The only parts of the museum I have not reviewed are the bookstore (pretty much what you'd expect) and the men's room (impressively clean). So what conclusions should we draw?
Is this the end of civilization as we know it? No. But it is one more symptom of the disease that has been growing ever since Ronald Reagan started making appeals to religious fundamentalists a standard part of Republican Party politics in the 1980's. Just ponder the fact that AiG had little trouble raising the twenty-seven million dollars needed to build this monstrosity. Consider that now everyone in the Cincinnati area has for a neighbor a professional propaganda factory spitting out some of the vilest and most vicious stereotypes of science and scientists that you will ever encounter. This is not a good thing for American civilization. And a culture that can produce such monuments to ignorance is a culture facing some serious problems.
In her own write-up of the museum, Tara Smith offered these words of comfort:
Obviously, the good thing about the museum is that it will only be convincing to the already convinced. For those who aren't about to accept a literal Genesis, there's nothing in the museum to make them change their mind. However, it does have enough here and there to sow confusion in the minds of those who already have some anti-science leanings.
Alas, I fear the second part of that dichotomy is the more important. There's something very seductive about a confident and professional presentation of views such as these. I don't think anyone will go in a confirmed atheist and will come out a fundamentalist Christian. But many of the visitors to the museum will not be people who spend much time immersed in this issue. They will be people with nebulous religious views who visit the museum in the company of a more religious friend. They will be people who had been inclined to give scientists the benefit of the doubt until the museum showed them just how confused the pointy heads really are. They will be young adults who have never been exposed to anything other than fundamentalist Christianity, having the ignorance of their parents and preachers reinforced by slick propaganda.
Let's face it. Most people know little about science, and are sufficiently trusting to think that a museum this slick must have some basis in truth. The possibility that virtually every substantive claim made in the museum is either a bald distortion or a flat-out lie is not something most people consider. It's the reason so many Christian denominations pour so much money into the physical design of their churches. You might argue that they could get by with a more modest building, using the savings to aid the poor. But this overlooks the psychological effects of building so beautiful a church. How can they be wrong, all too many people say. Their church is so fancy and ornate.
No, if there is a ray of sunshine in this boil on the backside of Cincinnati it is the thought that this museum is not inexpensive to operate. And considering the static nature of the museum's exhibits, we can hope that they will have a problem attracting repeat business. Perhaps a year from now, after the initial novelty has worn off, AiG will come to regret their little money pit in Northern Kentucky. We can only pray.
- Log in to post comments
Ronald Cote, would you prefer that I refer to you as a slandering liar instead of a death-cultist? After all, you promised never to return to this blog, and yet, here you are, and you never even pointed out to us where in "The Origin of Species" Darwin wrote about the promotion of Antisemitism. And that you're apparently reveling in the fact that you know less than kindergarteners about basic geology is just disgusting.
Furthermore, do realize that there is such a subject called "population biology"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_biology
It's the study of populations of living organisms, and is very distinct from demography, which is the study of human population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography
On the other hand, you were taught that, in order to have a relationship with God, you've been forbidden to read anything that might actually enrich your knowledge, given as how knowledge carries with it that slight chance that you'll wind up in the wrong afterlife.
And yet, it's okay for you to slander and lie about the dead, even though Jesus Christ taught us that we should not speak ill of other people, regardless of the situation.
Jeez, Jason - thanks for going, so I don't have to, but I'm confused! What takes the Prayer Priority (TM)? Praying For More Funny Hovind emails, or praying as you suggest that the AIG Regrets opening Flintstone Land?
And if we bombard The Big Sky Juju with too many requests, will he get PO's again, and Flood The Entire World again?
Jason, thanks for going and thanks for the great write-ups. Sounds to me like you could sum it up with: A God time was had by all. :-)
Las Vegas long ago discovered that the more magnificent the temple to Lady Luck the more suckers pay a visit and the more money rolls in.
No, if there is a ray of sunshine in this boil on the backside of Cincinnati it is the thought that this museum is not inexpensive to operate. And considering the static nature of the museum's exhibits, we can hope that they will have a problem attracting repeat business.
Exactly. Were you able to make any kind of estimate as to the gate for the day you were there? They claimed 4,000 visitors on day one, which seemed below expectations. I am very curious to see what the figures are like now.
Cincinnati's real nemesis is still the Pittsburgh Steelers :)
I've said this before (I think on one of your earlier descriptions), but I'll say it again: this place would bore the butt off any kid who is interested in dinosaurs. No dino bones, no casts of footprints, no mammoth tusks. Just some cheesy dioramas and a bunch of posters. When I was a dino-obsessed kid, I wanted to see the real thing - bones, fossils, tracks, rocks etc. I would have considered the CreoMuseum a total fraud.
I've seen better paleontology displays in (small cities) Courtenay and Vernon, BC (and so have my kids). My older daughter still talks about the temporary exhibit of dinosaur remains from China that they had in the Victoria Museum 3 years ago.
I think any kid who would be impressed by the CreoMuseum would have to have been brainwashed in the first place - and could well be cleansed by a visit to Drumheller, the Field, or any other decent museum.
I agree with Mr Rosenhouse completely. A pet peeve of mine are friends and co-workers who aren't particulary religous but who don't believe in evolution. I don't think any of them would be fooled by the arguements presented by the museum but, as has been pointed out to me, they just can't see whales evolving from undulates, they can't possibly fathom all life on earth evolving from single-celled organisms. (Perhaps it's not intelligence lacking but imagination) I suppose most people don't have the facination with natural history that I do, perhaps don't read the books or magazines (or blogs) that I do, but I hate the fact that they can dismiss evolution because, somehow, it doesn't "feel" right to them; that it doesn't seem "logical". Creationist museums like this one, albeit probably not convincing to everyone, are an attempt to give legitimaticy to concepts like intelligent design. Allow creationism a way to worm it's way, ever more, into the secular world.
Another thing, when I was a teenager during the 80's, I remember that most churches in North America were suffering a "crisis of faith". Church attendance was way down and many churches were trying to come up with ways to appeal to paritioners, especially the youth. Churches started "hipping" up their sermons. They tried to present Christianity as "cool" with slick P.R. campaigns. I think part of the plan was to go after such immoral things as teaching sex education and evolution in schools. I guess this museum is another over-priced tactic to win the hearts and minds of children...Perhaps even their souls!
An article in Science a few weeks back concluded exactly this; people are reluctant to accept scientific explanations that are not intuitive. They are willing, however, to trust experts. Unfortunately in this case, the Creation Museum is staffed by whackos posing as experts, who provide explanations that are not of the counterintuitive scientific type, so no doubt many visitors will come away dumber than when they entered.
I think there will be plenty of cash to keep the thing going for some time. The church I went to when I was a kid spent copius amounts of money to send us to youth conferences and camps, etc., and there were always thousands of other kids sent by their churches.
Of course it will get boring in about 10 minutes to most kids just like the conferences did to me. That is why we also got to go to Six Flags or something similar so that we would also remember how fun the trip was.
Remember this prognostication: Within two years the museum will be expanded and will include thrill rides.
Can we expect to see museum folks dressed up as Flintstones characters, just like Goofy & friends at Disneyland?
Thank you for this series of posts. I don't remember if you mentioned this, so let me ask: if you had to pick one thing, what was the single stupidest exhibit, factoid, image, or whatever that you saw there?
