Kent Ham's US$27 million insult to science
-
There are a growing number of Christian evangelicals that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
They believe, for example, that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that the fossil record can be explained by a global flood. They also believe that Noah actually did manage to get all the living animals on Earth into the Ark and all modern animals are descendants of those animals.
Creationism flies in the face of science. Whereas science bases conclusions on observation and evidence, creationists take their conclusions from the Bible and interpret evidence to support their claims.
Last month, the Creation Museum opened as the US$27 testimonal to Creationist's claims.
Ars Technica, took a tour of the Creation Museum. -
The thing is that we cannot arrest them for spreading beliefs of creationist . that will not happen.
so as long as they have free time, and with lots of money, they can print many books and build things.
So hopefully, people can understand the value of science in the messy information world. -
Oh... I do not advocate arresting them at all. Perhaps the post sounded harsher than I meant it to sound.Originally posted by january:The thing is that we cannot arrest them for spreading beliefs of creationist . that will not happen.
so as long as they have free time, and with lots of money, they can print many books and build things.
So hopefully, people can understand the value of science in the messy information world.
I actually find the idea of this museum funny.
I do think scientific literacy is decreasing (maybe not in Singapore but in the US), and their idea of presenting "balanced views" does not take into account that not all theories are, or should be considered equal.
What we have to continue doing is to educate people, and to raise awareness when this kind of things occur. -
Should Science advertise The da Vinci Code in return?
-
From what I understand, the Da Vinci code is not very good science either. It's entertainment though Dan Brown advertises his book claming that the concepts presented are based on evidence.Originally posted by ceecookie:Should Science advertise The da Vinci Code in return?
There is actually very little evidence for a historical Jesus. -
Yeah, but there are quite a number of historical sources that point to his existence. Maybe you don't believe he is the Messiah, but there exists enough proof that Jesus did live.Originally posted by Phaze:There is actually very little evidence for a historical Jesus. -
There is an equal number of atheists who try actively to convince religious people to drop their faith. Should they not be arrested too? We should not persecute others just because they think differently.Originally posted by january:The thing is that we cannot arrest them for spreading beliefs of creationist . that will not happen.
so as long as they have free time, and with lots of money, they can print many books and build things.
So hopefully, people can understand the value of science in the messy information world.
Trying to force your views on someone is a deplorable act. After all, religion and belief is purely one's choice. I have no beef with you guys being atheists; in fact, I find you guys more capable of discussing religion (or lack thereof) than most religious people.
As always, science is of great, if not utmost, value. I appreciate Science for having given me so much like my cellphone, my computer, my Dad's car, my house, my electrical appliances, the list is endless. It's just that some people choose to believe that there is a cosmic purpose in their existence. -
Oops. Double post.
-
I would debate you on this point.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Yeah, but there are quite a number of historical sources that point to his existence. Maybe you don't believe he is the Messiah, but there exists enough proof that Jesus did live.
This is a pretty deep topic that we could actually spend a lot of time covering.
Josh McDowell is a famous Christian apologist who has written a number of popular books including one called "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" where he argues there is evidence for Christianity.
In Chapter 5, "Jesus - A Man of History", he presents what he claims is evidence for a historical Jesus.
There have been many rebuttals to his article by historians that have been posted on the internet. I won't go into those right now but they should be pretty easy to find. I do agree though that on the historical debate, due to the uncertainty of historical research, there is no general consensus on whether a historical Jesus existed unlike say in the field of biology where an overwhelming number of biologists accept the fact of evolution.
There is also another argument I heard that goes something like "there is as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Caesar." I'll try to give a quick example of the argument. It goes something like this:
If we apply the same standard of historical evidence to Jesus and Caesar, we cannot be sure that Caesar existed as well though we accept that Caesar existed as a fact. Also, we assume that certain events happened like "Caesar crossed the Rubicon" when there is no historical account that actually described it.
