http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/youtube.pl?IDLink=3495359

Was spending some quality time farking this morning and came across this tidbit.

It involves a 10 minute nightline report about creationism tours in a museum of natural history.

Pretty interesting stuff.

http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/youtube.pl?IDLink=3495359

Was spending some quality time farking this morning and came across this tidbit.

It involves a 10 minute nightline report about creationism tours in a museum of natural history.

Pretty interesting stuff.

I live just north of the Creationism Museum, which itself is a mere stone's throw from (I'm not kidding) Big Bone Lick State Park (Ky.), in turn named because of the ancient fossils littering the ground around there.

The irony of this never fails to escape me.

I live just north of the Creationism Museum, which itself is a mere stone's throw from (I'm not kidding) Big Bone Lick State Park (Ky.), in turn named because of the ancient fossils littering the ground around there.

The irony of this never fails to escape me.

John Scalzi published a photo essay on his trip to the Creationism Museum on his blog in November of last year. It's both hilarious and frightening.

Flickr photo essay here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/sets/72157603091357751/

John Scalzi published a photo essay on his trip to the Creationism Museum on his blog in November of last year. It's both hilarious and frightening.

Flickr photo essay here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/sets/72157603091357751/

yep...makes perfect sense....dino's lived with humans....3000 years ago....
and these people vote.....and worse, brainwash their children

/ excuse me while monkeys fly out of my azz

They should throw those two simple ass holes in the slammer.
Ya! The Tyrannosaurus rex ate fruit and viggies. We would have been O'douvers.

I was sure the Bible said 6,000 years.

Do monkeys really fly out of your azz?

They should throw those two simple ass holes in the slammer.
Ya! The Tyrannosaurus rex ate fruit and viggies. We would have been O'douvers.

But that is what I liked about the curator of the museum. He said America was all about diversity in ideas...he knows the truth, he was a kid that was indoctrinated in that creationist school...but still asked questions. He knows alot of those kids are going to grow up more like him...than those that profess their "truth."

Look no cavities!

LINK: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2004309060_eye27.html?syndication=rss

Discoveries

Excavations in a cave in the mountains of northern Spain have uncovered the oldest known remains of human ancestors in Western Europe, scientists reported Wednesday. The fossils of a lower jaw and teeth, more than 1.1 million years old, were found in sediments along with stone tools and animal bones that appeared to have been butchered. The remains have been attributed to the previously known species **** antecessor, a possible ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans. The discovery is described in the current issue of the journal Nature by a team of Spanish and American scientists led by Eudald Carbonell of the Catalan Institute of Human Paleontology and Social Evolution at Tarragona, Spain.

Look no cavities!

LINK: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2004309060_eye27.html?syndication=rss

Discoveries

Excavations in a cave in the mountains of northern Spain have uncovered the oldest known remains of human ancestors in Western Europe, scientists reported Wednesday. The fossils of a lower jaw and teeth, more than 1.1 million years old, were found in sediments along with stone tools and animal bones that appeared to have been butchered. The remains have been attributed to the previously known species **** antecessor, a possible ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans. The discovery is described in the current issue of the journal Nature by a team of Spanish and American scientists led by Eudald Carbonell of the Catalan Institute of Human Paleontology and Social Evolution at Tarragona, Spain.

Nothing to see here... they date it by the layers and date the layers by the fossil and so on and so on forever and ever. It's circular reasoning folks! Huh? Oh, no... ignore that sign over my shoulder that explains the actual method they use to date fossils.....



joe

These people are just as looney as the Global Climate Change Disaster freaks.
I just read an article on Yahoo...Texas has 4 of the metropolitan areas with the largest positive population gain in 2006. All the other 10 are south or southwest except Chicago. Metro areas by percentage change heavily favor the south and southwest as well. The article claims housing prices are the primary driver. Anyone who's migrated will tell you the warm weather ain't bad either. People like it warm.:D

But that is what I liked about the curator of the museum. He said America was all about diversity in ideas...he knows the truth, he was a kid that was indoctrinated in that creationist school...but still asked questions. He knows alot of those kids are going to grow up more like him...than those that profess their "truth."
Probably just as fair a position as those indoctrinated in the evolutionary school. Which it would appear is a newer "theory".

Yeah those gosh dang scientists with all thier sciencing about that there global warming doesn't know nothing. Heck they ain't even smart enough to realize that folks like to be it warm.
So you don't believe that global warming is occuring at all? Yeah I guess all the proof needed that global warming ain't happening is that folks are moving to the south. Now that's real science dang it. thanks

twinkles

Nothing to see here... they date it by the layers and date the layers by the fossil and so on and so on forever and ever. It's circular reasoning folks! Huh? Oh, no... ignore that sign over my shoulder that explains the actual method they use to date fossils.....



joe


I met an honest to goodness, true believin' creationist a few months back.

People like that are a threat to intelligence everywhere.

There goes the neighborhood. :rolleyes:

There goes the neighborhood. :rolleyes:

Your allusions...they give me hope in America.

/not the momma.

Yeah those gosh dang scientists with all thier sciencing about that there global warming doesn't know nothing. Heck they ain't even smart enough to realize that folks like to be it warm.
So you don't believe that global warming is occuring at all? Yeah I guess all the proof needed that global warming ain't happening is that folks are moving to the south. Now that's real science dang it. thanks

twinkles

Well I know enough to know they don't know enough to POSITIVELY tell you the earth has warmed a degree centigrade in the past 100 years. They theorize it has, they believe it has, but they don't KNOW it has. Precision temperature monitoring wasn't widespread until the 1970s. It warmed considerably the last 20 years of the 20th Century, but even the magnitude of that has qualifiers.
They can't tell you positively what the weather is going to be tomorrow, how can you ignore that little elephant in the room? No different than the nutbags in this video ignoring carbon dating...but then even carbon dating has it's shortcomings.
Do I believe the earth is warming? Yes I do, at least short term. Do I believe that tailpipes contribute to it, well it seems certainly plausible, even quite likely. Do I believe that scientist know what the result of all this will be? Not a chance. Too many misunderstood to completely unknown feedback loops mother Earth has.
For 30 years, the migration has been west, southwest, and south. I'm sure peoples love of the outdoors and warm weather has nothing to do with it. If the Global Climate Loons are even close to right, at the current rate it will take many centuries for Minneapolis to have decent weather.:D

Next thing you know, their kids will be dying from easily treatable ailments because their parents refuse to take them to the doctor for religious reasons.

Next thing you know, their kids will be dying from easily treatable ailments because their parents refuse to take them to the doctor for religious reasons.

That's rarely the case. When push comes to shove they suddenly believe in science when their life/health is at stake.

Oh no, a handful of people don't believe in evolution. The world's going to come to an end. The other 80-90% that believe in evolution are too stupid to know even the basic principles of it. I'd wager most on this board don't know or misconstrue most of the information revolving around evolution, at least that's my experience with lay people. They rant and rave about creationist buffoons then open their mouths about evolution and they're just as foolish as creationists.

Creationists will soon evolve.

That's rarely the case. When push comes to shove they suddenly believe in science when their life/health is at stake.

Creationist Registry

if you are a registered member,you will be denied any treatment that has some basis in evolutionary science. that would include testing on primates or using primate tissue for culturing.


we could take care of the true believers via the method they refuse to acknowledge

Creationist Registry

if you are a registered member,you will be denied any treatment that has some basis in evolutionary science. that would include testing on primates or using primate tissue for culturing.


we could take care of the true believers via the method they refuse to acknowledge

Nice straw man.

Google "the great chain of being". Just for fun.

Here's an example.

http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_5_1995/Reviewof%20yerkes.html

Neither Yerkes nor Bourne seriously questioned the relevance of their projects, because they assumed that their nonhuman primate research would apply to humans. However, this reflected a simplistic application of evolutionary theory, commonly expressed by other primate researchers, that other primates’ “closeness to man” legitimated nonhuman primate research.10 In fact, with few exceptions,11 to this day primate researchers remain influenced by a theoretical framework that long predated Darwinian theory--the notion of a “Great Chain of Being.” This creationist-flavored notion posits that the animal kingdom is a continuum, from the simplest creatures to the most complex, humans, Nonhuman primates, according to such thinking, were the most “human’ animals. Modified slightly to account for Darwinian thought, early primatologists saw evolution as a linear process with simple organisms evolving into more complex ones. This kind of thinking has changed little to account for a more modem view of evolutionary theory, which sees evolutionary divergence more like a tree with branches representing different species, each of which has adapted differently biologically to survive in different environmental niches.


Now this is an anti-primate research group, and I think they're trying to avoid putting the "blame" for primate research on evolutionary thought, but it shows that being a creationist doesn't mean that you have to deny the value of research on animals that are similar in some way to humans.

Nice straw man.

Google "the great chain of being". Just for fun.

Here's an example.

http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_5_1995/Reviewof%20yerkes.html

Neither Yerkes nor Bourne seriously questioned the relevance of their projects, because they assumed that their nonhuman primate research would apply to humans. However, this reflected a simplistic application of evolutionary theory, commonly expressed by other primate researchers, that other primates’ “closeness to man” legitimated nonhuman primate research.10 In fact, with few exceptions,11 to this day primate researchers remain influenced by a theoretical framework that long predated Darwinian theory--the notion of a “Great Chain of Being.” This creationist-flavored notion posits that the animal kingdom is a continuum, from the simplest creatures to the most complex, humans, Nonhuman primates, according to such thinking, were the most “human’ animals. Modified slightly to account for Darwinian thought, early primatologists saw evolution as a linear process with simple organisms evolving into more complex ones. This kind of thinking has changed little to account for a more modem view of evolutionary theory, which sees evolutionary divergence more like a tree with branches representing different species, each of which has adapted differently biologically to survive in different environmental niches.


Now this is an anti-primate research group, and I think they're trying to avoid putting the "blame" for primate research on evolutionary thought, but it shows that being a creationist doesn't mean that you have to deny the value of research on animals that are similar in some way to humans.

because we share similar DNA. Now we test aids drugs on great primates and not say horses? Why? because we came from a closer single evolutionary source and thus have far more in common. We stewed Polio vaccine in Monkey kidneys and not birds? it has nothing to do with the 'great chain' it has to do with shared genetics which make it easier to detect reactions that would be similar.

I live just north of the Creationism Museum, which itself is a mere stone's throw from (I'm not kidding) Big Bone Lick State Park (Ky.), in turn named because of the ancient fossils littering the ground around there.

The irony of this never fails to escape me.


That's as good as the Bong Recreation Area near I-94 in Southeastern Wisconsin. :)

John Scalzi published a photo essay on his trip to the Creationism Museum on his blog in November of last year. It's both hilarious and frightening.

Flickr photo essay here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/sets/72157603091357751/


Picturing something like the Time Machine ride in the movie Idiocracy.

That's as good as the Bong Recreation Area near I-94 in Southeastern Wisconsin. :)
Holy crap, where the hell is that? I grew up in South Central Wisconsin, I'd have loved to have seen that!

because we share similar DNA. Now we test aids drugs on great primates and not say horses? Why? because we came from a closer single evolutionary source and thus have far more in common. We stewed Polio vaccine in Monkey kidneys and not birds? it has nothing to do with the 'great chain' it has to do with shared genetics which make it easier to detect reactions that would be similar.

We don't disagree on the "what". The "what" is that we share enough similar DNA to enable us to "detect reactions that would be similar". That's perfectly good science.

It's the "how" that we disagree on. As in "how did that similarity come about"? That's science with a whole lot of philosophical assumption mixed in.

I mentioned the "great chain" because it shows that the idea that some animals are closer to man than others, and therefore maybe more suitable for testing, didn't originate with evolutionary thought.

The straw man is the idea that if you disagree with the single cell to man theory of evolution, then you disagree with the idea that man might have genetic similarities with other animals.

Where is it written that creationists believe that man's DNA would have to be totally unique? Or that genetic similarities is only evidence for evolution? There's no reason God couldn't or wouldn't re-use genes in different applications just as an Object Oriented programmer would re-use code when developing a new application.

Where is it written that creationists believe that man's DNA would have to be totally unique? Or that genetic similarities is only evidence for evolution? There's no reason God couldn't or wouldn't re-use genes in different applications just as an Object Oriented programmer would re-use code when developing a new application.