Susan said: ...they can't possibly fathom all life on earth evolving from single-celled organisms. (Perhaps it's not intelligence lacking but imagination)
I suspect its the problem we mere mortals have with grasping numbers as big as a billion years. Try this: ask them how long they think, intuitively, no calculators or mental math, a million seconds is. Then ask them how long they think a billion seconds is. The answers (about 11 days and 31 years respectively) tends to give people a better idea of just how vast an amount of time a billion years is.
... I hate the fact that they can dismiss evolution because, somehow, it doesn't "feel" right to them; that it doesn't seem "logical".
Tell them flat out that there are a lot of demonstrable facts of life that won't feel right to them. Quantum physics "feels right" to no one. Ask them how many people they think they need in a class to have a 50/50 shot at 2 of them having the same month/day birthday. I suspect the answer of 23 (IIRC) will not seem "logical" to them. Or how about relativity? Do they accept that if you are moving at a speed of 0.6c relative to an observer and you propel something away from you at 0.6c, the observer will NOT see the object move at 1.2c? Do they think this feels right?
We all must remember that our instincts evolved around the objects of everyday life. They were not granted by a deity to magically give us an accurate sense of the universe. Many things that are sufficiently large, or small, or long lived, or fast, are going to have properties that throw our instincts for a loop. That's just the way it is.
Ah you atheistic evolutionists! When are you going to change your shop worn tactics of insults, vitriole ridicule, foul language and name calling to everything that challenges your sacred illusion of evolution?
It must be the accepted method for those who have nothing substantive to offer in support of their beliefs and/or by belittling the other person or concept, one can feel a sense of superiority. Calling someone or something else stupid or ignorant must give one the impression that the name caller must therefore be so much more learned that the one being called the name. Examples from your collective comments: boil on the backside, bald distortion, flat out lie, Flintstone land, total fraud, etc.
These tactics are so typical of ignorant people, having little to offer in the form of substantive argument belittling because of the inability to counter rationally.
The new Creation Museum really seems to have aroused your disdain in that it is a serious challenge to the terribly flawed theory of evolution. Any of you who attend enter with a closed mind, eager to find reasons for ridicule. You will not be confused by facts since your mind is already in lock set.
As a biologist and ex evolutionist, and after much study, I have concluded that evolution is a terribly flawed hypothesis filled with impossible scenarios, scandal, fraud and whose principle basis is speculation and wishful thinking. All this is to ensure that there is a basis for your atheism. Creationism is touted as religion, and this is used as a reason for not allowing it into school criteria. Intelligent design is also categorized as religious or creation in disguise in an effort to thwart its validity.
Let us put things into proper perspective. Creation, of itself is religious but scientific data supporting it is not religious. Intelligent design is not a masquerade for Creation, but is empirical evidence in support of creation. Evolution, on the other hand is, as declared by the Supreme Court , to be a non-theistic religion. The science supporting evolution is not. Science is science. Truth is truth. Let us not try to confuse the issue further.
The controversy goes on and will for years. It is a contemporary issue that should involve the future leaders of our country. It is important to many to have knowledge of our origins. Thanks to many of you, our children will only get one side of the controversy, a disservice, an injustice and a travesty to them.
Regardless of what you or I have as preconceived beliefs and if we were to collectively give fair treatment to this debatable issue, we need to expose them to science rather than paint the picture as black or white and keep our kids uninformed. We need to provide them with exposure to all of the science, that which, like intelligent design, and many other studies is supportive of creation and give equal treatment to the science that supports evolution. By giving them a fair and balanced approach to the issue, we can best assure that they will reach conclusions on the basis of informed determinations and not the bias of the parent.
"Perhaps a year from now, after the initial novelty has worn off, AiG will come to regret their little money pit in Northern Kentucky. We can only pray."
Odd comment. Pray to who?
Another blog that conforms to the top ten.
TOP TEN EVOLUTIONIST RATIONAL
1.The THEORY of evolution = truth.
2.Any science that does not agree with evolution = lie
3.Any person that does not agree with evolution =
A.Liar
B.Huckster
C.Scammer
D.Shyster
4.Any pursuit other than evolutionary = not REAL science.
5.Any person engaged in science not evolutionary = not REAL scientist.
6.REAL science can only be defined by evolutionists.
7.The average person is too stupid to evaluate these matters without the guidance of one of these REAL scientists.
8. There is no other possibility other than evolution.
9. Any pursuit other than evolution is a threat to mankind.
10.The top evolutionist rational - There is no possibility of a God. I know. I have never seen him.
John Leslie--
It's 'pray to whom,' sweetie, not 'pray to who.' And please look up the words 'rational' and 'rationale.' I think you've got them confused.
You might also look up the statistics on accepting evolution and/or believing in God. According to most surveys on the subject, millions of people do both.
I must say, I find the assumption that I must be an atheist because I accept the reality of evolution insulting in the extreme. I accept as fact a multi-billion-year-old earth, the passing-on of inheritance through DNA, and the inevitable occasional miscopying of DNA. Given those three facts, I simply don't see any way that evolution cannot have happened.
Making any assumption whatsoever about what that means for my religious beliefs (aside from not believing in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis) is presumptuous to say the least. (Uh, maybe you'd better look up presumptuous, too, so you know what you've actually been called.)
Ronald L Cote wrote: "The new Creation Museum really seems to have aroused your disdain in that it is a serious challenge to the terribly flawed theory of evolution.
The point is that it hasn't offered ANY challenge. It offers no counter evidence whatsoever, it merely says, "WRONG!" about all things evolution. For example, it doesn't offer any evidence that man lived with dinosaurs or that dinosaurs were on the Ark, it just says they were. No proof, no evidence, just "we say so because of the Bible." There's no challenge, it's just an obnoxious kid whose response to everything is "nuh-uh."
You also said: whose principle basis is speculation and wishful thinking
You don't think a magical spirit in the sky who looks out for you is wishful thinking? Give me a break, if anyone is involved in wishful thinking it's not the evolution camp. If I had a wish it would that there was a God, not that there was evolution. Probably not the the God of the Bible though, because he's petty and mean-spirited, forever condemning every living being on the entire planet-- and universe-- because of the action of two people who did something without thinking.
And despite his "gift" of free will, he continually destroys anyone who doesn't do what he wants-- flood, anyone? Hey God! Adam and Eve screwed up; get over it! Where's that forgiveness and turning the other cheek you keep crowing about? "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't a very good attitude for a major deity to have!
John Leslie,
You should really read up on things a bit. All of your statements and assumptions about evolution are wrong.
1) Look up the word "theory." In regard to science it doesn't mean what you think it does.
2) Any *science* that doesn't agree with evolution is fascinating and completely worthy of study. I know of no scientist, who'd disagree. The trouble is, there's no science that makes evolution a non-starter. ID/Creation has no science to support it. If it did, don't you think the religious scientists, of which there are an awful lot, would be more than happy about it?
3) Many people, but not all, who go against evolution are liars, hucksters, scammers, etc. This is proven by the very simple fact that they still continue after they've been proven wrong. And I mean "proven" even to where they realize it. Those words also describe a great many of the quote-mining ID/Creationists. That's people who take quotes grossly out of context to support their statements.
4) Evolution is the theory best supported by the evidence. No scientist will tell you that other theories are not possible. They will all tell you that pursuits of other possibilities are not automatically "not science." What you're confusing here is that two specific pursuits, ID and Creationism are not science because they don't meet the requirements for testability, falsifiability, prediction, etc.
