Creation Museum Opens in Kentucky

[moe darklight]

The creation story in the Bible was not meant to be taken literally. And it certainly was not meant to be twisted to fit humans living with dinosaurs.

At no point in the bible does God say "metaphorically speaking," or "here's an analogy to better illustrate my point." No, in fact, pretty much every page has a passage warning you about the infallible/pure/true and only Word Of God and the suffering that will come your way if you are to ever doubt it or change it.

If God is so smart, why would he mix up so many analogies in with his facts without even warning us. Couldn't he see this coming? couldn't he have predicted that one day those analogies would cause a lot of trouble?

The whole "well, god meant it as an analogy" thing is new, and was introduced only once certain passages have been proven to be so ridiculously wrong and, well, crazy, that even religious authorities could no longer stand by them. By doing so, they are sinners in the eyes of the bible, because the bible is pretty clear on what happens when you in any way change God's word.

7and the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

8"Take (A)the rod; and you and your brother Aaron assemble the congregation and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it may yield its water. You shall thus bring forth water for them out of the rock and let the congregation and their beasts drink."
9So Moses took the rod (B)from before the LORD, just as He had commanded him;

10and Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock. And he said to them, "(C)Listen now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?"

11Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and (D)water came forth abundantly, and the congregation and their beasts drank.

12But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "(E)Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them."

Moses, a man who gave his life to God's word and is seen as a holy man, is forbidden from entering Israel once the Jews reach it. Why? well, you see, God told moses to speak to a rock so that water will come out (to prove to the Israelites God's amazing rock-watering super powers... because you know, even after he split the sea in two they weren't quite convinced)— But Moses, for some reason, hits the rock instead of speaking to it (maybe he simply misunderstood? maybe the poor guy was just frustrated after 40 years in the desert?). This is terribly offensive to God: HITTING a rock when God said, specifically, that he should TALK to the rock! Moses is banned from Israel. After a life-time of hardship, he is not allowed to enjoy the fruits of his labor because he misinterpreted one word.

could you imagine God's wrath if he could hear these people say that his word is not meant to be literal?

The Bible story teaches stewardship, that all of creation is good (...and God said "It is good"...) and should be cared for.

Maybe at some points; I guess it really depends which parts... the bible is pretty hypocritical.

 

[Danger]

At no point in the bible does God say "metaphorically speaking," or "here's an analogy to better illustrate my point."

You seem to be suffering under the belief that the bible wasn't written by human beings.

 

[arunma]

Moses, a man who gave his life to God's word and is seen as a holy man, is forbidden from entering Israel once the Jews reach it. Why? well, you see, God told moses to speak to a rock so that water will come out (to prove to the Israelites God's amazing rock-watering super powers... because you know, even after he split the sea in two they weren't quite convinced)— But Moses, for some reason, hits the rock instead of speaking to it (maybe he simply misunderstood? maybe the poor guy was just frustrated after 40 years in the desert?). This is terribly offensive to God: HITTING a rock when God said, specifically, that he should TALK to the rock! Moses is banned from Israel. After a life-time of hardship, he is not allowed to enjoy the fruits of his labor because he misinterpreted one word.

Hope I'm not starting an argument here, but your assessment seems to be based on what you want the Bible to say rather than what it actually says. Various denominations of Christianity have spent centuries developing systematic theologies through which they view the Bible. But, if I may be so bold, you seem to be taking the same approach to the Bible that creationists take with science (i.e. "let's see what facts we can find to support our conclusion"). I recommend a different approach, because this one will most certainly not sway any creationists over to your side. What it will do is drive them to vote for one of the three available creationist presidental candidates, who will then write creationism into law.

 

[moe darklight]

You seem to be suffering under the belief that the bible wasn't written by human beings.

I say "God says" when I talk about the Bible just as I would say "Jim says" were I talking about Huckleberry Finn .

