Creation Museum

Cyrus

And you're free to hold that belief. But your views on religion are your personal beliefs, and they can't be formulated as science.
I never said science was/is religion.

As such, it would be academically dishonest to claim that science is opposed to religion.
I never said that.

But again, if intellectual honesty isn't motivation enough, then please consider that the more you portray science as antithetical to religion, the harder it may be for me to get funding in the future. Furthermore, comments like this are likely to incite an anti-scientific backlash, as we've already seen in recent years.
I have no problem with christians that keep shut and listen to the scientists. But when they think they run the show, then I will fight them back....hard.

When they try to run the country based on the bible, I will fight them back...hard.

This isnt the United States of Jesus Land.

moe darklight

But science is in many ways opposed to religion, I don't think they can coexist. One of the main principles of religion is "faith:" belief without proof. This goes completely against everything science (or rational thought) stands for. How can the two ever be compatible?

What is the interpretation?
I realize this might read sarcastic or confrontational on the internet, but that wasn't my intention. I'd actually like to know if there is another interpretation of these types of verses.

Like I said, I'm no expert. My understanding of the old testament comes only from what I was taught in school and from my own personal interpretation. To me it seems like the bible is quite clear on referring to itself as being literal.

out of whack

To me it seems like the bible is quite clear on referring to itself as being literal.
Maybe its claim to be literal is only a figure of speech!

Artman

At no point in the bible does God say "metaphorically speaking," or "here's an analogy to better illustrate my point." No, in fact, pretty much every page has a passage warning you about the infallible/pure/true and only Word Of God and the suffering that will come your way if you are to ever doubt it or change it.
And you read these passages from the original Hebrew texts? Are you aware that the original language of the Bible applies vowels in extra short, short, long, or extra long form? That the word for Red sea may also be Reed sea? Are you aware that striking a rock in the desert to find water isn't a miracle, but rather breaking a salt deposit to free trapped water? The Hebrews that this story was originally told to would have been aware of that. Creationists attending that theme park would not.

Literal to them (people who lived during that time, knew their customs, spoke the language, lived in that area), and literal to us (thousands of years later, are reading translations made from translations from oral traditions, who don't know the customs, don't know the climate, don't know the area) are two different things.

It takes study to understand the Bible, study to apply it's teachings.

Kurdt

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The reed sea? That makes a lot more sense. They parted the reeds and waded to freedom across a lake while the chariots got stuck in silt.

I propose a new translation of genesis too.

Genesis 1: A lot of people say to me, 'get out of my garden'.

Genesis 2:......

Just cuts to the chase.

Evo

Mentor
This has always made me laugh.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

A Creation "Science" Geologic Time Scale

1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid.

(2) Adam and Eve, talking snakes, etc.

3) World's waters are in great Venus-like atmosphere or in ground
water. No rain, no ocean basins.

(4) Radiometric dating invalid; speed of light changed.

(5) Humans, dinosaurs, mammals, the "works," all live together in
peace. Both lions and Tyranosaurus Rex are vegetarians in Eden before
the "fall."

(6) Human life spans up to 900 years.

(7) Battle of Satan and angels produces craters on moon.

continued...

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

moe darklight

And you read these passages from the original Hebrew texts?
Yes I read them in Hebrew, I don't know what version of the texts seeing as there are so many copies. (it might be somewhat modernized Hebrew, I don't know, I've never seen personally an ancient scroll so I don't know if the language is the same. If it was, it's at least closer than the English translations)

Are you aware that the original language of the Bible applies vowels in extra short, short, long, or extra long form? That the word for Red sea may also be Reed sea?
Hebrew words are not that easy to confuse*, or else it would be a pretty unsuccessful language to communicate with. Also, special punctuation is sometimes used when a word might be mistaken (though I don't know if these punctuation's are a modern invention).

Are you aware that striking a rock in the desert to find water isn't a miracle, but rather breaking a salt deposit to free trapped water? The Hebrews that this story was originally told to would have been aware of that. Creationists attending that theme park would not.
But that's the point of the story: God asks Moses to speak to the stone, not strike it. He wants moses to do this publicly to show God's great powers (Moses asking a stone to give its water, and the stone obeying would be a miracle. I think we both agree on that). But Moses disobeys, and strikes the stone instead, which is why God becomes so angry and banishes him from Israel.

