDists disagree.
Hard luck.
>
>Anyone who understands science must maintain Genesis scientifically
>accurate and Darwinism-evolution scientifically inaccurate.
Liar!
[snip more stupidity.]
--
Bob.