Salon rave for new Creation Museum: “Out of this world”

posted at 10:28 pm on May 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

The faithful will enjoy the detail in which the exhibits are rendered, the skeptics will enjoy the snark with which the piece is peppered. Fun for the whole Hot Air family. Takeaways:

An oversize cobra-like snake makes an appearance, and before you know it, Eve is holding grape-size, blood-colored fruits in her outstretched hand, offering knowledge of good and evil to a flummoxed-looking Adam. “We’re not sure what kind of fruit it was, but we do know it wasn’t an apple,” says Looy, perhaps to demonstrate the kind of questions the several Ph.D. researchers at the museum are now toiling over in the labs behind the walls of the exhibition space.

Also, this, from the “Confusion” room:

A montage slide show of fetuses, starving kids, swastikas, tourniquet-bound arms ready for the needle bombard the wall in a room with a soundtrack of blaring sirens, boots marching in unison, and crying kids. In the middle of this urban mess is a big wrecking ball with the words “Millions of Years” carved into it. Ham blames the notion that the Earth is quite a bit older than the Bible suggests for just about all the world’s problems. Evolution, which requires large amounts of time for small changes to accumulate into larger ones, makes it far too easy for people not to believe the Bible, he says. And that loss of belief “is at the root of modern evil.”

The scenes of prelapsarian harmony between mountain lions and lambs are also worth the click. Dig in!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Heck I’d go. Not my beliefs but I hear tell there’s animatronic dinosaurs on Noahs ark. That’s enough for me!

Dash on May 30, 2007 at 10:38 PM

What does that mean about your faith if the Bible didn’t convince you, but animatronic dinosaurs did?

It’s all pretty goofy, but it’s also inconsequential. The reason so many people are able to believe what they want on creation and the age of the earth is that it has no effect on their daily lives (and much of practical science).

frankj on May 30, 2007 at 11:08 PM

I think the fruit in the Garden of Eden was a banana.

On which Eve slurped, and Adam slipped.

profitsbeard on May 30, 2007 at 11:10 PM

What does that mean about your faith if the Bible didn’t convince you, but animatronic dinosaurs did?

It’s all pretty goofy, but it’s also inconsequential. The reason so many people are able to believe what they want on creation and the age of the earth is that it has no effect on their daily lives (and much of practical science).

frankj on May 30, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Modern Science would not exist without Christianity, we would not be typing on these computers without it…so I would be a little more open minded about different christian creation theme parks.

jp on May 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM

What does that mean about your faith if the Bible didn’t convince you, but animatronic dinosaurs did?

frankj on May 30, 2007 at 11:08 PM

frankj, that’s exactly the point. Setting aside our opinions on evolution, the point of teaching that the Bible isn’t separate from science and that you don’t have to do things like interpret the Bible certain ways to make it fit what we’re told is science. The purpose is exactly what you’re misunderstanding. It’s about teaching that science can (again, whether you agree isn’t the point right now) be viewed together with the Bible and they are not inconsistent. Plus, it’s not like they went and saw a dinosaur in the museum and said “now I believe it”, just as seeing a dinosaur in a regular museum doesn’t convince an evolutionist. It’s just part of the presentation that goes along with the teaching. For someone being told that the Bible that they believe in is proven to be incorrect according to science, the intent is to teach them that this is not the case, and that the two (science and the Bible) are not mutually exclusive. So again, it’s not like someone read the Bible and said “Yeah, that sounds good… but I’ll believe it when I see an animatronic dinosaur in a museum!” It’s about bolstering faith that one might be holding simply on “faith”, with evidence to believe. Again, the animatronic dinosaur isn’t the evidence… it’s simply an illustration, the same way dinosaurs are in any other museum.

One more time, this doesn’t matter what you believe on the issue, but your comment implies you don’t understand the purpose if you think that someone didn’t believe the Bible until they simply saw a dinosaur model in a museum.

RightWinged on May 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Why shouldn’t animatronic dinosaurs convince Bible-beaters that the Genesis myth is true? Heck, Gore was an animatronic candidate for president and he convinced lots of lefty lemmings that humans are boiling the Earth.

Tantor on May 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Modern Science would not exist without Christianity, we would not be typing on these computers without it…so I would be a little more open minded about different christian creation theme parks.

jp on May 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM

What’s funny is the outrage from the evolution community… The Creation Museum was built with 27 million PRIVATELY RAISED dollars. There is no government relationship and you have to pay to get in. Yet someone his one place, in the middle of nowhere, is freaking them out. Their paranoia speaks volumes.

RightWinged on May 30, 2007 at 11:27 PM

I see where some of you are coming from, but I really think this sort of thing does nothing but give a pat on the back to those who already think that way while scaring away others from those “loony Christians.” It will certainly scare away anyone with understanding in the scientific method.

And it’s all a huge distraction from Jesus’s message which had little to nothing to do with the age of the Earth.

frankj on May 30, 2007 at 11:32 PM

What’s funny is the outrage from the evolution community… The Creation Museum was built with 27 million PRIVATELY RAISED dollars. There is no government relationship and you have to pay to get in. Yet someone his one place, in the middle of nowhere, is freaking them out. Their paranoia speaks volumes.

Would you be outraged if a museum opened up trying to show scientifically that man didn’t land on the moon or that the WTC came down from controlled demolitions? That’s how the scientists feel about this museum.

Again, I think it’s inconsequential and time spent on it is time wasted by both serious Christians and serious scientists.

frankj on May 30, 2007 at 11:38 PM

I agree with frankj, its all a dumbass waste of time.

Bad Candy on May 30, 2007 at 11:43 PM

It will certainly scare away anyone with understanding in the scientific method.

The Scientific Method specifically and modern Science as we know it are only possible because of Christianity, the Christianity that came out of the protestant reformation of 16th century.

jp on May 30, 2007 at 11:44 PM

What’s funny is the outrage from the evolution community… The Creation Museum was built with 27 million PRIVATELY RAISED dollars. There is no government relationship and you have to pay to get in. Yet someone his one place, in the middle of nowhere, is freaking them out. Their paranoia speaks volumes.

RightWinged on May 30, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Actually I am shocked that no government money went to this.

If the goverment is willing to give money to silly performance artists who smear themselves in hearshy’s syrup they should be willing to give money to something as silly as this museum.

liberrocky on May 30, 2007 at 11:51 PM

the Science that we know today came about due to the pressupositions of the Christian Faith, Atheism can not account for science as we know it or any worldview that says that everything is chance and always changing which makes science impossible.

the scientific method, was derived from Christianity. Christians have the presupposition that the world/universe is uniform and therefore science is possible. Science needs a uniform world which worldviews like atheism cannot account for. Christianity does not have this problem becuase it says God sovereignly controls the universe to make science possible. If everything was constantly evolving and changing so would science, yet science stays the same. It just is.

jp on May 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Science needs a uniform world which worldviews like atheism cannot account for.
If everything was constantly evolving and changing so would science, yet science stays the same.

Umm there are so many things wrong with these two statements I don’t even know where to begin.

liberrocky on May 30, 2007 at 11:56 PM

And it’s all a huge distraction from Jesus’s message which had little to nothing to do with the age of the Earth.

frankj on May 30, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Not really, when people may ask “why should I care about Jesus’s message if the Bible isn’t true”. It’s about reaffirming biblical authority. And by the way, it’s not some “loony” fringe group. Half of the country are young earth creationists, while another good chunk believe that God guided evolution.

I agree with frankj, its all a dumbass waste of time.

Bad Candy on May 30, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Yet you wasted time saying it?