This argument has also been addressed to show how there is a lot more evidence for Caesar than there is for a historical Jesus.
As always, I ask you not to take what I say on faith, but to examine the evidence yourself. -
While I agree with your sentiment in principle, I fear that things are not so simple. I know from your other posts that you already agree with me on this but I'll elaborate for the sake of discussion.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:There is an equal number of atheists who try actively to convince religious people to drop their faith. Should they not be arrested too? We should not persecute others just because they think differently.
Trying to force your views on someone is a deplorable act. After all, religion and belief is purely one's choice. I have no beef with you guys being atheists; in fact, I find you guys more capable of discussing religion (or lack thereof) than most religious people.
As always, science is of great, if not utmost, value. I appreciate Science for having given me so much like my cellphone, my computer, my Dad's car, my house, my electrical appliances, the list is endless. It's just that some people choose to believe that there is a cosmic purpose in their existence.
Each individual does not live in isolation, but as part of a larger group and universe that we interact with. This necessitates that we have some shared beliefs. And of course, the fundamental standard of any shared believe would be the truth. Atheists/materialists/naturalists believe that the way to discover the truth is through science and reason. Religious people believe that the truth can be revealed through supernatural means.
In most cases, we don't really care what other people believe unless it affects us. Unfortunately, most beliefs affect how one behaves, in which turn affects others.
For example, I may believe I am God and you were born to serve me. You wouldn't care if I believed that unless I actually expected you to serve me. In which case you would probably show me the middle finger and ask me to F off.
The advantage of using science and evidence as the standard of determining truth is that everyone can agree on it. Obviously, science is not always right - we sometimes misinterpret evidence - but it's the best we can do. We all see and observe the same things. For religious interpretation, anything goes.
You said that some just believe there's a cosmic purpose in their existence. If religious people left it at that, I wouldn't have a problem. However, religious people believe in things like the Great Commission that makes it a religious obligation for them to force their beliefs on others. Let's not even get into Islam.
Religion is also so fundamental to belief systems that many times, people don't even realize that their belief is religious in nature. For example, the issue of pornography and prostitution. Why is pornography illegal? Why is prostitution frowned upon. Personally, I think if a guy wants sex, it is more moral for him to go to a prostitute than to lie to a girl to get sex. What is the basis for monogamy too? Why is sex outside of marriage frowned upon. We could go on to many other issues. Abortion. Euthanasia. Stem-cell research. Drugs. Blasphemy. Apostasy. The list goes on.
I've said this many times but I totally disagree with the characterization that I try to convert people to atheism. Atheism is not a belief system. What I advocate is people should belief things for a reason and that reason should be science and evidence as that is the ONLY basis of common understanding. -
To illustrate how science and reason is a basis of common understanding.
I am Chinese, I can look to a Malay person and say, "My God says that Chinese are superior to Malays."
A Malay person can look at a Chinese person and say, "My God says that Malays are better than Chinese."
There is no basis of common understanding here except to agree to disagree. That makes a mockery of both beliefs. There is no point saying you are superior if you can't do anything about it.
But science looks at the evidence and tells us: Biologically, there is no such thing as race. Racial characteristics are a continuum of phenotypes where there is no clear cut distinction. There is no absolute physical standard you can point to and say "you are chinese" and "you are malay". Therefore, you are both equally human. -
Thanks for the compliment.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:in fact, I find you guys more capable of discussing religion (or lack thereof) than most religious people.
I make arguments not because I want to convert anyone (and I mostly think it's pointless to) but because I feel strongly that we should all do our best to understand ourselves.
I subscribe to the view that if you cannot explain what you believe, you don't understand what you believe.
Debating allows me to expose my views to testing and allows me to either modify, change, or strengthen my views. -
ok.. i should not phrase it in that way ..
i mean to say..
from ts first post, i explaining to him that his title is like expressing his surprise at it but it is not surprising that there are creationist museum.