5) See all of the above. You are wrong.
6) Science is easy to define. One of the things that makes something *not* science is if it relies on magic. Sorry. That's quite simply because the whole concept of science is to figure out how things happen... how they work. So to say "it was magic" is hardly something you can prove or test.
7) Not true. "Stupid" is not the right or fair word here. But the average person generally does not have a real enough understanding of it all. That's not because they are stupid, it's because they've never been taught it. And part of the reason for that is that religious people fight *against* teaching them.
8) See all of the above. There are absolutely other possibilities within science. I just have no idea what they are. And no one has come up with one yet that covers all of the evidence. ALL of the evidence, mind you, not "some." There is, to my knowledge, no evidence yet that evolution doesn't have covered. Feel free to point out something specific if you think I'm wrong.
9) That's just ridiculous and I believe you know it but you just needed 10 things.
10) That's not how people come to be atheists. Not by a longshot. Do you only believe in him because you've seen him? What color is his hair? Science does not rule out the possibility of gods. The fact that evolution happened (and is still happening) does not prove or imply that there are no gods. What it can and does prove is that the story of creation in the Bible is wrong. Now, if your whole faith in God rests entirely on the Bible being 100% true, well, that's your problem, not evolution's.
Cheers.
Fred, I am not equipped to comment on the Creation Museum. I have not attended nor do I plan to do so. I have not made any contribution, either. I do not need the museum to bolster my convictions. Anyone with a searching ,open mind wishing to diligently search for truth can certainly find all the evidentiary documentation necessary. Serious scientific volumes have been written supporting creation. The only requirement is to crack a book and do a sincere search. Ignorance isn't always bliss!! Denial is also a poor tool because it changes nothing. Seek and ye shall find, as I did. You have a magical spirit in the sky called natural selection that turned non life into life. If that is not wishful thinking, then what is?
If your wish is to find God, stop finding excuses. Because He doesn't meet your criteria, is a poor reason to deny His existence. His ways are not our ways and it's too bad that what He does does not meet with your approval. With the clock still ticking on what is left of a lifetime, we are only afforded one such lifetime in which to choose what to believe and how we will spend eternity. It's heavy stuff!!
When your time comes to meet Him, you can tell Him face to face how you disagreed with what He did.
Ronald L. Cote wrote,
Oh, good grief. I'm not sure which is worse, the smug posturing or the wide-eyed presentation of a lie as if we wouldn't know any better. It's adding insult to insult.
Please get this through your head, and tell all your antiscience friends to get it through theirs as well: Abiogenesis IS NOT evolution, and evolution IS NOT abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory, including natural selection, says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how nonlife gives rise to life. NOTHING. AT. ALL. That is a related but ultimately separate question in which research is ongoing; and for the record, there is nothing about evolutionary theory that precludes a god creating life to start with, so you are welcome to hold onto that straw as tightly as you like. Evolution IS NOT concerned with how life STARTS. It is concerned with how life DEVELOPS afterward.
~David D.G.
Ronald:
"If your wish is to find God, stop finding excuses. Because He doesn't meet your criteria, is a poor reason to deny His existence. His ways are not our ways and it's too bad that what He does does not meet with your approval. With the clock still ticking on what is left of a lifetime, we are only afforded one such lifetime in which to choose what to believe and how we will spend eternity. It's heavy stuff!!"
There are lots of compelling reasons to think that the god described in the Bible doesn't exist and was just made up by people. Otherwise, even if people didn't like this god but thought he existed, they would still be blind followers out of their own selfish interests, i.e. wanting to go to heaven instead of hell. Does the god in the Koran "meet your criteria"? How do you evaluate all of the gods that have been described by people throughout the ages? Whose criteria are you going to use?
By the way, if you are honest with yourself, you don't "choose what to believe." People who "choose what to believe" have been coerced through other means, like fear. Don't be afraid to think for yourself.
Ronald wrote: When your time comes to meet Him, you can tell Him face to face how you disagreed with what He did.
Well, you can't meet someone who's fiction, but if I did, he'd be very pleased that I used my brain for something other than mindlessly following a 2000 year old book filled with fairy tales meant to teach children. He'd say, "now that's what I gave you free will and a brain for!"
Now, as for proof of creation, well, I have yet to see anything in any of those books that was convincing to any but the initiated.
Ronald, David and Nick are right. I forgot to mention what David did but just to be sure it sinks into your Bible knowledge repository, here it is again: EVOLUTION IS ABOUT HOW LIFE DEVELOPS. IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY ZERO CLAIMS AS TO HOW LIFE BEGAN.
And to pound in further what Nick said, you have criteria too, or else you might be following any number of other gods. Why do you believe in the god of the Bible but not Zeus? And don't you find it odd that if, as you'll claim, you don't believe in the Bible god merely because you were raised on it, but rather because He reached out to you, then don't you find it odd that he only reaches out to people who were raised in places where they had contact with Christians? No aboriginal tribes believe in or know anything about the Christian god. Wonder why that is? Care to explain?
Ronald Cote said: I am not equipped to comment on the Creation Museum.
That's the first correct statement I've seen you make. Add "...or evolution" and you'll have it complete.
Serious scientific volumes have been written supporting creation.
Bullshit. Serious scientific writing is done in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Cite a few for us that supported creationism.
Now a ton of popular books have been written supporting creation, just like a ton of popular books have been written supporting astrology, psychic detectives, and supply side economics. None of that qualifies as serious science.
Ironic as it may seem, not every YEC (myself included) is enthused with the way AiG does business. I'm not sure the museum and Ken Ham represent the YEC cause well. So, to some extent, I'm not exactly rooting for the museum.
[i.e. By way of comparison, I can gaurantee not every Christian was glad to have Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker on their team. Sheesh!]
And as a side note, it appears you've attended and written about more YEC events than I have. That's kinda scary in and of itself!
regards,
Salvador
hoary puccoon-
Is that the best you can do is to criticize my spelling? (See #7)
Majority does not equal truth.
I must PRESUME that you believe that there was death before sin. Not much of a god. No reason for Jesus. Kind of negates the whole book. Which one have you been reading anyway?
Dear Fred,
At least you addressed the comments in a substantive way. Most other commenters resort to hollow attacks (spelling or other non related issues). Your approach is appreciated.
I am attaching an opinion article submitted by a science teacher. Can you see all of the top ten? It is not my imagination and it is not PRESUMTUOUS.
As a science teacher in Indianapolis Public Schools, I was appalled and dismayed by the article about the Creation Museum that appeared April 23 on page 2 ("Museum that will focus on faith also inspires it").
I have to battle the misinformation that has been pumped into my students' brains all the time. What we don't need is another museum about false science and an article basically singing its praises in a major metropolitan newspaper.
I understand freedom of religion. And I won't deny that creationists have the right to build their museums, as long as they are totally privately funded. But it makes the jobs of those who teach real science that much tougher.
Indiana's science standards demand that evolution be taught. Scientists have already proven that evolution has taken place. Yes, it is a theory. But in scientific terms, that means it is factual, not guesswork. Lay people don't seem to understand that.
The museum teaches apocryphal biblical stories as scientific fact. It is a disservice to the students of Indiana to publish a favorable article about it so prominently in the newspaper.
Jerry Wilson
Indianapolis
Do you agree with this guy? Does he speak for the average evolutionist?