Would you be outraged if a museum opened up trying to show scientifically that man didn’t land on the moon or that the WTC came down from controlled demolitions? That’s how the scientists feel about this museum.

frankj on May 30, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Well to say “scientists” is too general, because plenty of scientists worked on this, but I understand what you’re trying to say. But it really still doesn’t explain their outrage as far as I’m concerned. There are plenty of stupid UFO museums that no one cares about, and I’m sure if I was interested enough I could probably find other crazy museums that are just ignored.

The media coverage of this has been relatively limited, and is almost always filled with comments from critics. It’s not like anyone sits down and has a debate about issues with the people behind this, they simple dismiss them out of hand… just like they always do. I know, you and others think it’s just not worth the time and that these people are nuts, but that’s simply your opinion. You can disagree with their conclusions, but all the mocking of big exhibits is just a distraction from the substance of their case. Again, you can disagree with the conclusion, but it’s not like these people don’t put any time in to science. It’s not as if they simply created an exhibit displaying the Bible as they see it… it’s simply an illustration just like what you see in any other museum. You’re not going to get a science degree from going to any secular museum, nor are you from this one, and no one is claiming you will. They would hope that you read their extensive material and papers by scientists on their site if you’re indeed interested in it. Once more, you can disagree with the end conclusion, but you can’t simply dismiss them as just some nuts who put no thought in to anything other than making fancy exhibits to “trick” people. I don’t suspect you or anyone else will spend much time at answersingenesis.org, but if you don’t I think it’s unfair to mock the museum which is (like all other museums) simply an illustration.

RightWinged on May 30, 2007 at 11:59 PM

But it really still doesn’t explain their outrage as far as I’m concerned.

i don’t think its to hard to figure out, for atheism to be true it must have a creation theory that doesn’t involve a creator. Granted the outrage is illogical, but neither is the theory of a Creator-less, Creation theory.

jp on May 31, 2007 at 12:03 AM

the Science that we know today came about due to the pressupositions of the Christian Faith, Atheism can not account for science as we know it or any worldview that says that everything is chance and always changing which makes science impossible

Also, jelly beans and puppies are only made possible through Christianity.

I’m sorry, but you’re not making an argument other than “Christianity is good, so believe crazy pseudo-science by people who are Christians.” I agree with the first part, but I don’t follow it to the second. Many Christians scientists (if not most) disagree with this being claimed as science.

frankj on May 31, 2007 at 12:04 AM

frankj on May 31, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Please specify who you’re quoting. I know you know, I know, and jp knows… and I don’t mean to say I completely disagree with what jp is saying, but it’s not at all what I’m saying. My only fear is rabid atheists coming in here and mixing up who said what and trying to accuse me of saying things that do sound a little odd (sorry jp).

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 12:07 AM

Also, jelly beans and puppies are only made possible through Christianity.

I’m sorry, but you’re not making an argument other than “Christianity is good, so believe crazy pseudo-science by people who are Christians.” I agree with the first part, but I don’t follow it to the second. Many Christians scientists (if not most) disagree with this being claimed as science.

frankj on May 31, 2007 at 12:04 AM

I think that in the bible it says that if frankj writes three comments in row without cracking a joke the rapture has begun.

liberrocky on May 31, 2007 at 12:08 AM

I curious as to when the Alchemy and/or Astrology museums open to refute the godless sciences of Chemisty and Astronomy. Looks like crap, fun crap, but crap.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Darwinism isn’t science, its just a theory.

the guy that came up with the Scientific Method in 16th century, had a worldview(he was a Christian) that said God soveringly controls the universe, etc. i.e. the Laws of nature don’t change.

If as the atheist claim, the universe is always changing and started from chaos then why doesn’t the laws of science change as well?

now try taking Christians from existence and the atheist worldview of chance replacing it and tell me how it would be possible to come up with the Scientific Method?

jp on May 31, 2007 at 12:15 AM

the Science that we know today came about due to the pressupositions of the Christian Faith,

The science we know today owes a bit to some institutions of the Christian faith, like all those Catholic monks who kept the work of pre-Christian Greek thinkers around for centuries.

I’m really not up for even trying to touch most of the other things jp said here, at least not without a few drinks in me. Yowza.

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Darwinism isn’t science, its just a theory

Science is a collection of theories.

Where’d I put that scotch?

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 12:19 AM

jp, no offense guy, and I’m on your side here… but you’re really not making any sense and you’re simply flame bait at this point. I suggest walking away at this point.

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Please specify who you’re quoting. I know you know, I know, and jp knows… and I don’t mean to say I completely disagree with what jp is saying, but it’s not at all what I’m saying. My only fear is rabid atheists coming in here and mixing up who said what and trying to accuse me of saying things that do sound a little odd (sorry jp).

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 12:07 AM

Sorry, I’ll try to remember that etiquette in the future.

frankj on May 31, 2007 at 12:21 AM

“Test Everything and hold fast to that which is good!” 1 Thes. 5:21

no time to ‘flame’, bed time…

reading suggestion on Francis Bacon and the Scientific Method, including the worldviews and pressupostions that went into it….”"The Influence of Reformed Theology on the Development of Scientific Method” by Thomas F. Torrance

this is a logic issue…

jp on May 31, 2007 at 12:28 AM

Science is a collection of theories.

Science simply is

the “Flat earth” was a theory for a long time, but it was not science.

jp on May 31, 2007 at 12:29 AM

And for the first time in history,
fire melted the fossil record.

(Where’s see-dubya when ya’ need ‘im?)

CyberCipher on May 31, 2007 at 12:33 AM

If you haven’t read Ann Coulter’s book “Godless“, then go get it. She does a great job talking about the rediculousness of the Darwinists and how they have become the Taliban of science.

Mojave Mark on May 31, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Oh Boy… I wish I didn’t have to go to bed, I love these Evolution v. Creationism threads. :-(

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 12:46 AM

the “Flat earth” was a theory for a long time, but it was not science.

jp on May 31, 2007 at 12:29 AM

Erathostenes figured the circumference of the earth way back 1700 years before Columbus set sail. (It’s a great story.)

The prophet Isaiah said “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth” over 2,000 years before Columbus.

The book of Job (also 2,000 years before Columbus) said that “God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.”

There were flat-earthers but they were just earth-sphere deniers.

Mojave Mark on May 31, 2007 at 1:06 AM

Overheard in the Garden of Eden:

Eve (to the serpent): “You mean if I eat that apple, I’ll be just like God? Gee. Why didn’t I think of that?”

Which just goes to shown how truly inaccurate the Creation Museum exhibits are. Clearly, Eve was blond, not brunette.

CyberCipher on May 31, 2007 at 1:21 AM

I remember all those evolutionists lining up women in soccer stadiums and shooting them in the back of the head for denying the “variations in finch beaks due to different diets” mess.

Talibananarama.

Read “On the Origin of Species” sometime. For all of the flasws in his overall theorizing, the guy was a brilliant scientific Aeschaton.

profitsbeard on May 31, 2007 at 1:29 AM

I would love to see the animitronic displays in the museum based on Revelations.

JayHaw Phrenzie on May 31, 2007 at 1:55 AM

In the Garden of Eden in Genesis, says Ham, when everything was still perfect, animals weren’t predators or prey

Elsewhere (different story on a different website), old Ham is quoted as saying the T-Rex used his teeth to open coconuts. Can I laugh openly at these people or should I pity them? Seriously, this is just too much.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM

I remember all those evolutionists lining up women in soccer stadiums and shooting them in the back of the head for denying the “variations in finch beaks due to different diets” mess.

Talibananarama.

Read “On the Origin of Species” sometime. For all of the flasws in his overall theorizing, the guy was a brilliant scientific Aeschaton.

profitsbeard on May 31, 2007 at 1:29 AM

How does that relate to this in any way, unless you’re trying to equate radical Islam to Christianity, a la Rosie O’Donnell?