 

[moe darklight]

Hope I'm not starting an argument here, but your assessment seems to be based on what you want the Bible to say rather than what it actually says. Various denominations of Christianity have spent centuries developing systematic theologies through which they view the Bible. But, if I may be so bold, you seem to be taking the same approach to the Bible that creationists take with science (i.e. "let's see what facts we can find to support our conclusion"). I recommend a different approach, because this one will most certainly not sway any creationists over to your side. What it will do is drive them to vote for one of the three available creationist presidental candidates, who will then write creationism into law.

I'm not an expert in religions or anything like that. But I do know that the Bible (as far as the old testament goes) is pretty clear on being unquestionable. The irony is that most of the bibles sold today are at some level edited versions of the original. The king James bible is, well, King James' bible... some passages are deliberately changed. And pretty much every group changes or interprets different parts of the bible to suit their own needs.— but at the end of the day, the bible says what it says.

If you want the purist point of view, visit a Jewish extremist in Israel (the ones who wear only black and will stone you if you drive a car on a saturday), they take the bible literally (for example, if you ask them, they are Jews, and everyone else in israel is not a Jew because a Jew is not to interpret the word of God as he pleases).

 

[out of whack]

He was starting with the conclusion that he wanted to be true, and then using certain scientific evidence to justify that conclusion.

Another point of view occurs to me: creationists are starting with a hypothesis just like scientists do, and they attempt to prove it just like scientists do. Their hypothesis is that an intelligence is involved in the design of nature. The difference is that they have failed to formulate a valid theory that successfully makes predictions and therefore explains the hypothesis, whereas scientists have indeed reached this stage in many fields. This puts the difference between science and creationism in a different light: science advances while creationism is stuck at the hypothesis stage. Maybe books on ID should carry a sticker with a disclaimer. "This is only a hypothesis, it is not even a theory yet!"

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If one simply takes science as means of describing the natural world with increasing precision and accuracy, then I wouldn't say they have faith in it, just logic and understanding.

Well put. That is how I take science.

 

[arunma]

I'm not an expert in religions or anything like that. But I do know that the Bible (as far as the old testament goes) is pretty clear on being unquestionable. The irony is that most of the bibles sold today are at some level edited versions of the original. The king James bible is, well, King James' bible... some passages are deliberately changed. And pretty much every group changes or interprets different parts of the bible to suit their own needs.— but at the end of the day, the bible says what it says.

Actually, most modern Bibles say, more or less, exactly what is written in the original languages. I'm not aware of any major Bible translation that is edited with a particular bent of any sort (there are a few edited Bibles, but they are specifically sold as paraphrases). And as it so happens, virtually every denomination agrees on the meaning of the passage you cited earlier. In short, your argument isn't very convincing, except to others who already feel as you do.

Then there's also the fact that even if your interpretation of the Bible were correct, this is simply the sort of thing that you just shouldn't say. Fundamentalist Christians have a good deal of political clout in America, and if you anger them, they will retaliate. Already we have seen that many school boards in America are opting to teach creationism alongside evolution. Like it or not, the American public controls funding for science. So if we want to keep our careers free of pseudoscience, then I recommend that everyone with unpopular religious views keep it to themselves.

 

[moe darklight]

What is the interpretation? At school I was taught that this showed how one must always follow God's word. That Moses brought this upon himself by doubting God.

It's true that most bibles say more or less the same thing. But some passages are subtly changed and this can make a big difference when interpreting them.

So if we want to keep our careers free of pseudoscience, then I recommend that everyone with unpopular religious views keep it to themselves.

So the solution to a problem is to ignore it to save one's own skin? The only reason society has progressed this far and we live in a world where we are free to express our opinions is the many people throughout history who have risked their lives in the name of freedom; those who spoke up when everyone else shut up.

If you don't speak up, you might find it's too late once you wish you had. The religious plan (of pretty much any religion) isn't to "live and let live," it is to take over. Look what fundamentalists did in 8 years of being let to do as they please.

 

[Cyrus]

So if we want to keep our careers free of pseudoscience, then I recommend that everyone with unpopular religious views keep it to themselves.

I strongly disagree with that. Now is the time to speak up and educate these people on science. Its time to expose these people for who they are. They are just as bad as 'muslim fundamentalists'. I am going to start calling them christian extremists.