No, actually. Care to point them out?
Jason: Another excellent report, even if it is from an Atheist perspective.
As a youngster, I was taught geology by an ethusiastic geologist, and when I learned that "millions of years ago" the Earth was so different from what it is today, I was fascinated. Northern Ireland has so many geological features that are millions of years old, like the Giant's Causeway, the Mourne moutains, or Scrabo Hill. Much of the countryside has also been shaped by the ice from the last ice age (drumlins, U-Shaped valleys, glacial erattics etc.). Many other features are volcanic in nature. If YECism is correct then Northern Ireland had active volcanoes just a few thousnd years ago ???? Somehow I don't think so !!!
Later on , when I did astronomy, the concept of "millions of years/billions of years" was only reinforced in my psyche. It therefore came as a complete shock to me to discover that there are still people around who believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, global floods etc. My geology teacher would be horrified at the nonsense which is being propagated by AiG and other YEC's.
My first encounter with this vein of thought (YECism) by the way, was when I heard a US preacher called Dwight Pentecost. I was quite shocked when he started talking about the "sons of Ham" and the fact that everyone alive in the world today was decended from the eight people who got off the Ark.
The church will loose this fight, believe me. Of that I am certain. The sad thing is that church leaders are standing by and saying nothing against people like Ken Ham. As a Christian, I have listened to many YEC speakers over recent years. Nothing they have said has so far convinced me either of six day creation or a 6,000 year old Universe.
John Leslie said: Dear Fred,
At least you addressed the comments in a substantive way. Most other commenters resort to hollow attacks...Do you agree with this guy? Does he speak for the average evolutionist?
For starters John, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". That's just a term made up by creationists in an attempt to poison the PR well by implying that acceptance of evolutionary theory is some sort of religion. It isn't.
If you want people to take you seriously as Fred did, stop using huckster jargon, and address the substantive criticisms that you get. Fred's would be a good start. If you want more material, I've corrected your top 10 below. If you disagree, say why, and support your claims with references to the relevant science:
1. Evolution is a scientific theory
2. Creationism is not a scientific theory
3. A person that denies evolution is
A. Lying
B. Ignorant
C. Stupid
D. Deranged
4. Critical comments of scientific theories like evolution are not science.
5. Any person who does nothing but levy criticisms of evolution or any other scientific theory is not a scientist.
6. Science proceeds by falsifiable testing of hypotheses with revisions as suggested by the experimental data.
7. The average person is not versed enough in the science behind evolution to levy substantive criticisms.
8. There is no other scientific theory of the origin of species other than evolution.
9. Compromising science in an era where mankind depends so much on scientific knowledge is a threat to mankind.
10. Evolution says nothing about whether there is or is not a God.
John Leslie,
I'll go through that article and see what might be wrong with it, if anything.
As a science teacher in Indianapolis Public Schools, I was appalled and dismayed by the article
Nothing wrong with this part. It's just an introduction to his letter, of course.
I have to battle the misinformation that has been pumped into my students' brains all the time. What we don't need is another museum about false science and an article basically singing its praises in a major metropolitan newspaper.
I can't imagine you find fault with this. The museum completely misrepresents the work of non-YEC scientists. And since its founder has been informed many times about his false statements about science, that means he's actually lying now, because "I didn't know" is no longer a valid excuse. The museum also cherry-picks science to make it appear that science agrees with what they are saying. This is also wrong. Would Jesus lie and mislead like that?
I understand freedom of religion. And I won't deny that creationists have the right to build their museums, as long as they are totally privately funded. But it makes the jobs of those who teach real science that much tougher.
This is related to my previous comment. Due to the nature of religion, kids aren't going to assume they're being lied to by religious leaders. And the mere use of the word "museum" implies that what's contained inside is correct and true. Yet, as any non-YEC person can tell you, the non-YEC science and concepts are grossly misrepresented. Kids don't know that, of course, so it's bad for their education. Let them choose what they want to believe in, but at least present the various sides honestly. The museum doesn't.
And the funny thing about that museum is that it does something that they'd be screaming and ranting about if regular museums did: It attacks other viewpoints. It goes to great lengths to say scientists are wrong. But when was the last time you went to a regular museum of natural history and saw a display or a movie that literally said "religion is wrong and there's no God?" Normal museums present their information without passing judgment on it.
Indiana's science standards demand that evolution be taught. Scientists have already proven that evolution has taken place. Yes, it is a theory. But in scientific terms, that means it is factual, not guesswork. Lay people don't seem to understand that.
Well, he's right. Especially about the fact that people don't understand the meaning the word "theory." You yourself don't understand it (or maybe you do now). The definition of that word is also, by the way, an example of the dishonesty that evolution naysayers stoop too. It's been pointed out many times but I'll say it again in case you don't know: Gravity is a theory too, as is the fact that the earth is round. I'm sure you'd laugh at someone who said "the earth is flat, and even the scientists admit that it's only a theory that it's round."
As for it having been proven that evolution happened, well it has been proven. And yes, it's even been observed. Has creation been observed?
The museum teaches apocryphal biblical stories as scientific fact. It is a disservice to the students of Indiana to publish a favorable article about it so prominently in the newspaper.
I agree with this. Find me two religious people who completely agree with any thing in the Bible. If it's facts, then why are there so many interpretations of it? (Do you think the Pope and Hamm hold the exact same views?) Why are there different religions?
There is no scientific evidence for the things presented as fact in this museum. Sure there are snippets of facts, but they do not mesh together and support each other. And they present only those tiny portions of proof or research that support their ideas. For example, yes, it's a fact that dinosaurs existed, so the museum is correct in saying that. But there isn't the tiniest shred of even a hint of a possibility that man coexisted with them. And yes, there are, preserved in mountains around the world, evidence that at one point these areas were under water. But there is absolutely no evidence that it was only a few thousand years ago. The museum, as I said above, cherry picks science ("mud at the top of mountains!") instead of presenting the full findings. And they do this to mislead. They *know* they're doing it. Would Jesus do that? Seems to me like they're not setting a very good example of the religion that they claim to be so enamored of.
John Leslie--
Of course I think there was death before sin. I cannot even imagine how a bacterium could sin.
BTW the bible I read has a lot of early history, a lot of early philosophy, and a lot about a man who believed in loving his neighbors and turning the other cheek. I don't see how any of that is invalidated, or could, even in principle, be invalidated by the theory of evolution. Of course, if you think the only use of the bible is to get you into that big, exclusive country club in the sky, then I guess throwing it out the window if it isn't 100 per cent literally true makes a lot of sense.
In Ronald Cotes' missive, change everything relating to "evolution" to the equivalent in "creationism" and his post will be substantially true.
As it stands, though, Cotes is guilty of projection.
-- CV
Ronald Cotes is a death cultist who places all importance on finding the right afterlife, rather than living in this world: what else did you expect him to do?
One more time.
To Science Avenger- I do not understand your moniker. What vengeance do you seek? Against Science? Do wear a mask and have a faithful Indian companion?
Your clever and typical response to my comment was foul language. I assume that your expletive has to do with the Origin of the Species that produced the excrement. To do so just read Darwins book. It has a lot to do with it.
To hoary- we are indebted to you for sharing your mastery of English. You certainly put Fred in his place! There is a verse that has your name on it. Romans 1:22, Professing to be wise, they became as fools.