Anyway, let’s not go in to the area of whether Christianity or social Darwinism/atheism leads to more killing and start talking about Mao, Stalin, Hitler.

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 2:37 AM

Elsewhere (different story on a different website), old Ham is quoted as saying the T-Rex used his teeth to open coconuts. Can I laugh openly at these people or should I pity them? Seriously, this is just too much.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM

You creationists haters sure love your lies
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/05/08/what-are-we-smoking/

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 2:41 AM

It’s nice to see the atheists again, vociferously and actively practicing their lack of belief in something outside a privately funded museum.

Must be nice to gather by the river and not believe in anything.

Oh, and if you really read The Origin of the Species, you’ll find Darwin would even be a Darwinist, by Darwinistic standards.

-T

The Therapist on May 31, 2007 at 2:47 AM

I meant to say he WOULDN”T be a Darwinist.

The Therapist on May 31, 2007 at 2:48 AM

I thought this was going to be some reference to Xenu or something…. I’m sorta disappointed.

liquidflorian on May 31, 2007 at 2:57 AM

RightWinged,

You call me a liar, and yet, and yet, his museum says just that.

Before Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, museum visitors are told, all of the dinosaurs were peaceable plant-eaters. The evidence is found in Genesis 1:30, where God gives “green herb” to every creature to eat. There were no predators. T-Rex had such big teeth, the museum explains, so it could open coconuts. Only after Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of paradise did the dinosaurs start to eat flesh. And Adam’s sin is a key component of the belief system, for in the eyes of many creationists, in order for Jesus’ death to be meaningful it had to atone for Adam’s first sin.

Look, it’s no more absurd than saying that mountain lions were vegetarians before the fall of man. You see? It’s really, really dishonest or stupid to say that carnivores were, at any point, vegetarians and only vegetarians.

A trifle tired of being called a liar. You keep on keepin’ on, though. I’m sure Ken will tell you what to say next, he has all the answers on how to argue with Godless Darwinists, I hear. I suspect you have as well.

G’night

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 3:20 AM

You call me a liar, and yet, and yet, his museum says just that.

……….

A trifle tired of being called a liar. You keep on keepin’ on, though. I’m sure Ken will tell you what to say next, he has all the answers on how to argue with Godless Darwinists, I hear. I suspect you have as well.

G’night

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 3:20 AM

If you weren’t a liar you wouldn’t have been called one (but that was another thread), this time you’re just citing lies and assuming they’re fact because it suits your agenda. I’m not sure it’s any better than lying, but it’s not you who is actually doing the lying this time (which is why I said “you creationist haters”, plural, because you lied before, and now you’re citing a lie that was first printed by some blogger. I gave you Ham’s own response. If you have evidence, other than a claim on a liberal blog you linked to (or any other anti-Creationist blog post), bring it. Otherwise, I repeat:

You creationists haters sure love your lies
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/05/08/what-are-we-smoking/

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 2:41 AM

You’re doing exactly what the MSM does, spitting out what liberal blogs say as if it’s sourced and accurate.

I’m not even some big supporter of Ham’s, and I don’t know that I agree with everything he and his group say. But I certainly don’t agree with snapping up crap off of liberal blogs, and claiming it as fact.

I didn’t bother to read the rest of the anti-Creationist rant beginning to end (though I skimmed much of it), and it seems almost a certainty that the writer didn’t even visit the museum. So not only is he not backing his assertion (even if he had gone), he’s totally making this claim because he read it somewhere else.

Keep the dishonesty rollin’ though Krydor. Quick, lie about what I’m actually saying like you did the other day. Maybe you can say that I’m here trying to convert people by reading out of the Bible. Nah, too easy, the others like to do that (especially when not a Bible verse has been uttered). I’m sure you’ll do something like accuse me of not believing mutations happen or something ridiculous that I never said… that’s how you roll.

G’night indeed.

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 3:57 AM

“the skeptics will enjoy the snark”

Snark-loving skeptics may rightly be asked, ‘What’s wrong with you? Why this vehement contempt for Christians and Christian beliefs?’

Allah really lowers himself and this otherwise worthwhile blog by his strange, perverse fascination with belittling Christians and Christian belief.

clark smith on May 31, 2007 at 5:28 AM

Would you be outraged if a museum opened up trying to show scientifically that man didn’t land on the moon or that the WTC came down from controlled demolitions? That’s how the scientists feel about this museum.

frankj on May 30, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Come on now. You don’t really want to compare a person who believes in creation to truthers, do you? It just doesn’t seem like a fair comparison, in my opinion.

nailinmyeye on May 31, 2007 at 6:45 AM

Question:

If we evolved from impersonal matter by random chance over time through physical and chemical means, then how does the personal arise from the impersonal?

archon2001 on May 31, 2007 at 8:39 AM

Come on now. You don’t really want to compare a person who believes in creation to truthers, do you? It just doesn’t seem like a fair comparison, in my opinion.

Both beliefs are rooted in faith instead of scientific evidence. Both believe in an almighty power, one good, one evil. Both attempt to “prove” their theory by attacking the accepted theory instead of showing evidence.

One man’s bananna is another man’s pool of melted steel.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 31, 2007 at 9:35 AM

And for the first time in history,
fire melted the fossil record.

CyberCipher on May 31, 2007 at 12:33 AM

According to the fossil record (and evolutionary belief) the coelacanth went extinct 65 million years ago. Human fossils are never found in strata that old. Obviously humans and coelacanths never co-existed. The Almighty Fossil Record has spoken!!!

In other news: Rare Coelacanth Caught by Fisherman in Indonesia. After over 410 million years of evolution the fish looks exactly the same. Some theory you got there.

jdpaz on May 31, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Right Winged,

If it is your position that Ken Ham and his museum guides do not teach that carnivores didn’t eat meat and were exclusively vegitarians, then you are defending the indefensible. Once again, he says it, his guides say it and you defend him for it.

Also, I accused you of having no knowledge of the scientific theory and no ability to conduct a rational argument. I see you’ve learned from the left quite well, if you aren’t accusing someone of lying, you attempt character assasination.

I will not be called a liar by you. When I make a mistake, I retract. When you make a mistake, you present an ad hominem and jump into denial mode.

I’ve had this type of conversation with:

Young Earth Creationists
9-11 Truthers
Kennedy Conspiracy Nuts
AGW Tree huggers

In all four cases, my argument style has been as you see here. In all three cases, they cannot name a single fact in their favour. In all three cases they think that by presenting their evidence with no proof, it’s just an alternative theory.

Now, either I’m wrong about evolution, islamic terrorism, Lee Harvey Oswald and the unsettled science of an observable phenomenon or a certain personality type cannot handle any sort of fact when it impedes on their fantasy.

You are tiresome. You may retract your libel at any time, you know, if you wish to keep up the charade that you have integrity.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Oy, all the venom! Just to clear the air a little…AiG denies ever saying the coconut thing. Krydor cited a questionable source for that item (the Creation Museum wasn’t even open to the public when your cited article was posted — and it doesn’t even have guides). RightWinged (hailing from the great state of VT!) got pissy about it — called Krydor a liar — uncharacteristic of the quintessential stoic Vermonter. RW lets just let the facts speak for themselves and leave the ad hom at home. You’ve got plenty of good stuff to say without the personal attacks. Krydor, you’d do well to take back the coconut thing. It has no basis in reality.

In all three cases, they cannot name a single fact in their favour.

Evolutionary facts are a little few and far between as well. See: jdpaz on May 31, 2007 at 10:46 AM. Seems anywhere the theory collides with real life it falls down.

jdpaz on May 31, 2007 at 11:17 AM

JP: “Darwinism isn’t science, its just a theory.”

