That Pesky "Dinsoaurs lived millions of years ago" thing...
...you know the crackpots have gone too far when they created Dinosaur theme parks with religious explanations.
I mean common, don't let good science get in the way of your biblical stories! A biblical story must either be literally true, or it is worthless! Can't learn anything about God or living well from allegories; that's totally impossible and beyond all comprehension and logic.
Better to just brainwash your kids and tell them to only pay attention to science when it suits their religion.
Quote:
From the NYT:
Robert and Schön Passmore took their children to Disney World last fall and left bitterly disappointed. As Christians who reject evolutionary theory, the family scoffed at the park's dinosaur attractions, which date the apatosaurus, brachiosaurus and the like to prehistoric times.
"My kids kept recognizing flaws in the presentation," said Mrs. Passmore, of Jackson, Ala. "You know ? the whole `millions of years ago dinosaurs ruled the earth' thing."
So this week, the Passmores sought out a lower-profile Florida attraction: Dinosaur Adventure Land, a creationist theme park and museum here that beckons children to "find out the truth about dinosaurs" with games that roll science and religion into one big funfest with the message that Genesis, not science, tells the real story of the creation.
From the NYT:
Robert and Schön Passmore took their children to Disney World last fall and left bitterly disappointed. As Christians who reject evolutionary theory, the family scoffed at the park's dinosaur attractions, which date the apatosaurus, brachiosaurus and the like to prehistoric times.
"My kids kept recognizing flaws in the presentation," said Mrs. Passmore, of Jackson, Ala. "You know ? the whole `millions of years ago dinosaurs ruled the earth' thing."
So this week, the Passmores sought out a lower-profile Florida attraction: Dinosaur Adventure Land, a creationist theme park and museum here that beckons children to "find out the truth about dinosaurs" with games that roll science and religion into one big funfest with the message that Genesis, not science, tells the real story of the creation.
I mean common, don't let good science get in the way of your biblical stories! A biblical story must either be literally true, or it is worthless! Can't learn anything about God or living well from allegories; that's totally impossible and beyond all comprehension and logic.
Better to just brainwash your kids and tell them to only pay attention to science when it suits their religion.
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
A biblical story must either be literally true, or it is worthless! Can't learn anything about God or living well from allegories; that's totally impossible and beyond all comprehension and logic.
You do not understand Christianity. Christ taught in allegories most of the time. And there are a wide range of literal-vs-allegorical denominations in the States.
Just because it does not fit YOUR particular comprehension or logic does not mean that it cannot be the foundation of a major world religion.
Originally posted by Jubelum
You do not understand Christianity. Christ taught in allegories most of the time. And there are a wide range of literal-vs-allegorical denominations in the States.
Just because it does not fit YOUR particular comprehension or logic does not mean that it cannot be the foundation of a major world religion.
Um, Moogs was being facetious....
I always wondered what the whales were eating for millions of years waiting for their baleen to develop.
There is no "good science" surrounding evolution---or to explain it. Some people look to a complete solution, instead of being fed contradicitons.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Um, Moogs was being facetious....
Well, then... I will consider my reply as my apologetics exercise for the day. Thanks Moogs for helping me get those extra reps in.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Well, then... I will consider my reply as my apologetics exercise for the day. Thanks Moogs for helping me get those extra reps in.
Originally posted by dmz
Don't let "good science" get in the way of exlpaining a "good story."
I always wondered what the whales were eating for millions of years waiting for their baleen to develop.
There is no "good science" surrounding evolution---or to explain it. Some people look to a complete solution, instead of being fed contradicitons.
Um, I really don't think we need another discussion on evolution. But not all wales eat plankton. in fact some eat just fish, and some eat both so your answer is in there somewhere.
Originally posted by dmz
Don't let "good science" get in the way of exlpaining a "good story."
I always wondered what the whales were eating for millions of years waiting for their baleen to develop.
There is no "good science" surrounding evolution---or to explain it. Some people look to a complete solution, instead of being fed contradicitons.
I agree that we don't need another evolution thread, but i have a question about the world view (which I hope is linked to the topic of, you know, enforced insularity).
In order to say there is no good science surrounding evolution, you are required to do some or all of the following:
Not understand what science is.
Refuse to learn what science is.
Refuse to avail yourself of the enormous body of research that is readily available in re evolution and its mechanisms.
Limit your intake of information to the kind of fatuous "gotcha" stuff like "what did whales eat".
Disregard any information to the contrary that you might accidently come across.
Begin to do things like attend theme parks that pander to your ignorance.
Now it seems to me that all of this goes substantially beyond "having faith". It pretty much obliges you to discard science, scientific method, deductive reasoning, logic, and the entire edifice of post enlightenment culture.
So my question is, is that OK with "believers"? In other words, do people who reject evolution reject the rest of science, and its methods, or is the thinking that science is wrong just on this one thing (or I suppose any other things that contradict biblical literalism).
Do people who reject evolution know that they are rejecting science and its methods, since evolutionary theory and its arguments are so much a part and parcel of how science is done?
And if so, is that OK with them?
"Creationism" is one of the most blatant examples of such literal Sunday School garbage interpretation. It is unbelievable in these supposedly "enlightened" times, where science and proven knowledge is advancing so rapidly, that such bastions of superstitious drivel still find so much support.