Talking about Darwin, I wonder how many of you staunch evolutionists have a copy or have ever read it? It certainly is inspirational. The entire title is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Do you know that there is nothing in the book that addresses the origin of species? But he did inspire action. Hitler picked up on the favored races bit and determined which were favored. At the top was the Aryan, with Jews at the bottom. He almost succeeded, single handedly to eliminate the unfavored race of Jews and then he would start on Negroes. Great inspiration, Huh?
To David- If I added insult to insult, thank you. I did not think youd catch it! If evolution does not address how life arose from non life, what does address this mystifying phenomenon? How much more research is needed, millions of years? If evolution is not concerned about how life starts, how can it explain how it develops? My smug posture is probably due to my being a biologist, ex atheist, ex evolutionist and now Christian and Creationist. Ive come full circle and am pleased as punch with my choices. And by the way, there is everything about evolution that excludes deistic involvement. They are antitheses. God does not need evolution, besides if the two were compatible this would mean that my God, Jesus Christ, had to have evolved from apes as well. Duh!
To John Leslie- The article from Jerry Wilson is chilling. Where I got my degree in Biology, we were taught to keep open minds, constantly searching for truth and remaining vigilant for new evidence. Evaluating all available evidence is how decisions and conclusions are derived. Mr Wilson says evolution has already been proven but remains a theory. Scuse me but if its proven, why is it still a theory and not a fact? Further, he doesnt want anything published in the newspaper, as a disservice to kids. That sounds like censorship to me. He seems like a participant in the dumbing down of America. That is frightening!
In trying to keep an open mind, I do have to admit that, after reading all the comments from you evolutionists, that some of humanity has evolved indeed while others were created by God. Since you will agree that evolution is an ongoing process it is apparent that some of you are recent evolutes and, given time, will even adjust to walking erect and thinking clearly.
One more time.
To Science Avenger- I do not understand your moniker. What vengeance do you seek? Against Science? Do wear a mask and have a faithful Indian companion?
Your clever and typical response to my comment was foul language. I assume that your expletive has to do with the Origin of the Species that produced the excrement. To do so just read Darwins book. It has a lot to do with it.
To hoary- we are indebted to you for sharing your mastery of English. You certainly put Fred in his place! There is a verse that has your name on it. Romans 1:22, Professing to be wise, they became as fools.
Talking about Darwin, I wonder how many of you staunch evolutionists have a copy or have ever read it? It certainly is inspirational. The entire title is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Do you know that there is nothing in the book that addresses the origin of species? But he did inspire action. Hitler picked up on the favored races bit and determined which were favored. At the top was the Aryan, with Jews at the bottom. He almost succeeded, single handedly to eliminate the unfavored race of Jews and then he would start on Negroes. Great inspiration, Huh?
To David- If I added insult to insult, thank you. I did not think youd catch it! If evolution does not address how life arose from non life, what does address this mystifying phenomenon? How much more research is needed, millions of years? If evolution is not concerned about how life starts, how can it explain how it develops? My smug posture is probably due to my being a biologist, ex atheist, ex evolutionist and now Christian and Creationist. Ive come full circle and am pleased as punch with my choices. And by the way, there is everything about evolution that excludes deistic involvement. They are antitheses. God does not need evolution, besides if the two were compatible this would mean that my God, Jesus Christ, had to have evolved from apes as well. Duh!
To John Leslie- The article from Jerry Wilson is chilling. Where I got my degree in Biology, we were taught to keep open minds, constantly searching for truth and remaining vigilant for new evidence. Evaluating all available evidence is how decisions and conclusions are derived. Mr Wilson says evolution has already been proven but remains a theory. Scuse me but if its proven, why is it still a theory and not a fact? Further, he doesnt want anything published in the newspaper, as a disservice to kids. That sounds like censorship to me. He seems like a participant in the dumbing down of America. That is frightening!
In trying to keep an open mind, I do have to admit that, after reading all the comments from you evolutionists, that some of humanity has evolved indeed while others were created by God. Since you will agree that evolution is an ongoing process it is apparent that some of you are recent evolutes and, given time, will even adjust to walking erect and thinking clearly.
Ronald Cote, you are a lying idiot if you honestly think that Hitler was inspired by Darwin. If you actually read or heard any of Hitler's speeches, you'd notice that he used "God's race" "God's people" and "God's blood" to refer to the Aryan race. Furthermore, you would have noticed that Antisemitism existed in Germany long before Darwin or even Carolus Linnaeus were even born. A little man by the name of "Martin Luther," helped to nurture this particular attitude: Hitler capitalized on it. In fact, Hitler plagiarized large portions of Luther's "Of the Jews and Their Lies"
Then again, given as how you regard facts as unnecessary and contradictory to "truth," and that you say that it's more important to hurry up and die in order to get into Heaven than it is to actually live in this world, I'm not at all surprised that a death cultist would spout such lies.
This just after Hitler picked up on the idea of "gravity," which came in handy for the Luftwaffe. Ergo, for inspiring such malfeasance, Isaac Newton must now be viewed as a fraud.
Personally, I think Ronald Cote is lying through his teeth when he alleges that he was once an "evolutionist." If he were an "evolutionist," I mean, wouldn't he realize thatthe "favored races" refered to in "On The Origin of Species" were actually races of pigeons, finches, snails, pigs and dogs, or that human evolution was not even alluded to in that book? I mean, what moron would have the dead brain cells to be inspired by fluctuation in finch beak sizes to whip up the German nation with Christian pride in order to annihilate the Jewish people at the behest of God?
I don't think Ronald Cote has even so much as touched a biology textbook, let alone read "On the Origin of Species," especially since he claims that it doesn't account for mechanisms on speciation, nevermind that it discusses natural selection, as well as geographic isolation.
Dear Stanton- it seems that I have pulled your string and you responded in typical evolutionist fashion by calling me names. What is it with you evolutes that you cant participate in debate without insults and name calling. It has just occurred to me that it must be a mutation passed down by natural selection to all of those who have evolved. This is just a theory and maybe it is characteristic of those discomforted by any one who opposes their fanatic embrace of a myth.
At any rate Stanton, everything that I read said that Hitler did take inspiration from Darwin. How are you so cock sure that he did not? Please explain what being guilty of projection means.
You accuse me of being a death cultist where in your active imagination did you get that? Nothing is further from the truth because as a creationist, I marvel at the awesome splendor of His creation and enjoy life immensely.
To itchy- you should scratch your comment about gravity. It makes about as much sense as evolution.
To Fred- Please enlighten the world by citing how evolution has been proven. I cant find two evolutionists that agree either. Have you heard the latest? One of your Phd evolutionists has a new theory that apes evolved from man! That is awesome!! And by the way, you ask why there are different religions, well yours is just another kind. (And yes the Supreme Court has ruled that secular humanism of which evolution is a part is a non- theistic religion). Please also enlighten us on how evolution has been observed. You mean someone has seen something change into something else and not just fruit flies that are still fruit flies and finches that are still finches??
For your edification, Christ was the observer of Creation as He made it happen. He told Adam and Moses what he had done and a record was made called Genesis. But by the magic of denial, you would not accept the word of God but your denial changes nothing and God will not cease to exist because of it.
To Peter- you profess to be a Christian but I wonder what part of the Bible you do ascribe to, or are you writing your own personal version? You should decide what camp you are in and then join em. Right now you seem to be neither fish nor fowl!