Not so, JP. The DNA evidence backs up the theory of evolution. All living things, flora and fauna, have common DNA which means we have a common origin. We humans share common DNA with primates, which means we had a common ancestor. The DNA shows where the evolutionary branches split off for various species. The more common DNA, the more recent the split. The less common DNA, the more ancient the split. DNA is not a theory, but science.

It’s also worth noting that the development of an individual human fetus itself roughly illustrates a considerable amount of the history of human evolution. Ontogeny weakly recapitulates phylogeny.

Tantor on May 31, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Contra Tantor on May 31, 2007 at 11:25 AM

DNA actually is a real sticky wicket against evolution. Humans have only twice as many genes as a worm. “Scientists have identified more than 200 genes in the human genome whose closest relatives are in bacteria.

What you’re presenting, cantor, is a high school text book “just so” story that has no basis in actual science.

jdpaz on May 31, 2007 at 11:41 AM

sorry, that was supposed to say Tantor not cantor.

jdpaz on May 31, 2007 at 11:47 AM

clark smith on May 31, 2007 at 5:28 AM

Allah really lowers himself and this otherwise worthwhile blog by his strange, perverse fascination with belittling Christians and Christian belief.

I would have to disagree with you, as a Christian who reads and frequently comments I do not find AP’s posts or articles to be demeaning condescending or belittling. While AP claims to be an atheist I find his articles and posts to be far more of an agnostic devils advocate nature.

Anyone whose faith in Christ cannot stand up to honest scrutiny probably needs to spend more time seriously reflecting on why they believe and studying what it is that they believe. Self examination has always been a fundamental aspect of Christianity; some of Christianity’s harshest critics have been none other than Christianity’s own most enlightened scholars.

From Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, C.S Lewis right up to today’s Josh McDowell the ability to question ones own faith has been an integral part of Christianity. AP does no disservice to Christianity by making people question what and why it is that they believe.

doriangrey on May 31, 2007 at 12:03 PM

The problem with evolution discussions is invariably they are not about evolution at all, but abiogenesis, which is a singular (or at least discrete) act, and one with which the theory of evolution does not concern itself.

Among others, I blame militant atheists, of whom Richard Dawkins is only the latest incarnation, who are just as willing as unscientific Creationists to ignore the limits of knowledge and theory, and put forth opinions as fact that are beyond the scope of the facts at hand.

It is fine to posit materialistic explanations for the spark of life– it is quite another to sneer derisively at the God of The Gaps while you stare into a gaping blackness that your own science has not yet filled.

a4g on May 31, 2007 at 12:10 PM

Sheesh.

Not sure what else is there to say anymore in these threads.

Sheesh.

Professor Blather on May 31, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Question:

If we evolved from impersonal matter by random chance over time through physical and chemical means, then how does the personal arise from the impersonal?

archon2001 on May 31, 2007 at 8:39 AM

great question, the flipside of that: If we are created by a personal creator and made in his image, God being Infinite and man being finite. And at the same time God seperating man from the rest of his creation and giving him dominion over the earth, in addition to Personality, language and the ability to Love…..then you have the Metaphysical problem that all philosophy(other than christian) has had to deal with for all of time, the need for “unity and diversity”.

strong, heavy and life changing stuff.

jp on May 31, 2007 at 1:39 PM

A trifle tired of being called a liar. You keep on keepin’ on, though. I’m sure Ken will tell you what to say next, he has all the answers on how to argue with Godless Darwinists, I hear. I suspect you have as well.

G’night

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 3:20 AM

No offense, Krydor – but Right-Winged demonstrated that you did indeed, at best, pass along inaccurate information, and at worst, you just lied and made it up.

Personally, I think the whole argument is silly. If I get a chance to ask God after I die, maybe He’ll clear it up for me, and I’ll be sure to ask about the coconuts for you.

But you did, in fact, state something that was untrue. Rightwinged called you on it.

The fact that you just don’t acknowledge that certainly weakens your credibility in the rest of the discussion.

How about we all stick with actual facts? (Do we REALLY need to embellish and make-up stuff to make the point about this museum?)

Professor Blather on May 31, 2007 at 1:39 PM

edit above, the Metaphysical ANSWER, not problem.

the Triune God of the scriptures is the ANSWER to the metaphysical problem no philosopher could ever find an answer to, including Plato and on…

jp on May 31, 2007 at 1:42 PM

T-Rex had such big teeth, the museum explains, so it could open coconuts.

And it had tiny forearms so it could pick coconut fibers from between those big teeth. Hey, this is fun!

James on May 31, 2007 at 1:49 PM

JP: “Darwinism isn’t science, its just a theory.”

Not so, JP. The DNA evidence backs up the theory of evolution. All living things, flora and fauna, have common DNA which means we have a common origin. We humans share common DNA with primates, which means we had a common ancestor. The DNA shows where the evolutionary branches split off for various species. The more common DNA, the more recent the split. The less common DNA, the more ancient the split. DNA is not a theory, but science.

Tantor on May 31, 2007 at 11:25 AM

To play Devil’s advocate:

First, Darwinian evolution is most definitely a theory – at least as far as biogenesis. Unless YOU are the one who can actually explain how that very first cell came into being. In which case you ought to call the Nobel committee. I’ll vote for you.

And for those who’ve actually READ Darwin, he NEVER claims that his theory (and he calls it a theory) actually explains the ORIGIN of life – instead, he argues that evolution is the mechanism by which species are differentiated.

Big, big difference.

And as far as Darwin goes – well, too many folks confuse microevolution and macroevolution. Darwinian evolution and natural selection clearly exist and clearly lead to changes as species adapt.

But if you think it simply and easily explains how fireflies and spiders and elephants and you all appeared from random mutation via a single shared ancestor … well, to the ears of someone not religious and not brainwashed by science, either … that sounds at LEAST as silly as Genesis.

As for your quote above – again playing Devil’s Advocate, how does what you stated favor evolution over creationism or any other mechanism? Couldn’t creationists argue that commonalities in DNA just point to a single creator? And what about the remarkable similarities between human DNA and some pretty unrelated species … like laboratory mice, for example? There is after all a reason they’re used as test subjects.

The whole thing cracks me up. Evolution, to my ears, sounds every bit as whacky as the Creation Museum. And I suspect if not for a decade of public school indoctrination, it would sound that way to most people.

It’s funny how quickly science leads to a closed-mind … even though the history of science is only advanced by those willing to challenge the assumptions. Never in history have people declared “this is the answer” and not been proven wrong to some degree.

Anybody who believes Darwinian evolution is THE answer is a fool. At least as foolish as any creationist.

The greatest irony of all, of course, is that DARWIN HIMSELF only advanced science because he was willing to challenge the “accepted fact” of his era.

Professor Blather on May 31, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Both beliefs are rooted in faith instead of scientific evidence. Both believe in an almighty power, one good, one evil. Both attempt to “prove” their theory by attacking the accepted theory instead of showing evidence.

One man’s bananna is another man’s pool of melted steel.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 31, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Wow.

There is so much conflation going on there, I’m not sure where to begin. Not only have you lumped together creationists who have a wide variety of beliefs on the origin of humanity (I personally am a creationist who believes in an old earth, the evolution is a distinct possibility from the evidence, but who nonetheless thinks that however it transpired, God was at the root – this is largely at odds with someone like, probably Randy), but you have also lumped together a large group with a peaceful and legitimate faith system with a fringe group of wackos motivated by politics.

Further, not that I am in favor of, or not in favor of, the creation museum…but, wouldn’t you say that the existence of a “creation museum” that seeks to present a “creationist” side is more on the level of defending itself rather than attacking the opposition?