In a related story, an expedition is currently underway to try to find the remains of "Noah's Ark" which some people reckon can be seen just below the summit of the almost 18,000 ft high Mt. Ararat in Northern Turkey. (!!!!!) I mean...think about it: for a seagoing vessel to make landfall some 3.5 miles above current sealevel, requires that the Earth at some point in just the last 6,000 years, (according to the "Creationists" who believe this stuff) was almost entirely a watery planet, with just a few small islands represented by todays tallest mountains.
And...they teach this crap in Kansas with official state approval....
Originally posted by addabox
I agree that we don't need another evolution thread
...then we don't need another "creationists are complete idiots" thread.
Limit your intake of information to the kind of fatuous "gotcha" stuff like "what did whales eat".
This is exactly the point---and no one here can offer a detailed workable soution. This also the reason that evolution is increasingly under popular attack and why ID is gaining legitimacy.
Do people who reject evolution know that they are rejecting science and its methods
There IS NO SCIENCE that supports evolution, there is no "science" to regect.
IF the earth was made of prisitine elements, IF you assme to understand the true nature of universe you can logically deduce that the unverse and the earth are quite ancient. The "science" abruptly ends there.
Originally posted by sammi jo
....almost 18,000 ft high Mt. Ararat in Northern Turkey. (!!!!!) I mean...think about it: for a seagoing vessel to make landfall some 3.5 miles above current sealevel....
......no uplift to create mountians? How the in world did they form then?
Originally posted by dmz
...then we don't need another "creationists are complete idiots" thread
Not all creationists, just the ones that create theme-parks that attempt to debunk legitimate science. Just because all the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle are not understood, doesn't mean the whole theory lacks merit.
There IS NO SCIENCE that supports evolution, there is no "science" to regect.
OMG... (pun intended). Wake up.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Well, then... I will consider my reply as my apologetics exercise for the day. Thanks Moogs for helping me get those extra reps in.
Think nothing of it.
Originally posted by dmz
......no uplift to create mountians? How the in world did they form then?
6,000 years is an instant in geological time, and not remotely enough time to create a mountain range.
Again, you are obliged to "not know" a great deal to keep this world view form falling apart.
Originally posted by dmz
There IS NO SCIENCE that supports evolution, there is no "science" to regect.
Have you read any much ID literature? I've read a little. The guys who are at least making an effort to be scientific aren't so dimissive as you about evolution. They of course strongly disagree with evolution, and have major points of contention, but they also acknowledge the strengths of the case for evolution and work from there.
Adamantly insisting that there is NO SCIENCE that supports evolution simply bespeaks a complete misunderstanding about how the scientific endeavor works and a partisan rejection of all that could challenge one's own beliefs.
Science is certainly not coming up with something you think is a problem, (whales and baleen, for instance), pondering for a few moments within your own limited understanding of a subject and finding no answer, and then thinking that you've found an utterly conclusive "gotcha" that brings the whole structure of what you disagree with tumbling down.
For a while, for example, some creationists were crowing loudly about "polonium halos" (or "po hos" as they were called for short, not to be confused with financially disadvantaged prostitutes). These radioactive decay patterns found in certain outcroppings of granite were supposed to "prove" that all of the granite all around the world must have been spontaneously formed all at the same time, and not very long ago.
But it's all based on a misunderstanding of the permeability of granite, and the ability of radon gas to penetrate already-formed granite. Now, I'm sure there's been some back-and-forth over this since I last encountered the issue, but regardless, it's hardly the slam-dunk gotcha it was originally made out to be.
I'm sure quite a few creationists aren't even aware of the arguments against the polonium halos because they don't care to investigate any further than hearing what sounds good for them, and simply keep repeating and spreading a bad meme.
Originally posted by dmz
......no uplift to create mountians? How the in world did they form then?
Yes. but over 10s of millions of years, NOT 6000 years, which is one of the biblical myths that creationists so fervently believe. For sure, an extinct volcano like Ararat took less time (hundreds of thousands of years) to form...but even that timescale is in a totally different ballpark.
Here's how the "creationists" get this crazy 6000 figure:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
It's truly amazing, and sad.
Originally posted by dmz
...then we don't need another "creationists are complete idiots" thread.
This, on the other hand, needs to be said again and again, proudly and unapologetically.
Originally posted by sammi jo
It's truly amazing, and sad.
and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.
Originally posted by dmz
...then we don't need another "creationists are complete idiots" thread.
That's actually not my point. My point is that to reject evolution, you are obliged to reject science, since if the science that buttresses evolution is as wrong as you think it is, it safe to say that science as we currently understand it is incapable of forming coherent models of the world.
Now, I'm not proffering an opinion about the wisdom of rejecting science. I actually have quite a bit of sympathy for people with little interest in the sciences and who are preoccupied instead with the metaphysics of day to day life, the notion of a soul and the transcendent power of love.
But I will insist, your notions about this notwithstanding, that to reject evolution is to reject science per se, and that one ought to be honest about that and be prepared to argue from that position.
Moreover, it is simply impossible to reconcile biblical literalism with any recognizable scientific description of the earth's history; and that to try to do so leads one into such torturous mutations of what science actually says it would be far more sensible to just declare science null and void and stick with "because God made it so".