Literal to them (people who lived during that time, knew their customs, spoke the language, lived in that area), and literal to us (thousands of years later, are reading translations made from translations from oral traditions, who don't know the customs, don't know the climate, don't know the area) are two different things.
Yes, this is true if we agree that the bible is a work of fiction by humans. But the bible claims it is the word of God. The bible claims that God knows all. God would have predicted Darwin and Quantum Physics and the fossil record and so on.

It takes study to understand the Bible, study to apply it's teachings.
it takes study to fully understand almost any literary work. This doesn't mean that one can't understand some aspects of it. I might not understand many aspects of an Aphrah Behn or Shakespeare play without years of studying the culture and language of their times, but when a character tells another she loves him, the message is pretty clear.
Many parts of the bible might lend themselves to interpretation, but when the bible says that it is the truth, that it is literal, and so on, (to me it seems, at least) like it is written in straight to-the-point language. I'm not aware of any part where the bible even slightly insinuates that it is not meant to be taken literally. I might be wrong (great Radiohead song, by the way).

* EDIT: at least not so often that you can say that every miracle in the bible is just the words being other words.

Last edited:

scott_alexsk

I don't even know why you people care so much and waste so much time jabbering about how stupid us Christians are. If life has no meaning then it does not f***ing matter how stupid our belief is, and what consequences it has. It is our choice how we want to spend this time, and you are truely stupid, if you think that life is meaningless, that there is a right way and a wrong way to spend it. If it is all so bad, evolution will rid our world of people with defective brains like mine.

Jimmy Snyder

To me it seems like the bible is quite clear on referring to itself as being literal.
In the New Testament, the bible declares itself not be be taken literally. Read Matthew Chapter 13, verses 10 through 17.

moe darklight

I didn't know that. I'll check it out. I don't know much about the new testament, so I won't comment on it. In the old testament God seems pretty insistent on constantly making a point of his word being perfect.

Artman

moe darklight,

I think the later translations add the special punctuation. I believe that ambiguity is what makes the Bible a living document. If it was as concrete in it's
statements as some of the already dead religions, it too would have died. It is this openness to interpretation that makes it relevant to those who believe it today. Unfortunately, it also leaves the door open for creationists to argue without facts against scientific theories. People like that do more harm to the Christian religions then they will ever do good.

arunma

In the New Testament, the bible declares itself not be be taken literally. Read Matthew Chapter 13, verses 10 through 17.
Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the same thing. This passage seems to be referring to God's act of blinding those who harden their hearts against him...as would be consistent with this thread.

Alas, this thread seems to be turning into a religious debate. Rather than arguing against the claim that the Bible is responsible for all evil on earth, I'll simply leave you all with the request that my fellow scientists not say/do something stupid to get all our funding taken away one day.

Last edited:

moe darklight

Rather than arguing against the claim that the Bible is responsible for all evil on earth, I'll simply leave you all with the request that my fellow scientists not say/do something stupid to get all our funding taken away one day.
I haven't read anyone say that on this thread. My argument is simply that science and religion are incompatible, and that this new notion that they can both somehow meet half-way is not only illogical but possibly dangerous.

I also think that the worst thing that scientists could say or do is nothing, which is where I disagree with your assumption that if we let them be they won't try and interfere.

Artman

...My argument is simply that science and religion are incompatible, and that this new notion that they can both somehow meet half-way is not only illogical but possibly dangerous...
I agree with this.

Surrealist

OK, a creation museum is a retarded concept, but what I don't understand is why people felt the need to protest it.

I mean this non-profit organization raised $27 million dollars, but it's not like the money came from the government. Why would people protest how a non-profit organization decides to spend its own money? If I raised$27 million, from like-minded supporters, to open a muesuem of "piss and ****"... who the hell are you to tell me how to spend the money I raised for that specific cause?

Last time I checked, this is America... land of the FREE!

moe darklight

OK, a creation museum is a retarded concept, but what I don't understand is why people felt the need to protest it.

I mean this non-profit organization raised $27 million dollars, but it's not like the money came from the government. Why would people protest how a non-profit organization decides to spend its own money? If I raised$27 million, from like-minded supporters, to open a muesuem of "piss and ****"... who the hell are you to tell me how to spend the money I raised for that specific cause?