The disdain you have for people of faith is evident in the way you have slandered a good number of really good people. It is appalling, really…

nailinmyeye on May 31, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Oh, and the irony of calling your opposition truthers, and then suggesting that all creationists do is attack the opposition, is apparent.

nailinmyeye on May 31, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Professor Blather,

I’m not retracting because the guides in the zoo have demonstrably said such things regarding carnivores. They said it to Skeptic magazine, they said it to Salon and they said it to a visiting blogger. That RightWinged is hung up on the (non)layer of separation between Ham and the guides trained by Ham does nothing to change this. This is because Ham has said such things.

I don’t appreciate being called a liar, regardless of the source.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 2:13 PM

If we evolved from impersonal matter by random chance over time through physical and chemical means, then how does the personal arise from the impersonal?

archon2001 on May 31, 2007 at 8:39 AM

I’m not familiar with “personal” and “impersonal” as ontological categories. What are some examples of personal and impersonal objects, and how are they different from one another?

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Professor Blather,

I’m not retracting because the guides in the zoo have demonstrably said such things regarding carnivores. They said it to Skeptic magazine, they said it to Salon and they said it to a visiting blogger. That RightWinged is hung up on the (non)layer of separation between Ham and the guides trained by Ham does nothing to change this. This is because Ham has said such things.

I don’t appreciate being called a liar, regardless of the source.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Again Krydor, I called you a liar in the other thread where you repeatedly lied. This time I said “you creationist haters“, plural, because this time you passed along false information, written by some liberal blogger who it seems almost a certainty didn’t go to the museum, but ripped the accusation off of another blog. It may not be much better than lying, but you are not the liar in this case, which I never said anyway (my explanation was in my previous reply to, basically saying exactly what I just did).

Right Winged,

If it is your position that Ken Ham and his museum guides do not teach that carnivores didn’t eat meat and were exclusively vegitarians, then you are defending the indefensible. Once again, he says it, his guides say it and you defend him for it.

Also, I accused you of having no knowledge of the scientific theory and no ability to conduct a rational argument. I see you’ve learned from the left quite well, if you aren’t accusing someone of lying, you attempt character assasination.

I will not be called a liar by you. When I make a mistake, I retract. When you make a mistake, you present an ad hominem and jump into denial mode.

I’ve had this type of conversation with:

Young Earth Creationists
9-11 Truthers
Kennedy Conspiracy Nuts
AGW Tree huggers

In all four cases, my argument style has been as you see here. In all three cases, they cannot name a single fact in their favour. In all three cases they think that by presenting their evidence with no proof, it’s just an alternative theory.

Now, either I’m wrong about evolution, islamic terrorism, Lee Harvey Oswald and the unsettled science of an observable phenomenon or a certain personality type cannot handle any sort of fact when it impedes on their fantasy.

You are tiresome. You may retract your libel at any time, you know, if you wish to keep up the charade that you have integrity.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 10:49 AM

What exactly am I supposed to retract? The fact that I point out that creationist haters love to lie, and I support it by pointing out the false “coconut” example you give.

Here’s the chain of events, because you obviously need a little help: You made the coconut accussation, simply saying:

“Elsewhere (different story on a different website), old Ham is quoted”

Because you neglected to present any site, I responded with

You creationists haters sure love your lies
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/05/08/what-are-we-smoking/

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 2:41 AM

Ken Ham says they don’t have guides, and has never heard the coconut comment. But because you choose to believe whatever your side says, regardless of the fact they have no evidence, you gave us this quote FROM A LIBERAL CREATIONIST HATING BLOG POST (how you began the comment is included also):

RightWinged,

You call me a liar, and yet, and yet, his museum says just that.

Before Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, museum visitors are told, all of the dinosaurs were peaceable plant-eaters. The evidence is found in Genesis 1:30, where God gives “green herb” to every creature to eat. There were no predators. T-Rex had such big teeth, the museum explains, so it could open coconuts. Only after Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of paradise did the dinosaurs start to eat flesh. And Adam’s sin is a key component of the belief system, for in the eyes of many creationists, in order for Jesus’ death to be meaningful it had to atone for Adam’s first sin.

So first I have to bust you on your claim that Ham was “quoted”, secondly, where is this guys evidence to support this claim? Again, you’re doing what the CNNs, Olbermanns and Rosie O’Donnells of the world do… take far left propaganda from liberal blogs and spit it out as fact, as if it contains an ounce of credibility. After a quick skim of that article, bit becomes clear that the writer almost certainly DIDN’T go to the museum.

Now, what’s really funny here is that you are accusing me of not retracting when I make a mistake (which couldn’t be more wrong) and going in to denial mode… Yet after you (and your liberal blogs) were thoroughly busted here, you’ve moved the goal posts from simply “coconuts” to “vegetarians”. As I stated EARLY ON, I’m not here defending Ken Ham, and I’m not sure I’d agree with everything he says… But you can’t hide from the fact that you tried to pass off the “coconut” thing as fact, and because you got a thrashing on that, now you’re trying to move the debate to whether T-Rex was a vegetarian to pretend that has been your point all along.

Well no one is buying it buddy. You presented information that is by all accounts false. What’s sad is that because of the way you went about it, even if some random guide (which Ham says they don’t have) had made a comment about coconuts and T-Rexes to some blogger or journalist and it was provable, it still wouldn’t matter… because you came in here claiming Ham was quoted, etc. etc. This is because as long as it suited your agenda, you didn’t care about fact checking.

Interesting isn’t it folks? Krydor, the one who likes to tell us he’s all about facts, because he’s the evolutionist, presented falsehoods simply because they helped his agenda. Now, instead of doing the honorable thing and retracting his comment (which he’s claiming he does when necessary), he’s diverting the issue to dino vegetarianism in general. Again, I couldn’t care less about that right now, because the specific comment was on the coconuts, and Krydor couldn’t deliver the goods. Once more K-man, you aren’t the one lying here (though what you’re doing ain’t much better), but you were lying the other day. Therefore my comment stands that you creationist haters love your lies.

jdpaz on May 31, 2007 at 11:17 AM

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 3:42 PM

Hit submit too soon

jdpaz on May 31, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Read previous comment to Krydor… I wasn’t calling him a liar (this time), but what he was doing was just as bad, and I am letting the facts speak for themselves… if I hadn’t responded I’d be letting lying liberal bloggers write their own facts and letting Krydor spread the propaganda. This isn’t ad hominem, this is just what happened.

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 3:45 PM

I wonder who is more arrogant… fanatical evolutionists or RightWinged.

VinceP1974 on May 31, 2007 at 4:31 PM

I wonder who is more arrogant… fanatical evolutionists or RightWinged.

VinceP1974 on May 31, 2007 at 4:31 PM

There’s a difference between arrogance and being right and preferring honesty over passing off liberal blog lies as facts.

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Anyone whose faith in Christ cannot stand up to honest scrutiny probably needs to spend more time seriously reflecting on why they believe and studying what it is that they believe. Self examination has always been a fundamental aspect of Christianity; some of Christianity’s harshest critics have been none other than Christianity’s own most enlightened scholars.

From Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, C.S Lewis right up to today’s Josh McDowell the ability to question ones own faith has been an integral part of Christianity. AP does no disservice to Christianity by making people question what and why it is that they believe.

doriangrey on May 31, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Amen to that!

Darnell Clayton on May 31, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Rightwinged,

My overall point was that Ham is telling people that carnivoires were actually vegetarians. This jibes with T-Rex eating coconuts instead of, you know, Adam and Eve.

Most geologists would say humans and dinosaurs were separated by more than 60 million years. And those dinosaurs have very sharp teeth!

“So do bears”, says Ken, “but they eat nuts and berries! Remember, before the sin of Adam, the world was perfect. All creatures were vegetarian.” One of the dinosaurs lets out a rather contradictory roar.

So the BBC is in on it as well. As is every other media outlet who has quoted Ham saying similar things.