To avenger- what wisdom! If you dont want to be called evolutionist, what term would you prefer? You could say the same about the name Creationist as a term used to poison PR. Your 10 points are pure folly and include your infamous name calling ( a mutation common to evolutes), along with the wisdom that anything that criticizes evolution is not science. Wow that is deep, sound logic! Talk about throwing the baby out with the dishwater!
Furthermore you have shattered my notion of being a scientist.You say that by criticizing evolution, one cannot be a scientist. I spent 9 years as a member of the NASA team that produced the backpack used on the Apollo moon walk and on all EVA missions. As a bio-engineer, I was also involved with the R&D of artificial heart and kidney devices. Since by your terms I am not a scientist, if you ever need artificial devices for either ailment, dont accept them because I, now stripped of my profession, might have been involved in their development. I was employed and paid as a scientist. I considered myself a scientist and now, can no longer, and you have ruined my day. Bad Avenger!
P.S. in case you did not know that the moon rocks were analyzed and found to be of different age and mineral composition from earth rocks. That kinda blows the socks off the Big Bang, the foundation of evolution. The Big Bang is now the Sputtering Fizzle. More erosion of your sacred theory!
Here is a freeby from your friendly Creationist blogger.Evolution Does Not Compute
Biology textbooks discuss the arrival of modern man and some of his ancestors. There are different hypotheses of when true man, Homo sapiens, arrived and the range is from 100,000 to 500,000 years ago. Neanderthal man is mentioned as the immediate ancestor to modern man at 500,000 years. Many scientists now believe that Neanderthal man was not a separate species, but actually modern man. The controversy continues, however, and the most recent study, published in 2004 by The National Academy of Sciences, contradicts that Neanderthals were even humans but rather that they were not even a subspecies of humans.
Evolutionists generally believe that modern humans existed about 500,000 years ago but estimates range from 100,000 to 500,000 years.
In July of 1999, it was estimated that the worlds population of humans had reached six billion. The population in year 2004 has been estimated at 6.3 billion.
Demographers have been able to develop mathematical formulas to explain many things. In terms of population, they have taken into account a variety of factors to arrive at an average world annual population growth rate. Factors include average life spans, number of child bearing years, average number of children per couple, mortality rates and other pertinent factors including actual annual population growth experienced over the past centuries. The statistical formula that was developed using all of these factors was .455% as an average annual population rate of growth.
Using this proven and reliable statistic, and based on the claim of man appearing 500,000 years ago and also assuming the existence of only one man and one woman, the world population in 2004 would be the number 2.155 followed by 985 zeros. This is an incomprehensible number and obviously not true. One can conclude from this that man could not have appeared 500,000 years ago.
Under a second scenario, using a conservative assumption that man appeared on earth 100,000 years ago and that the annual growth rate was only .1%, rather than the accepted .455%. Assuming also that there were only two humans, one man and one woman, the population in 2004 would be 5.38 followed by 41 zeroes. This still remains a figure hugely larger than what the world has actually experienced.
Under a third scenario using 25,000 years since modern man appeared, and using an ultra conservative annual growth rate of only .1%, and again basing the figures on only one man and one woman, the total is 1.44 followed by 9 zeroes. This results in a number that is 24 times greater than our actual population and obviously grossly incorrect.
A fourth scenario is to consider the biblical account of Noahs Ark and a worldwide flood occurring 4,500 years ago, with eight survivors. Using the acknowledged accurate figure of .455% as the correct world annual population growth rate, the number computes to 6,300,000,000 as the population in 2004! This is exactly correct!!
What we can conclude from these mathematical exercises is that modern man could not have appeared on planet earth 500,000, 100,000 or even 25,000 years ago and still produce the current population figures of today. In attempting to be extremely conservative by reducing the figures for annual growth rates and number of years for man to have been on earth still does not compute to current population.
The only scenario that corresponds to the worlds actual population is that which relates to eight people, 4,500 years ago using the correct .455% figure!
Ronald Cote whined thusly: Dear Stanton- it seems that I have pulled your string and you responded in typical evolutionist fashion by calling me names. What is it with you evolutes that you can't participate in debate without insults and name calling.
Simple really. When you come on a science-oriented blog and spout a bunch of ignorant pompous nonsense, you get in the way of real discussion. You become a sort of live pinata we bat around rather than having the intelligent discussions we'd like to have. You are like a guy who can't dribble getting into a pickup basketball game. You're like a religious objector who says "If Jesus is the lamb of God, then where is his wool smart guy, huh? Huh?". They get called idiots, and they piss people off. You are them. There is nothing wrong, or ad hominem, about calling someone an idiot if they are an idiot.
You may have done some scientifically-related work in the past, but you haven't a general clue about science and evidence. Half the shit you spout would win you a Nobel prize if you could demonstrate it. So why not get your hands dirty, do some actual work, and get back with us when you've actually demonstrated any of it to be true, instead of just playing rhetorical games and pretending it is?
Ronald Cote, I say that you are a death cultist because you keep saying this:
That you bandy about the idea that it's more important to worry about what's going to happen in the thereafter makes me think that you place very little value on this world and its inhabitants, if any at all.
I remember quite clearly that worrying about the afterlife was your excuse about why facts and evidence were unnecessary to "truth," even though (biological) facts and evidence do nothing but support evolutionary theory.
And I regard you as a lying idiot because you're using the slanderous lie that Darwin inspired Hitler.
Please tell me where in "On The Origins of Species" did it cause Hitler to come up with the idea that killing Jews makes the Aryans all warm and fuzzy inside.
Honestly, what excuse can you pull out of your ass to explain this?
or this?
How on Earth can make you say that crap like this inspired by Darwin?
And another thing, according to the creationist population model, there would have been only 13 people in the world when the Pyramids of Giza were built in 2490 B.C. How do you explain that? According to that model, there would have been around 730 people in the world during 1446 B.C., the same time Moses started leading the 600,000+ people of Israel out of Egypt. Why would the Bible lie like that, then?
Regarding "evolution does not compute"
Ronald Cote;
Please could you provide more detail/references on how the number 0.455% was arrived at.
Unless I have misunderstood, your calculations with this number make the assumption that growth of the human population was linear with respect to time. Why would this be so? Most of the organisms I work with have an inital lag phase and then an exponential growth phase. The length of this lag phase varies depending on the conditions and the organism. I have no idea how the total human population changed with repect to time, but I would assume that it might be similar.
Perhaps this 0.455% represents the region of the human growth curve with exponential growth?
Ernestog, do realize that trivial concerns, like facts and evidence, do not matter at all to Ronald Cote, who is infinitely more concerned with getting into his preferred afterlife that with any worthless trifle that this world provides. In other words, he doesn't care that there are tremendous holes in his preferred explanation: he only uses it because his preacher told him that God told him to use it.
Just what the f..... lipping heck is Ronald L Cote smoking?
Population growth hasn't been a nice exponential curve. There have been quite a few discontinuities. If I had to take a wild stab in the dark, I'd say that the most noticeable ones probably would be (1) the development of settled civilisations as opposed to nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes, with a consequent improvement in birth rate and reduction in mortality rate; and (2) the First Industrial Revolution, with further (eventual) reduction in mortality rates associated with each new technology developed.
So the human population would have increased very, very slowly up until the development of agriculture (because having access to plentiful food gives people the time and the inclination to reproduce, and because farming is a less risky activity than hunting). The annual population growth rate then went up and would have stayed reasonably constant until IR1, when a succession of new developments improved life expectancy.
On the other hand, if you assume that the population has grown at a rate which never changed, then you can pick any point in time as a base and find a figure which suits your assumptions.
And don't forget the massive deaths in Europe caused by the Plague during the 14th century.
This pinata cannot believe how dense are most of your arguments against my comments. On the population issue, you completely miss the point that statistically and physically, it is impossible to arrive at a world population of 6.3 billion based on evolutionists guesses as to when humans arrived on the scene. You would rather question the statistical figures developed by demographers. I am not a demographer and if you dont like the numbers, then invent your own to justify your preconceptions
Funny that no one has yet commented on the moon rocks.
To AJS and ernestog-, I am just paroting what demographers have reported. Dont accuse me of smoking something, in this regard I am only the messenger. Sorry that you dont like the results. Their number is the average statistical world population growth over a long period of time. You can postulate to your hearts desire so take your case to the demographers.
To Stanton_ you have allowed your imagination to run amok. Your needle is stuck on my death cult and if you dont want to believe that Hitler was inspired by Darwinian thought then fine, I could care less. And you maximize your use of denial, denying that I was an evolutionist, yes I really was, and you can deny that I am a biologist, that I worked for NASA and that I did R&D on biomedical devices but that does not change reality. Thanks for clarifying that Darwin restricted favored races to pigeons. That is dumb. I think you are confused with racing pigeons.
To Avenger- you dont cease to amaze with your incessant name calling and now you have added a new dimension, blasphemy! That is a new one on me. I guess nothing is sacred in defense of your terribly flawed beliefs and since I am getting under your skin, you are letting all the stops out. Smart move! I dont think you are capable of an intelligent discussion as name calling and insults seem to be the only game you know. Why should more be expected from someone who recently evolved from the apes?
This is free- Niagara Falls has been eroding at the rate of 4.7 feet per year. Why after these billions of years hasnt it eroded all the way back to Lake Erie?
This is most probably my last blog with you. I have enjoyed being your pinata and source for venting the pent up rage exhibited universally by evolutes, like yourselves. If you choose to remain atheists, then thank God and if choosing evolution, then do so while it is still in vogue because 60% of Americans still arent buying it as it continues to erode into oblivion. Dr.Soren Lovtrup put it this way I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. So welcome aboard and keep on evoluting!
Believe it or not - more time makes it easier to reach a given population size, not 'impossible'. Amazing, isn't it?
A biologist who doesn't know that populations don't increase exponentially all the time? Did you drop out of population biology after the first week?
Awww, it's so cute when someone thinks this is an insult!
To Stanton_ you have allowed your imagination to run amok. Your needle is stuck on my death cult and if you dont want to believe that Hitler was inspired by Darwinian thought then fine, I could care less. And you maximize your use of denial, denying that I was an evolutionist, yes I really was, and you can deny that I am a biologist, that I worked for NASA and that I did R&D on biomedical devices but that does not change reality. Thanks for clarifying that Darwin restricted favored races to pigeons. That is dumb. I think you are confused with racing pigeons.
So long as you continue to whore your spirituality as the penultimate refutation of evolution and continue spouting things such as With the clock still ticking on what is left of a lifetime, we are only afforded one such lifetime in which to choose what to believe and how we will spend eternity. It's heavy stuff!!, I am still going to insist that you're confusing a death cult with having a relationship with God.
Among other things, none of Hitler's speeches or memoirs ever suggest he even so much as picked "On the Origins of Species." Furthermore, you never did say which passage Hitler found in that book that it says that "evolution means that murdering Jews makes God happy." Given as how you think that that this book was what inspired the Holocaust, rather than, say, Martin Luther's "Of the Jews and Their Lies," I bet you've never so much as even touched that book, either.
Let me ask you a question: when you were still allegedly an evolutionist, which school did you go to had an evolutionary biology curriculum that taught biology courses on how to be Antisemites and or Nazis? Iran? Saudi Arabia? You allege that Hitler became a monster from learning about evolution, and yet, none of the people here in this blog who actually know about evolutionary biology have sought to unify Germany with Austria and eradicate the Jewish race. Why is that? You allege that you were once an evolutionist, but, you never allege that you were also a racist bigot, let alone an Antisemite. Why is that?
...
And I really doubt that this will be your last post here: you've made that lie before.
My guess is that he never showed up for the first day, if at all.
And another question for Ronald Cote:
Why was it that even though Hitler was inspired by Darwin, the Nazi Party saw fit to require that all books on "Darwinism" be banned from all libraries in Nazi Germany?
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guide…
Ronald Cote reveaqled: Why should more be expected from someone who recently evolved from the apes?
It never ceases to amaze me that these cretins say this as if it could possibly be true of us and not them as well. It reveals how ignorant they truly are. Arrogant is too kind a term.
Impressive! Let's count off the errors:
1) nothing in modern science requires the moon and the Earth to be of the same age
2) nothing in modern science requires the moon and the Earth to be of identical composition
3) the Big Bang has almost nothing to say on the relative age of celestial bodies
4) the Big Bang is not in any way the foundation of evolution
That makes an error to sentence ratio of 2. Almost giving Hovind a run for his money.
Because Niagara Falls isn't billions of years old.
Personally, I much prefer the way Eberhard Dennert put it:
"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past."
Of course, the 'new century' in question was the 20th. Creationists have been predicting the imminent demise of evolution since...well, since Origin was first published. Which makes that prediction just as good as all their others, really.
Ronald L Cote wrote: (emphasis mine)
Please elaborate. To which of the four commonly-accepted "averages" are you referring? The median (line all values up in ascending order and take the one nearest the middle of the list), the mode (most frequently-occurring value), the arithmetical mean (the sum of all values, divided by number of values) or the geometrical mean (the nth root of the product of all values)?
For any given sample set, the median, mode, amean and gmean will be different -- sometimes wildly so. Which is the "most representative" measure is dependent upon the nature of the data set; including whether it is open, blind or closed, and whether it represents a sequence or is random.So which average is it? We need to know, in order that we can determine whether the maths behind it is sound.
MartinM-- Thanks for the interesting quotation from Eberhard Dennert. As a matter of fact, evolutionary theory was in trouble at the dawn of the 20th century. The two big problems were 1) No known energy source could have kept the sun burning for more than a few hundred thousand years; and 2) Small, favorable variations should have been drowned out in later generations. These were huge problems for Darwinian theory-- except that 1) The discovery of atomic energy led to the realization that the sun had enough fuel to burn for billions of years, and 2) The re-discovery of Mendelian genetics showed that new, favorable variations could continue unchanged through many generations.
The unexpected congruence of evolutionary theory with totally unexpected, out-of-the-blue discoveries in completely different fields (plate tectonics is another example) is, to me, the most fascinating topic in the history of science. No wonder scientists get impatient with the gnat-buzzing "disproofs" of people like RL Cotes. It's like putting Roger Clemens up against a Little Leaguer, but then demanding that he give the batter, not 3 strikes, but 30,000.
Technically speaking, Lord Kelvin estimated that the sun had been burning only for a few million years, not a few hundred thousand.
Oh Stanton, I hate to admit that you were right in my comments being my last. I am drawn to you evolutes like a good mutation is drawn to a new evolving species. It would not have been fair to leave you unanswered. Your needle is easily stuck again on Hitler and Darwin. Get over it. I can also oblige you by stating that, as a Christian, I am neither racist nor Antisemite. My Lord and Savior, you know, was a Jew. Also Stanton and AJS, where did you get the term population biology because biology is the study of bios, i.e. life. It has nothing to do with population studies. That is the discipline called demography.
Martin, you have just originated a new concept and have distanced evolutes from the cosmos foundation called the Big Bang. This is akin to my claiming that Genesis is not the foundation of the Christian Bible. How can you just invent new rules? This attests to the dynamic nature of evolutes who can change things to suit the moment. Refuting the Big Bang is evidence of further erosion of evolution. Now you have, in a fell swoop, thrown the origination of the evolutionary cosmos out with the primordial soup. Your statement must have evolutes heads spinning. Please also clarify the age of Niagara Falls. When did it evolve? You must have some idea as to its age in order to validate your remark that it isnt billions of years old. The amazing power of spin and denial!
Martin you also quote Dennert. You and hoary fail to understand that when he used the term soon, he meant and used it in evolutionary terms, which is an indeterminate length of time subject to interpretation to suit current need. Maybe you can measure it using radiometric dating.
Windy, you need to understand that biology does not involve demographics so dont keep asking me to defend the stats. I only reported what demographers have deduced. Again, read this carefully, demography is not a part of biology. Comprende?? Also, I am sorry that you did not take my comment as the insult it was intended to be.
Here are some more of my friendly freebies to challenge the misinformed:
Chemistry- A series of tests were made to determine mans closest relationships using chemical analysis of various body fluids. Mans closest relationship in blood chemistry was the chimpanzee, in milk-the jackass, in cholesterol-the garter snake, in tear enzyme-the chicken, and in blood antigen A-the butterbean. You figure!
Moon-The moon is getting further from earth at a rate of 2 inches a year. It stands to reason that the moon used to be closer. Over millions of years, the moon would have caused tides so high that all life would have drowned, twice a day!!
The eye- Darwin said To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
DNA- Evolutionists have said that a chimps DNA is 96% similar to a human. Humans have 3 billion base pairs of DNA information in each cell. A 4% difference is equal to a
120,000,000 base pair difference from a chimp.
Grand Canyon- Evolutionists claim that the Colorado River formed the Grand Canyon over millions of years. The Colorado River enters the canyon at an elevation of 2800 feet. The rim of the canyon is at an elevation of 6000 feet To do so, the river would have had to run uphill. But nothing is impossible with evolutes!!
So, evolutes, keep on evoluting!
No, I haven't. You simply never understood the concept in the first place.
Geological features don't evolve. The falls were formed approximately 10,000 years ago, IIRC.
You seem to be entirely missing the larger point here. Geological features are not required to be the same age as the Earth. Why would they be? You're basically arguing that because I have a scar five years old, I can't possibly be 25.
Actually, he specified "a few decades hence." Making stuff up doesn't help your case.
Your evidence for this claim?
What's that even supposed to mean? Cholesterol doesn't vary from one animal to another; it's the same molecule in all.
Utterly false. Human and chicken lysozyme differ in 51 places. Human and chimp lysozyme are identical.
Ronald Cote, would you prefer that I refer to you as a slandering liar instead of a death-cultist? Or, perhaps a blasphemer? After all, you promised never to return to this blog, and yet, here you are, and you never even pointed out to us where in "The Origin of Species" Darwin wrote about the promotion of Antisemitism. And that you're apparently reveling in the fact that you know less than kindergarteners about basic geology is just disgusting.
Furthermore, do realize that there is such a subject called "population biology"
It's the study of populations of living organisms, and is very distinct from demography, which is the study of human population.
On the other hand, you were taught that, in order to have a relationship with God, you've been forbidden to read anything that might actually enrich your knowledge, given as how knowledge carries with it that slight chance that you'll wind up in the wrong afterlife.
And yet, it's okay for you to slander and lie about the dead, because you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, apparently, and that entitles you to whore your spirituality and speak like a blasphemous idiot.
Since I haven't shot fish in a barrel in a while...
Ronald Cote dissembled thusly: Martin, you have just originated a new concept and have distanced evolutes from the cosmos foundation called the "Big Bang".
Uh, Ronald, if you knew your shoe polish from your feces, you'd know that the big bang and abiogenesis were about 10 BILLION years apart. That's 10,000,000,000. They were very distant long before Martin opined on the issue.
This is akin to my claiming that Genesis is not the foundation of the Christian Bible.
It's more like claiming that if Columbus didn't discover the new world for Europe, then the American revolution couldn't have occurred, except it's bigger by a factor of 20 million.
How can you just invent new rules? This attests to the dynamic nature of evolutes who can change things to suit the moment.
Uh, no, it attests to your collosal ignorance of a subject about which you presume to lecture others. Normally that is considered very rude.
Refuting the "Big Bang" is evidence of further erosion of evolution.
But no one refuted the big bang. It's simply a different subject than evolution. This is very basic stuff. Oh, and you don't have to put scare quotes around Big Bang. It's really the Big Bang.
Now you have, in a fell swoop, thrown the origination of the evolutionary cosmos out with the primordial soup.
The cosmos is not alive, and therefore does not evolve as living things do.
Your statement must have evolutes heads spinning. Please also clarify the age of Niagara Falls. When did it evolve?
Rocks and water don't evolve either. And you expect us to believe you are/were a groundbreaking scientists? Go back to evolution 101 class boy, and come back to us when you actually know enough to ask a serious question instead of embarrasing yourself.
This Ronald L Cote character would be a laugh, if it wasn't for the risk that someone might take him seriously.
First he talks about "average" population growth without stating which average he means. Anyone whose maths qualifications don't stretch beyond O-level might not know that there are several different measures of "average", and which one is the most appropriate depends upon the circumstances. This smacks of an Appeal to Ignorance.
Then he tries to accuse me of mentioning "population biology". That wasn't me, I'm afraid.
Then he says "A series of tests were made to determine man�s closest relationships using chemical analysis of various body fluids. Man�s closest relationship in blood chemistry was the chimpanzee, in milk-the jackass, in cholesterol-the garter snake, in tear enzyme-the chicken, and in blood antigen A-the butterbean." WTF? Cholesterol is just cholesterol. It has the same chemical formula, whatever organism it's found in. And last time I checked, butterbeans didn't have blood antigens. Please give a citation that we can look up. The errors so far are sufficient to give me cause to doubt the remainder of your assertion.
Then he says "The moon is getting further from earth at a rate of 2 inches a year" and "The Colorado River enters the canyon at an elevation of 2800 feet. The rim of the canyon is at an elevation of 6000 feet To do so, the river would have had to run uphill." Any real scientist would have used real measuring units.
The guy is a troll, pure and simple. And there is a real danger that someone without a decent education in mathematics and science might believe him.
RE: That butterbean claim.
I found a page from the National Center for Science Education that addresses all of those "relationship" claims, including the one about the butterbean.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8661_issue_07_volume_3_number…
Scroll down to page 14.
Thanks, LCR. That excellent source not only disintegrates the laughably outlandish assertions that Ronald L. Cote is spewing, but reads as if he might (perversely) have mined it specifically for the very claims it debunks! I have bookmarked it for future reference.
~David D.G.
Oh boy that butterbean blood antigen one was a real crackup. Thanks Cotie!