That is not a scientific theory, but an unfalsifiable 'hunch'.

It is impossible to 'test' as an explanation.

Creationism is dumb, it has much in common with other fundamentalist movements, which spawn at the peculiar disconnect where myth and logic meet.

Genesis and other craetionst myths are just that - myths. Symbolic explanations of where we come from. They are no more right or wrong that scientific explanations...they just work on different levels - the mythos as opposed to the logos.

The creationists are confusing the mythos with the logos...that is why they are dumb.

That is not a scientific theory, but an unfalsifiable 'hunch'.

It is impossible to 'test' as an explanation.

Creationism is dumb, it has much in common with other fundamentalist movements, which spawn at the peculiar disconnect where myth and logic meet.

Genesis and other craetionst myths are just that - myths. Symbolic explanations of where we come from. They are no more right or wrong that scientific explanations...they just work on different levels - the mythos as opposed to the logos.

The creationists are confusing the mythos with the logos...that is why they are dumb.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Creationists, I do it on a daily basis, but to call creationists stupid because they believe differently than you and I will not benefit anyone. Realize that Creationists are acting with a different set of tools than scientists. Their truth comes from faith, intuition, and feelings. Scientists use observation. These two ideas can be harmonious and you will find many biologists that consider themselves Christian but do not believe the Earth is very young or that it all happened in 7 days. Some people chose to do otherwise, but they are doing so with information that does not come from science. When they go against theories they aren't idiotic, they are just trying to make observations fit into what they intuitively believe. They fail to realize that our beliefs do not have to match observations and evolutionists fail to realize that these people disagree with evolution because Creations have evidence that states otherwise (although it is not valid in science). So back off from the creationists, next time you meet a creationist take the time to just listen to what they believe and then state what you believe Try presenting evidence for your argument instead of against their argument. This will help foster better dialogue between both sides. They whole you're a sinner and you're a moreon doesn't do anything but create a false dichotomy that is unnecessary and petty.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Creationists, I do it on a daily basis, but to call creationists stupid because they believe differently than you and I will not benefit anyone. Realize that Creationists are acting with a different set of tools than scientists. Their truth comes from faith, intuition, and feelings. Scientists use observation. These two ideas can be harmonious and you will find many biologists that consider themselves Christian but do not believe the Earth is very young or that it all happened in 7 days. Some people chose to do otherwise, but they are doing so with information that does not come from science. When they go against theories they aren't idiotic, they are just trying to make observations fit into what they intuitively believe. They fail to realize that our beliefs do not have to match observations and evolutionists fail to realize that these people disagree with evolution because Creations have evidence that states otherwise (although it is not valid in science). So back off from the creationists, next time you meet a creationist take the time to just listen to what they believe and then state what you believe Try presenting evidence for your argument instead of against their argument. This will help foster better dialogue between both sides. They whole you're a sinner and you're a moreon doesn't do anything but create a false dichotomy that is unnecessary and petty.

No they are dumb for the reasons I outlined.

Creationism is put forward as a scientific theory; a counter theory to evolution....

...but it is not a valid scientific theory.

Creationism is more than 'just being a Christian', otherwise all Scientists who were also Christians would be Creationist/ID'ers.

The creationists are dumb because they believe their mythic explanation is a scientific one; mythos/logos confusion.

I never said that believing in a mythic explanation was dumb...just that confusing it with a scientific one is.

Not a false dichotomy no. Science and religion are quite seperate, and they should stay that way.

No they are dumb for the reasons I outlined.

Creationism is put forward as a scientific theory; a counter theory to evolution....

...but it is not a valid scientific theory.

Creationism is more than 'just being a Christian', otherwise all Scientists who were also Christians would be Creationist/ID'ers.

The creationists are dumb because they believe their mythic explanation is a scientific one; mythos/logos confusion.

I never said that believing in a mythic explanation was dumb...just that confusing it with a scientific one is.

Not a false dichotomy no. Science and religion are quite seperate, and they should stay that way.

exactly. Truth is many.... science is true and the Bible is true as well. different knowledge, different wisdom... different.
some say religion is the mother of all evil but i think it's the idea of One Truth that's blind and destructive.
the distinction between mythos and logos has to be understood. at least here in PO...:D