In the Garden of Eden in Genesis, says Ham, when everything was still perfect, animals weren’t predators or prey
Elsewhere (different story on a different website), old Ham is quoted as saying the T-Rex used his teeth to open coconuts. Can I laugh openly at these people or should I pity them? Seriously, this is just too much.

The odd part is that the people who have Ham and his followers saying this crap aren’t backing down one inch. Perhaps Ham is the liar? Y’think?

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 4:54 PM

One final link in this, and then you can go about your business. Oh NOES!

Commentary on The Lost World
Authors: Ken Ham, Carl Kerby

…Were dinosaurs meat-eaters? According to the Bible, all animals were originally plant eaters (Gen. 1:30), not carnivores. You see, the Bible clearly teaches there was no physical death, disease, or bloodshed of the ‘nephesh’ creatures before Adam. Therefore, the imagined geological ages of millions of years are a man-made myth. Actually, by following the dates provided in the Bible, the date for Creation must be under 7,000 years, not millions or billions of years. Therefore, even the menacing T-Rex was meant to eat plants at the beginning. Although he had very sharp teeth, a lot of animals who have sharp teeth today are not carnivores, but use them to open fruit and eat vegetables. Having sharp teeth has nothing to do with an animal being a meat-eater or not.

If dinosaurs lived at the same time as Adam, were they later on Noah’s ark? Genesis 7:8 says that all land animals entered the ark in pairs. Therefore, all land-dwelling dinosaurs not on the ark died in the Flood, a watery catastrophe that covered the whole Earth (Gen. 7:19, 20). Indeed, there was plenty of room on this massive Ark for all the land animals, including the 50 or so types of dinosaurs. About one year later all the animals exited the Ark (Gen. 8:19)…

You may retract your slander at any point, Rightwinged.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 5:02 PM

nailinmyeye, I don’t have a problem with people of faith, I have a problem of people who attempt to dress up and put lipstick on their faith and then call it science.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 31, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 5:02 PM

And the Krydor dishonesty rolls on. So, (AS WAS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL IN MY PREVIOUS COMMENT TO YOU) you still have absolutely no support for your original claim

Elsewhere (different story on a different website), old Ham is quoted as saying the T-Rex used his teeth to open coconuts. Can I laugh openly at these people or should I pity them? Seriously, this is just too much.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM

Once more, I’m still waiting to see that quote. I’m still waiting to see the web site with that quote, etc. etc.

No, a liberal creationist hating blogger who didn’t go to the museum stating something (THAT ISN’T A QUOTE) DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

How dare you insist I retract something, when you’re lying here. Yeah, I said it. I busted you for lying in other threads, and here I’d just accused you of pushing the lies from these liberal creationist haters because it suits your agenda… but until you can supply support for your statement that Ham is quoted as making the coconut comment, YOU ARE LYING, AND YOU NEED TO MAKE THE RETRACTION.

Don’t give me this “I’m talking about the whole dinosaurs as vegetarians issue”. BULLSH**, you have been busted for your dishonesty once again. The hilarious part is that I knew you’d go there. When you’re boxed in a corner, that’s all you can do, but your comments are quite clear and specific that you said Ham was quoted as making the coconut comment yet you can’t supply any shred of evidence to support your claim.

This reminds me of liberals who claim “Bush lied on WMDs”, until faced with the reality that their guys made the same claims. Suddenly they say “well they didn’t start a war”. You can’t have it both ways.

Same goes for you here Krydor. YOU brought up the coconut thing, claiming that you knew of another site quoting Ham, you can’t change it to the overall herbivore issue now. You didn’t deliver, because YOU LIED. At first I was just chalking it up as passing off lies that agreed with you, but really you’re lying because you’ve shown no such quote, which indicates it doesn’t exist, which indicates you lied since YOU won’t retract the initial statement. The best part, you claim to be so honest that you do retract when necessary… yet you still haven’t here? Hmmmm.

Again, in plainer English: You insisted there was a Ken Ham coconut comment. Not only have you not shown it, all you’ve shown is liberal blogs making it up. You insist that his guides (which don’t exist) make the coconut case, but you supply no support. After being thoroughly busted, you change the debate to be whether or not Ham thinks dinosaurs were herbivores. And? No one said Ham didn’t think this to begin with. In fact, when you posted your original BS about the coconut, you were responding to the herbivore claim, in an effort to pile on with something you heard at a liberal blog and took at face value because it supports your agenda. Again, it’s identical to CNN, Rosie, Olbermann, etc. running liberal blog propaganda as news simply because it agrees with them.

Again Krydor, until you find this quote YOU CLAIM EXISTS by Ken Ham, YOU ARE LYING. But worse, you’ve found nothing even close to supporting your claim, despite your attempts to fuse the issue together with the overall “dinos were herbivores” claim by Ham and his group. Nice try, but anyone with an ounce of honesty and reading comprehension sees through it.

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Not so, JP. The DNA evidence backs up the theory of evolution. All living things, flora and fauna, have common DNA which means we have a common origin. We humans share common DNA with primates, which means we had a common ancestor. The DNA shows where the evolutionary branches split off for various species. The more common DNA, the more recent the split. The less common DNA, the more ancient the split. DNA is not a theory, but science.

It’s also worth noting that the development of an individual human fetus itself roughly illustrates a considerable amount of the history of human evolution. Ontogeny weakly recapitulates phylogeny.

Tantor on May 31, 2007 at 11:25 AM

DNA science destroys evolutionary theory. Genetics mutations are NEVER shown to be beneficial to a species, but are ALWAYS degenerative. Genetic mutations ALWAYS result in a non-reproducing individual. The immutability of DNA does not allow for any form of macroevolution, either sudden or slow, and there isn’t the smallest shred of evidence to the contrary.

Had Darwin known then what geneticists know now, he never would have started his fantasizing theorizing regarding origins.

The argument that similary DNA proves relation of species is ridiculous. It is just as easy to say that it proves a common Creator. In appearance and internal construction, dogs and cats share an immense amount of commonality, but their DNA is vastly different. Varieties within species (breeds), no matter how different, share ALL of the DNA that determines the species. An irish wolfhound and a chihuahua are both dogs. Neither is closer to being a cat, or any other species, than the other.

It is the very coding structure of DNA that prevents “migration” of one species into another. It doesn’t happen. It NEVER happened.

Oh, and prior to Adam’s sin, no creatures on Earth were predators. Arguments about why God would create mammals with canine teeth and such can go in many directions, and noone will change their position. Maybe God, because he sees the end from the beginning, and certianly knew that Adam would sin, that the Earth would be cursed, created them that way in advance. Maybe God changed certain creatures into predators, including altering their jaws and digestive tracts, after the Curse. He’s the potter, we’re the clay. He can do that if He wants. Did He? I don’t know, just like everyone else.

Freelancer on May 31, 2007 at 5:58 PM

nailinmyeye, I don’t have a problem with people of faith, I have a problem of people who attempt to dress up and put lipstick on their faith and then call it science.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 31, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Your previous statement goes far beyond your statement here. While I myself have a difficult time with the conflation of faith and science, and indeed all science involves a little faith, what I take issue with is your equating those who believe in creation with truthers.

nailinmyeye on May 31, 2007 at 5:58 PM

In order to be a Darwinist you have to believe that the first one celled organism spontaneously generated. If so, exactly what food source was available to this organism?

Rose on May 31, 2007 at 6:05 PM

In order to be a Darwinist you have to believe that the first one celled organism spontaneously generated. If so, exactly what food source was available to this organism?

As per Wikipedia:

An autotroph (from the Greek autos = self and trophe = nutrition) is an organism that produces complex organic compounds from simple molecules and an external source of energy, such as light or chemical reactions of inorganic compounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotroph

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Autotroph, eh? So not only did it spontaneously generate with the ability to reproduce itself, it had to make its own food?!?1 Pretty talented little beggar.

jdpaz on May 31, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Autotroph, eh? So not only did it spontaneously generate with the ability to reproduce itself, it had to make its own food?!?1 Pretty talented little beggar.