Last time I checked, this is America... land of the FREE!
I have no problem with a museum on creationism or the bible. I do have a problem with it claiming to be something it is not, and for kids being brainwashed with this nonsense. There is a difference between freedom of speech and misinformation.

freedom of speech: I write a book about flying pigs.

not freedom of speech: I write a book about how pigs can fly; it is filled with misleading statements that are presented as facts and makes the reader believe that this flying-pig theory is backed by "a growing number of the scientific community" (as they always claim).

To me, the second part is where freedom of speech should end. The same as the press should not be allowed to report news that never happened, a museum or textbook should not be allowed to present a theory that has not been even remotely proven possible as indisputable.

I also have no problem with considering and investigating theories such as intelligent design, god, or the "paranormal". But this should be done responsibly, not through propaganda and lies— this could also end up hurting serious scientist who legitimately ask these questions — And if the research leads to a conclusion that is not what you wanted, then you should admit it, not just ignore the evidence against your theory.

Last edited:

Cyrus

I don't even know why you people care so much and waste so much time jabbering about how stupid us Christians are. If life has no meaning then it does not f***ing matter how stupid our belief is, and what consequences it has. It is our choice how we want to spend this time, and you are truely stupid, if you think that life is meaningless, that there is a right way and a wrong way to spend it. If it is all so bad, evolution will rid our world of people with defective brains like mine.
We care so much because religious people in this country are trying to put religion into science, and government. That is oil and water. You dont mix the two. Why does President Bush have 150 people working in his office from the pat robertson law school? Religious people are spreading their filth and polluting this great country.

PS, life is not meaningless. A meaningless life is living by a stupid book written by men thats full of myths and fairytales and closing your mind. A meaninful life is helping others, contributing to society, and science etc. Live and let live. Religious people go on and on about tolerance, yet they are the most intolerant people I have ever met.

Karl Marx said:
Religion is an opiate of the masses
I dont agree with communism, but a broken watch is still correct twice a day.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/

Cyrus

I'll simply leave you all with the request that my fellow scientists not say/do something stupid to get all our funding taken away one day.
Taken away by who? The federal government cant do that because of religion. I think this is a load of pro-creationist crap - at least it sounds like it to me.

In fact, I dont think you have ever worked in a lab based on what you said.

Last edited:

Surrealist

a museum or textbook should not be allowed to present a theory that has not been even remotely proven possible as indisputable
You would be correct if you said a "federally funded museum or textbook paid for with tax payer dollars"... but we are clearly talking about a specific case of museums and textbooks paid for by private parties.

It is not your place nor the government's place to decide how individuals or private organizations spend their own money.

At this point, I would like to reiterate the fact that I am neither a Christian nor a supporter of the creationist movement. However, I would like to make a point of saying that I believe in freedom, and this country was founded on this principle of individual freedom. It scares the **** out of me that people like you--people who want to take away individual freedoms--are flourishing in this country.

Cyrus

But those books are going into public schools.

You can say whatever religious BS you want to, but you cant call it science. You have freedom of religion. Not freedom to make up science. Try making up science when you build a bridge and see what happens when you get to court because the bridge failed. You will get the living crap sued out of you because science means real honest to goodness science must have been done to build that bridge.

Last edited:

Surrealist

But those books are going into public schools.
That comment has nothing to do with my arguments concerning the specific case being discussed.

Cyrus

Yes, it does. Because those private organizations are spilling into public institutions. Its finding its way into the hands of children in public schools.

It all comes down to misinformation. If you spread misinformation you can be sued for it. We should have an ammendment to the constitution so that you have freedom of speech, provided that its not misinformation you are spreading.

Last edited:

Surrealist

Yes, it does. Because those private organizations are spilling into public institutions. Its finding its way into the hands of children in public schools.
We are arguing about a private organization and their right to make their own museum. Don't steer the discussion onto a different topic.

Also, don't edit your post (by adding additional content) after I have already quoted it. It is in poor taste and should be regarded as an act of deception.

Cyrus

Free speech is not an absolute, for exmaple:

-Defamation/Slander/Libel
-Obscenity
-Lying in court
-Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
-Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as Shouting fire in a crowded theater

Cyrus

We are arguing about a private organization and their right to make their own museum. Don't steer the discussion onto a different topic.

Also, don't edit your post (by adding additional content) after I have already quoted it. It is in poor taste and should be regarded as an act of deception.
A private organization can make their own museum if they want to. I already said that much earlier in this thread.

I added to my post and it showed up before I saw your post.

Last edited: