The Creation Museum

[Stealth]

^You can't really prove it's fact, I mean...you can hypothesize about the fact that it could be true, but the only way we "know" it is because we have convinced ourselves that it's a reliable source of factual information....Humans just catagorize things to understand them better, but it doesn't make it fact....

Not saying I don't rely or believe in science, just playing devil's advocate here....

Evolution itself has been documented within the past few decades. Its a real thing that we have actually seen happen. Take out any "evolution theories" and "carbon dating" and you still have solid undeniable proof that evolution exists.

Birds on an island used to eat plentiful food. Then there was a drought. There was a nut on the island that could be eaten during the drought, but only birds with beaks long enough to get to the nut could eat it. All the short beaked birds died. Now the only species of that bird left on the island has long beaks. That's just one example of how evolution works.

The fact that have documented evolution through fossil records means that they verified a theory. The fact that they documented dinosaur remains millions of years before the first human remains means that they have verified a theory.

Please tell me, how anybody can or will verify the theory of creationism?



I'm all for people playing devil's advocate, and I sure did get defensive when 2-0-Sixx told me Jesus never existed, but this is one clear cut case where if you deny the validity of evolution, you are denying the facts based on a preconceived religious bias.



(I majored in psychology, and evolution was HEAVILY taught at my school. If there's one solid undeniable thing that I take out of my college education, it is my belief in evolution.)

 

[JLMACN]

^You can't really prove it's fact, I mean...you can hypothesize about the fact that it could be true, but the only way we "know" it is because we have convinced ourselves that it's a reliable source of factual information....Humans just catagorize things to understand them better, but it doesn't make it fact....

I understand this..

My problem is...how can one simple say "the bible is fact" (period) ?
With all the resource for information that we have in the world today and yes some are "fact", how can we even begin to think that Noah took 2 of each animal on a Ark? Adam and eve lived with dinosaurs? Adam and Even were the "first" people?

I mean lets be real......some of the stories in the bible make absolutely no sense if you have "common sense".

5000

 

[JLMACN]

Birds on an island used to eat plentiful food. Then there was a drought. There was a nut on the island that could be eaten during the drought, but only birds with beaks long enough to get to the nut could eat it. All the short beaked birds died. Now the only species of that bird left on the island has long beaks. That's just one example of how evolution works.
The fact that have documented evolution through fossil records means that they verified a theory. The fact that they documented dinosaur remains millions of years before the first human remains means that they have verified a theory.

this just reminded me of something I was thining about yesterday..

I think most of us agree that there was a "global disaster" that killed off the Dinosaurs. How many of other species do you think it killed off in that process? little and big? that we may never ...ever...know about?

I was thinking of like...a Big swimming fish? or something along those lines....that prolly just got burried in the ocean.....

5000

 

[I AM]

I never said the Bible is fact, I think it's metaphor, I just haven't read all of it yet.

And Stealth, I agree with you. I didn't say I thought it wasn't there. All I'm saying is that science cannot really be proved to be reliable because you have to first believe what they are telling you, just like everything else. We just happen to think it's fact because of the evolution (like that ) of human beings and our minds.

I believe in evolution. I'm not saying science is a crock, I'm just saying, it was created by humans. It's not perfect. It's not all fact. But there is obviously some truth to it. But honestly, you cannot say that science has no flaws and is 100% true all the time and that carbon dating is not flawed...We don't know. We just have FAITH in science now versus what it use to be. But you did put it best, it's ALL theory. So technically it's ALL speculation, and then it's up to humans to decide whether it's truth or not. All I'm saying is, there is shit that we can't see, that science can't explain, or just hasn't yet. Maybe some day, they'll figure it out, but until then, I'm going to keep a nice balance of ideas in my head.

 

[JLMACN]

interesting perspective...


5000

 

[Stealth]

Sixxness - I cant argue that facts must be taken with a grain of salt because they can not be proven, but you have to admit that there are some facts that must be taken. Gravity exists. We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Etc. Most science is based upon these premises.

The reason that people find science reliable (despite whether it is or not) is because science is based on TESTABLE theories. You have a background, a well informed hypothesis, and then you can create a theory that is validated through testing.

The problem with religion is that it is not based on factual things such as "gravity exists" but instead is based on a book written by men that was most likely written to control men. None of theories are testable. Case in point: the man who said "if God exists he will save me" and threw himself into a lion pit and was devoured.

The man proved two things:

1. Science - Gravity existed. When he jumped off the edge of the pit, he tested the theory that gravity would pull him down into the pit.

2. Religion - God was not there. When he jumped off the edge of the pit, he tested the theory that God existed and would save him.



The fact that you cannot test religion does not make it incorrect. But it makes it much harder to say it is correct. I will agree with most religion if it cannot be disproven.

However, in a debate such as creationism v evolution, there can only be one right answer. And when the basic premises of science, which created verifiable theories, are able to point to things such as evolution, and then are supported by evolution and adaptation taking place in today's real world, it is very hard to accept creationism as fact.


I agree that science does not answer every question. You're making good points as the devils advocate. Also, I'm sure that there is something that we are overlooking. Hell, there might be something out there besides solids, liquids, gases, and plasmas that make us completely rethink what's going on. But as far as the science that is out right now, it is the most complete, unbiased form of truth available.

Also, science understands that it is fallible by differentiating between theories and laws. There's a reason they call it the Evolutionary Theory and the Law of Gravity.

However, in religion, they would have the gull to call it the Law of Creationism. That's what bothers me.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

All I'm saying is that science cannot really be proved to be reliable because you have to first believe what they are telling you, just like everything else.

No, it is reliable because the data/theories can be verified by anyone that chooses to do so. Like if we're talking about gravity you can conduct your own experirements and verify that every time you let go of any object it falls to the ground, it will never fall up.

But honestly, you cannot say that science has no flaws and is 100% true all the time and that carbon dating is not flawed...We don't know. We just have FAITH in science now versus what it use to be.

No, there is no such thing as faith in science. Faith cannot give us knowledge. Science is simply the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.* Certain people might have "faith" in certain theories that are incorrect or unproven, but this lies on man and not science. Science cannot be flawed, only human error.

*Source

But you did put it best, it's ALL theory. So technically it's ALL speculation

Nope. There is a HUGE difference between a theory (i.e creationism) and Scientific Theory (i.e evolution). A Scientific Theory originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). A theory is not. Evolution has withstood the test of time and not one scientific test or experiment has contradicted this scientific theory. Unfortunately for creationists there is no science involved in their "theory" and cannot be tested.

 

[Stealth]

^ Our replies were so similar it scares me.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

haha, shit. We should just combine them as one post.

 

[HERESY]

^NEVA SEEN THAT HERESY. CAN YOU LINK ME TO SOME INFO ON THAT?

SIXXNESS,
READ NUMBERS 14:34 AND EZEKIEL 4:6. IT SPEAKS OF A "DAY FOR A YEAR"

I have three things to say:

1. Your answer to my question about dinosaurs living with Adam and Eve makes no sense.

2. The verses you posted in references to a day for a year have nothing to do with God.

3. It's going to take some time for me to dig the links up but I'll post them.

 

[enserio]

Dino Depictions on Ancient Pottery:

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Aside from the Triceratops pottery, this one is not as convincing.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm

Of course, this info is seen as "evidence" that man and dinosaurs coexisted, and those that believe in Creationism use this accordingly. Some of it is speculative, as the figures look like dragons, wicked birds, or depictions of mythological beasts (which we know was extremely common in ancient civilizations). However, some of the pictures are extremely on point with Brontosaurus and that Triceratops, which makes you wonder, how the fuck did they know about these creatures???

 

[HERESY]

^^^ Those are some sick links Soberious. I need to find the ones I'm talking about because they show people hunting the dinosaurs (the have spears and weapons) and you can tell without a doubt that it is a dinosaur (like the Tri-tops image.)

Also, another thing that is tripped out. Why is it that EVERY race/culture on the globe has a "dragon"?

 

[ColdBlooded]

so because people have myths that proves their co-existence with such creatures?

so we are to believe that man co-existed with centaurs and griffins at the same time as he did with dinosaurs?

 

[HERESY]

so because people have myths that proves their co-existence with such creatures?

No, and no one implied this. I simply asked why every culture/race has a dragon. Please, look into what is being said instead of trying to take a rope and make yourself to be a cowboy. Cold blooded you are, but not that coldblooded. :dead:

so we are to believe that man co-existed with centaurs and griffins at the same time as dinosaurs?

Centaurs and griffins do not appear in all cultures/races. For the most part "dragons" do.

 

[HERESY]

http://www.oracle-today.ru/images/user_images/ForME/arxivy_orakula_2004/02/Ica_Stone55.jpg

 

[MEXCOM]

^^^ You ever see the old pottery with dinosaurs and humans painted on it? They find a lot of stuff like that all over the world, and a lot of it comes from mexico.

I actually linked people to a lot of shit like that in the OPEN UP YOUR EYES thread that COCALEAFS made. Trippy shit. I think some of my sources may have also been this museum but the claims seem to check out even on non-creationist sites.

EDIT:

Read this. Uber interesting.

Egyptian Plane
http://paranormal.about.com/library/.../aa032000a.htm

Incan Dinosaurs
http://paranormal.about.com/cs/ancie...a/aa041904.htm

Julesrod Collection
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm <--Fundy Xtian Site

http://www.s8int.com/dinolit25.html

Weird shit in general.
http://paranormal.about.com/library/.../aa011402a.htm

 

[enserio]

Here's an interesting perspective that I was thinking about. What if these depictions are merely ancient peoples interpretations of fossils? Say they came across some fossils, had the sense to puzzle them together, and imagined what this beast could have looked like?

Edit: CB and I made this post and the one below at the same time.

 

[ColdBlooded]

No, and no one implied this. I simply asked why every culture/race has a dragon.

it was implied.

and stop asking stupid questions. agrarian people(the same people who are usually the first (or at least take it to higher levels) to develop arts and written languages) dig in soil. in soil you find fossils of dead creatures. dead creatures like dinosaurs = what you call dragons. dragons get recorded in their mythology as a way to explain the existence of the bones of dinosaurs.

Centaurs and griffins do not appear in all cultures/races. For the most part "dragons" do.

for the most part they do cowboy
i.e.
native american deer-woman/bear-woman
griffins(or griffin like) depicted throughout central, east & south asia, north africa, Mediterranean europe, norse myth


maybe hundreds of years from now people will think we lived side by side with big foot, the bat boy, and nessy because they were depicted in our media

 

[SaladEbowlM]

^^DONT FORGET THE CHUPACABRAS...

 

[HERESY]

it was implied.

No, it was not implied. You are too DUMB to read it for face value. If a person says, "Also, another thing that is tripped out. Why is it that EVERY race/culture on the globe has a "dragon"? How is that implying that they exist? I am saying it is tripped out/strange that it occurs, but in no way, shape form, or fashion am I implying the people co-existed with them,. Why? Because it could simply be legend, OR it could be that all of mankind existed together at one time and because of population growth, migration, etc people had different variations of the myth.

Again, stop reading into things too much and making it seem like people are implying things they are not. :dead:

and stop asking stupid questions

When has a stupid question been asked? What YOU need to do is stop jumping to stupid conclusions.

On a side note:

MAKE ME STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS. OH YOU CAN'T? THATS WHAT THE FUCK I THOUGHT.

agrarian people(the same people who are usually the first (or at least take it to higher levels) to develop arts and written languages) dig in soil. in soil you find fossils of dead creatures. dead creatures like dinosaurs = what you call dragons. dragons get recorded in their mythology as a way to explain the existence of the bones of dinosaurs.

Ninja boy, where is the evidence that ancient man dug up complete dinosaur skeletons? What tools did they use to do this? If they did not find complete skeletons how would they know which bones fit with which? Also, what would be the purpose of creating pottery with BOTH man AND dinosaur dipicted?

Also, in a past thread I said that what people consider dragons, could have been dinosaurs, so you aren't adding anything new to this.

for the most part they do cowboy
i.e.
native american deer-woman/bear-woman

How are these CENTAURS?!?! LMAO!!! CENTAURS = UPPER BODY OF A HUMAN AND THE LOWER BODY OF HORSE! Deer-woman/bear-woman = NOT a CENTAUR. Something else? Sure; whatever word those people have for it, but it is NOT a centaur. :dead:

http://www.mythicalrealm.com/creatures/centaurs.html

griffins(or griffin like) depicted throughout central, east & south asia, north africa, Mediterranean europe, norse myth

As far as griffins are concerned, again, they do NOT appear in all races/cultures nor are they as widespread as dragons. Do, various cultures have them? Sure, but to the extent of dragons? No.

maybe hundreds of years from now people will think we lived side by side with big foot, the bat boy, and nessy because they were depicted in our media

Possibly, but they were depicted in our media for a reason, yet no evidence of them exist (btw a lot of races/cultures do have a bigfoot type being), but what would be the motivation behind ancient man carving pics with animals they had never seen before?