It’s not like it’s conjecture. They still exist today. You should do a little research on lithoautotropes in particular.

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 6:44 PM

I have no doubt that they exist…but right out of the box…first shot…no room for error??? It stretches credulity (faith) beyond anything I can muster.

jdpaz on May 31, 2007 at 6:45 PM

The fact that they exist today still doesn’t explain how they came to exist.

Rose on May 31, 2007 at 6:46 PM

The fact that they exist today still doesn’t explain how they came to exist.

No, but it does provide an answer to your original question.

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Yes, it does. Thank you.

Rose on May 31, 2007 at 7:08 PM

As per Wikipedia:

An autotroph (from the Greek autos = self and trophe = nutrition) is an organism that produces complex organic compounds from simple molecules and an external source of energy, such as light or chemical reactions of inorganic compounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotroph

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 6:33 PM

how could the very first organism have an external source of energy?

jp on May 31, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Rightwinged,

I’m lost here. I’ve got Ham saying that T-Rex was a vegetarian from multiple sources, including his own website. I’ve got a journalist who stands by the contention that Ham said T-Rex ate coconuts during a press gathering in the “museum”. However, I’m the liar.

Ok, here’s what I’ll do because you seem to think it’s an issue. I don’t know why, but you do. I’ll retract the T-Rex ate coconuts thing, as perhaps Ham or his staff was misrepresented in that singular instance. There is a condition, though. That condition revolves around you repudiating the notion of an exclusively vegetarian T-Rex, at any time in the history of the earth.

Because, in case you missed it, and you purposefully did, I was talking about the utter stupidity of pretending predators were herbivores. Because, you know, had I not included the contentious quote, that was the point. It’s the point you immediately ran like hell from, and continue to do so.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Rightwinged and Krydor

Excuse me for butting in. But didn’t Ham say that the animals being vegetarians was HIS (Ham’s) theory ? I mean, that question is never addressed in the Bible. So Ham took his best guess, and maybe he is right or maybe he is wrong.

But this whole debate started because one of the museum attendants was ask why T-Rex had such big teeth if it only ate vegetables…. which is a good and legitimate question. The attendant took his best shot obviously, and said they were for opening coconuts.

What the attendant should have said, in my opinion and what I believe would have been more likely to be correct… would have been to say:

Because God knew T-Rex wasn’t ALWAYS going to be a vegetarian. God knew exactly what was going to happen, he gave all the animals what they need to survive in the world after sin entered into it.

Once again… sorry to butt in.

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 10:22 PM

how could the very first organism have an external source of energy?

The sun was out?

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 10:32 PM

jp on May 31, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Jp … Blacklake is simply saying the first life was plant life, like algae for example.

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 10:45 PM

Rightwinged and Krydor

Excuse me for butting in. But didn’t Ham say that the animals being vegetarians was HIS (Ham’s) theory ? I mean, that question is never addressed in the Bible. So Ham took his best guess, and maybe he is right or maybe he is wrong.

But this whole debate started because one of the museum attendants was ask why T-Rex had such big teeth if it only ate vegetables…. which is a good and legitimate question. The attendant took his best shot obviously, and said they were for opening coconuts.

What the attendant should have said, in my opinion and what I believe would have been more likely to be correct… would have been to say:

Because God knew T-Rex wasn’t ALWAYS going to be a vegetarian. God knew exactly what was going to happen, he gave all the animals what they need to survive in the world after sin entered into it.

Once again… sorry to butt in.

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 10:22 PM

You aren’t butting in at all, but I still don’t even see any evidence that a museum attendant said it in the first place.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Krydor, you can take issue with the whole “dinos were all once vegetarians” claim all you want, because I don’t have a solid opinion on the matter and I am certainly not speaking for Ham and his group (as I’ve repeatedly said). So I have no reason to repudiate a claim that I never made and haven’t formed an opinion on.

My problem is, as I’ve explained repeatedly, that you saw this in the article:

In the Garden of Eden in Genesis, says Ham, when everything was still perfect, animals weren’t predators or prey

And you responded to it with this:

Elsewhere (different story on a different website), old Ham is quoted as saying the T-Rex used his teeth to open coconuts. Can I laugh openly at these people or should I pity them? Seriously, this is just too much.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM

I went out, and within a matter of seconds found that this claim was made by a liberal blogger and Ham had fully responded, saying he’d never heard that from anyone at AIG, and that they don’t even have guides (they claim said his guides are instructed to tell visitors the coconut tale).

I gave you the link:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/05/08/what-are-we-smoking/

I busted the lie (which again WASN’T yours, I said “you creationist haters love your lies” because as you know I accuse you of lying in the other thread, and in this one you are pushing what, by all accounts, is a lie that others perpetrated.

You responded, by saying:

RightWinged,

You call me a liar, and yet, and yet, his museum says just that.

Before Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, museum visitors are told, all of the dinosaurs were peaceable plant-eaters. The evidence is found in Genesis 1:30, where God gives “green herb” to every creature to eat. There were no predators. T-Rex had such big teeth, the museum explains, so it could open coconuts. Only after Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of paradise did the dinosaurs start to eat flesh. And Adam’s sin is a key component of the belief system, for in the eyes of many creationists, in order for Jesus’ death to be meaningful it had to atone for Adam’s first sin.

The problem is, that writer didn’t even go to the museum, AND IT CERTAINLY ISN’T A QUOTE from Ham. He doesn’t say where he got this information, so we’re left with the conclusion he took it from other places making the claim.

Now you want to make this about whether or not Ham believes T-Rexes were herbivores, and you can complain about that all day long and it doesn’t bother me. I take issue with you claiming that you have a quote with Ham making the coconut statement, yet you haven’t supplied it. Again, I tried to say it was others lying this time, but for you to not admit to being wrong, and say “there is no Ham quote”, then you are lying, because you claimed there WAS this mystery quote.

So at this point, even if you were to find someone that works at the museum or Ham himself supporting the claim, you still were wrong to claim to have a quote, because you obviously don’t. But again, at this point, by all acounts, the coconut thing is a fantasy cooked up by creationist haters on liberal blogs.

So while I don’t have to take back or stand behind the dino/herbivore comments (a larger issue), because they aren’t my comments or position, you can retract or not the comment about having a quote of Ham making the coconut comment if you want. But if you don’t retract then you’re still being completely dishonest… unless suddenly you’re going to pull this illusive quote out.

Again, please stop trying to mix the issue of overall herbivore dinos with a specific coconut comment. You may see them as one in the same, but they aren’t when you claim to have a specific quote. You can blast Ham for any number of reasons on the overall herbivore claim if you’d like, but don’t attack someone for something you have no evidence of them ever saying. Make sense?

RightWinged on May 31, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Jp … Blacklake is simply saying the first life was plant life, like algae for example.

If you read the article, there are much simpler autotrophs than plants, which depend on chlorophyl. Lithoautotrophs, for instance, are exclusively microbes: http://www.answers.com/topic/lithoautotroph

At any rate, I’m not saying what the first life was. I have no idea. I was just responding to Rose’s question by pointing out there are forms of life that survive on food not derived from other organisms.

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 10:55 PM

If the only evidence we had of the Giant Panda was in the fossil record, evolutionists would be stating how utterly stupid it is for anyone to believe that a bear would survive on 99% BAMBOO.

The Zoo Keeper on May 31, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Yes… I understand what you are saying. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I just failed to mention the smaller/simpler organisms. And it does answer the question of “if life evolved then what did the first life eat.” Its a good and intellectually honest answer.

And since we have been down this road before, you know what “my” next question would be. But not tonight my friend, I’ve got to get some sleep. *Yawn*

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 11:47 PM

RightWinged,

Well, seeing as how you can’t possibly form an opinion on dining habits of T-Rex, I will not retract. I don’t have to retract jack, y’see. Multiple sources, including Ham himself say that T-Rex was a vegetarian.

Hell, I’ll even grant that it was a misattribution of a direct quote on my part. Doesn’t change one single thing, does it? Wow, no! Cool.

I wonder what this was all about. Oh, I know. It was about you assasinating my character. Retraction? Not on your life. Ham is a nut, has said similar nutty things, any of which would have sufficed that I chose one which you think is incorrect means pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Wow Krydor, your dishonesty is really sad. I can’t believe you’re willing to take it this far:

Well, seeing as how you can’t possibly form an opinion on dining habits of T-Rex, I will not retract. I don’t have to retract jack, y’see. Multiple sources, including Ham himself say that T-Rex was a vegetarian.

For like the tenth time NO ONE DENIES THIS!!! We all know that this is what Ham says, but it has nothing to do with the coconut lie, which you were very specific in pushing. After claiming there was a quote, and being busted lying, you sent us to read a comment from a liberal creationist hating blogger who made the claim that this is the museum’s explanation for the T-Rex’s teeth, but there is no evidence to support the claim, and we have Ham specifically denying ever hearing of it.

Why do you continue to mix up the “dinos were herbivores” overall claim, with your specific claim. It’s two different issues. Again, the coconut thing wasn’t simply to point out the herbivore claim, because everyone already knew about that. In fact your comment on the coconut thing was in a reply to the herbivore claim in the first place, so it couldn’t have possibly been that you were simply making it known. WE ALL ALREADY KNEW THEY BELIEVE THIS, AND THIS ISN’T SOMETHING HAM OR ANYONE DISPUTES!

Do you get this? You can’t claim to be simply revealing the herbivore view, when your coconut story was in direct reply to the herbivore view which Ham’s group is very openly stating. You’re simply trying to dance your way out of the corner you’ve been painting in to, but you can’t.

So for you to mix up lying that there is a Ham/coconut quote, then changing it to a second lie, that the museum does teach this, and now saying (in probably a half dozen different ways now):

Multiple sources, including Ham himself say that T-Rex was a vegetarian.

Is completely ridiculous. It’s not something that needs “multiple sources” to prove to anyone, because the fact that they say this IS NOT IN DISPUTE. Again, this simply was not your argument, because your coconut comment was in RESPONSE to this already known fact, that Ham and his group believe dinosaurs were vegetarians.

Hell, I’ll even grant that it was a misattribution of a direct quote on my part. Doesn’t change one single thing, does it? Wow, no! Cool.

Wow, yes! Cool. When the fact that they believe this vegetarian theory is not a secret by any means, and you simply tried to add on the kooky coconut story by lying and saying there was a direct quote, then attempting to cite a liberal blogger (who didn’t go to the museum) who makes the unsourced coconut claim. YOU were attempting to push the coconut thing, which was clearly bogus, NOT the vegetarian thing, which isn’t in dispute, not a secret, and in fact what you initially were replying to!

I wonder what this was all about. Oh, I know. It was about you assasinating my character. Retraction? Not on your life. Ham is a nut, has said similar nutty things, any of which would have sufficed that I chose one which you think is incorrect means pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Assassinating your character? Why, because you lied and continue your dishonesty even still, and I pointed it out? Remember this?

I will not be called a liar by you. When I make a mistake, I retract. When you make a mistake, you present an ad hominem and jump into denial mode.

Krydor on May 31, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Hmmm… sounds like another lie to me. You say you’d retract when you make a mistake. Is claiming that you have a direct quote of Ham making the coconut comment, then still trying to claim that the museum says this, then changing the subject and saying you’ve been talking about the whole vegetarian thing the entire time (which you aren’t, because we already knew it and it was actually what you were responding to), a mistake? If you don’t retract, then you’re simply lying again, because you claimed you would if you made a mistake.

And whether you think Ham has said a bunch of nutty things is not the issue and you didn’t just “choose one”, you chose a false one, and because you got thoroughly busted on it, you’ve changed it to act as if you’re simply bringing (THE KNOWN) vegetarian belief up as if it’s what you meant from the beginning. Which, one more time, is clearly crap because the OPEN vegetarian belief was what prompted you to push and hang on to the coconut thing, until being forced to abandon it, and go the route you’re attempting to now.

(Quick Krydor, here’s where you again play the victim. Act as if I’m just this big jerk calling you names, even though when someone lies it’s simply stating the obvious to point out that they are lying. Then you whine on about how you were simply presenting the fact that Ham and his group believe in a dino vegetarian theory, which any logical person can see is yet another lie, because we know this, it’s not in dispute, and it was in fact what prompted you to raise and hang on to the stupid coconut thing. I know you can’t help yourself, so go right ahead.)

RightWinged on June 1, 2007 at 1:56 AM

You really have no idea how this rational discussion thing works, do you? I think it is beyond likely, based on a report from a person who took the press tour, that either Ham or someone who directly works for this museum of the worst science on earth said that T-Rex ate coconuts. Seeing as how this would fit with every other asinine pronouncement from these frauds, I don’t think it’s even worthy of discussion.

You’re the one hung up on this. I don’t know why, seeing as how you pretty much finally admit that the notion of vegetarian dinosaurs with 6-12 inch teeth built for tearing the crap out of flesh is just plain goofy.

You haven’t even been following this conversation, and you are a prime participant. How incredibly odd. I brought up the stupidity of Ham’s vegetarian beasties with giant fangs and sharp claws to point out how incredibly stupid the whole notion of Young Earth Creationism is. It’s my second post in this thread. That I picked something that you don’t find valid is irrelevant.

I trust the source. I retract the attribution to Ham of that particular stupidity. I do that only because the originating author did not attribute it to Ham. I have no doubt that this, or something similar, was said during the press tour. You know why? Because the other press tour reports echo what was said.

Krydor on June 1, 2007 at 2:22 AM

You’re the one hung up on this. I don’t know why, seeing as how you pretty much finally admit that the notion of vegetarian dinosaurs with 6-12 inch teeth built for tearing the crap out of flesh is just plain goofy.

Krydor on June 1, 2007 at 2:22 AM

I haven’t made an opinion one way or another on this, because it’s irrelevant. You said Ham said it, busted, you said the museum says it, busted, you changed it to the overall vegetarian dino issue, which isn’t at issue, because we know they say it and you were hanging on to the coconut thing originally.

I suppose this may be a diversion to stop the bleeding on your embarrassing display here, but I’ll bite…

I think it is beyond likely, based on a report from a person who took the press tour, that either Ham or someone who directly works for this museum of the worst science on earth said that T-Rex ate coconuts.

Who exactly are we talking about here? Who took the press tour? The writer at Truthdig certainly doesn’t appear to have, and the LIE appears to have begun on May 3, by yet another creationist hating blogger, who also DID NOT go to the museum.

Please, I’m begging you to show me someone who is claiming to have actually witnessed this being said.

Again, it really won’t matter if you find someone to be claiming this because we could say “his word against Hams”, but at least it would make you look a little less dishonest. The point being, AGAIN, that we already know about Ham’s group’s dino vegetarian theory, which is what you were responding to when you attempted to smear them by bringing up the bogus coconut story. You told the untruth, that Ham himself was quoted as saying it, you then told the untruth that the museum says it (citing a liberal blogger who didn’t go to the museum, and doesn’t get specific at all in why they make their claim), and now simply because it supports your agenda you think it’s “beyond likely” that it happened? Oh okay, you win.

RightWinged on June 1, 2007 at 2:40 AM