 

[arunma]

I strongly disagree with that. Now is the time to speak up and educate these people on science. Its time to expose these people for who they are. They are just as bad as 'muslim fundamentalists'. I am going to start calling them christian extremists.

I'm not suggesting that we do nothing. I'm suggesting that when scientists explain the folly of creation science, they ought not to portray science as opposed to religion. In other words: attack creationism, not religion.

 

[Cyrus]

That's obvious. Read it again. Someone did say (rhetorically) that science is faith and I quoted him in my post.

In other words, you don't get it, but it's wrong. Name a level.

Aha, I misread what you wrote sorry. Seems like we are saying the same thing.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not suggesting that we do nothing. I'm suggesting that when scientists explain the folly of creation science, they ought not to portray science as opposed to religion. In other words: attack creationism, not religion.

True, but I don't like religion either.

I prefer not to be mentally enslaved.

 

[Cyrus]

I'll delete mine if you delete yours.

http://www.rightwinged.com/images/photoshops/yougotitdude.jpg
"You got it dude!"

 

[arunma]

True, but I don't like religion either. :tongue2

And you're free to hold that belief. But your views on religion are your personal beliefs, and they can't be formulated as science. As such, it would be academically dishonest to claim that science is opposed to religion (it would be more accurate to say that science doesn't comment on religion). But again, if intellectual honesty isn't motivation enough, then please consider that the more you portray science as antithetical to religion, the harder it may be for me to get funding in the future. Furthermore, comments like this are likely to incite an anti-scientific backlash, as we've already seen in recent years.

 

[Cyrus]

And you're free to hold that belief. But your views on religion are your personal beliefs, and they can't be formulated as science.

I never said science was/is religion.

As such, it would be academically dishonest to claim that science is opposed to religion.

I never said that.

But again, if intellectual honesty isn't motivation enough, then please consider that the more you portray science as antithetical to religion, the harder it may be for me to get funding in the future. Furthermore, comments like this are likely to incite an anti-scientific backlash, as we've already seen in recent years.

I have no problem with christians that keep shut and listen to the scientists. But when they think they run the show, then I will fight them back...hard.

When they try to run the country based on the bible, I will fight them back...hard.

This isn't the United States of Jesus Land.

 

[moe darklight]

But science is in many ways opposed to religion, I don't think they can coexist. One of the main principles of religion is "faith:" belief without proof. This goes completely against everything science (or rational thought) stands for. How can the two ever be compatible?

What is the interpretation?

I realize this might read sarcastic or confrontational on the internet, but that wasn't my intention. I'd actually like to know if there is another interpretation of these types of verses.

Like I said, I'm no expert. My understanding of the old testament comes only from what I was taught in school and from my own personal interpretation. To me it seems like the bible is quite clear on referring to itself as being literal.

 

[out of whack]

To me it seems like the bible is quite clear on referring to itself as being literal.

Maybe its claim to be literal is only a figure of speech!

 

[Artman]

At no point in the bible does God say "metaphorically speaking," or "here's an analogy to better illustrate my point." No, in fact, pretty much every page has a passage warning you about the infallible/pure/true and only Word Of God and the suffering that will come your way if you are to ever doubt it or change it.

And you read these passages from the original Hebrew texts? Are you aware that the original language of the Bible applies vowels in extra short, short, long, or extra long form? That the word for Red sea may also be Reed sea? Are you aware that striking a rock in the desert to find water isn't a miracle, but rather breaking a salt deposit to free trapped water? The Hebrews that this story was originally told to would have been aware of that. Creationists attending that theme park would not.

Literal to them (people who lived during that time, knew their customs, spoke the language, lived in that area), and literal to us (thousands of years later, are reading translations made from translations from oral traditions, who don't know the customs, don't know the climate, don't know the area) are two different things.

It takes study to understand the Bible, study to apply it's teachings.

 

[Kurdt]

The reed sea? That makes a lot more sense. They parted the reeds and waded to freedom across a lake while the chariots got stuck in silt.

I propose a new translation of genesis too.

Genesis 1: A lot of people say to me, 'get out of my garden'.

Genesis 2:...

Just cuts to the chase.

 

[Evo]

This has always made me laugh.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

A Creation "Science" Geologic Time Scale

1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid.

(2) Adam and Eve, talking snakes, etc.

3) World's waters are in great Venus-like atmosphere or in ground
water. No rain, no ocean basins.

(4) Radiometric dating invalid; speed of light changed.

(5) Humans, dinosaurs, mammals, the "works," all live together in
peace. Both lions and Tyranosaurus Rex are vegetarians in Eden before
the "fall."

(6) Human life spans up to 900 years.

(7) Battle of Satan and angels produces craters on moon.

continued...

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

 

[moe darklight]

And you read these passages from the original Hebrew texts?

Yes I read them in Hebrew, I don't know what version of the texts seeing as there are so many copies. (it might be somewhat modernized Hebrew, I don't know, I've never seen personally an ancient scroll so I don't know if the language is the same. If it was, it's at least closer than the English translations)

Are you aware that the original language of the Bible applies vowels in extra short, short, long, or extra long form? That the word for Red sea may also be Reed sea?

Hebrew words are not that easy to confuse*, or else it would be a pretty unsuccessful language to communicate with. Also, special punctuation is sometimes used when a word might be mistaken (though I don't know if these punctuation's are a modern invention).

Are you aware that striking a rock in the desert to find water isn't a miracle, but rather breaking a salt deposit to free trapped water? The Hebrews that this story was originally told to would have been aware of that. Creationists attending that theme park would not.

But that's the point of the story: God asks Moses to speak to the stone, not strike it. He wants moses to do this publicly to show God's great powers (Moses asking a stone to give its water, and the stone obeying would be a miracle. I think we both agree on that). But Moses disobeys, and strikes the stone instead, which is why God becomes so angry and banishes him from Israel.

Literal to them (people who lived during that time, knew their customs, spoke the language, lived in that area), and literal to us (thousands of years later, are reading translations made from translations from oral traditions, who don't know the customs, don't know the climate, don't know the area) are two different things.

Yes, this is true if we agree that the bible is a work of fiction by humans. But the bible claims it is the word of God. The bible claims that God knows all. God would have predicted Darwin and Quantum Physics and the fossil record and so on.

It takes study to understand the Bible, study to apply it's teachings.

it takes study to fully understand almost any literary work. This doesn't mean that one can't understand some aspects of it. I might not understand many aspects of an Aphrah Behn or Shakespeare play without years of studying the culture and language of their times, but when a character tells another she loves him, the message is pretty clear.
Many parts of the bible might lend themselves to interpretation, but when the bible says that it is the truth, that it is literal, and so on, (to me it seems, at least) like it is written in straight to-the-point language. I'm not aware of any part where the bible even slightly insinuates that it is not meant to be taken literally. I might be wrong (great Radiohead song, by the way).
* EDIT: at least not so often that you can say that every miracle in the bible is just the words being other words.

 

[scott_alexsk]

I don't even know why you people care so much and waste so much time jabbering about how stupid us Christians are. If life has no meaning then it does not f***ing matter how stupid our belief is, and what consequences it has. It is our choice how we want to spend this time, and you are truly stupid, if you think that life is meaningless, that there is a right way and a wrong way to spend it. If it is all so bad, evolution will rid our world of people with defective brains like mine.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

To me it seems like the bible is quite clear on referring to itself as being literal.

In the New Testament, the bible declares itself not be be taken literally. Read Matthew Chapter 13, verses 10 through 17.

 

[moe darklight]

I didn't know that. I'll check it out. I don't know much about the new testament, so I won't comment on it. In the old testament God seems pretty insistent on constantly making a point of his word being perfect.

 

[Artman]

moe darklight,

I think the later translations add the special punctuation. I believe that ambiguity is what makes the Bible a living document. If it was as concrete in it's
statements as some of the already dead religions, it too would have died. It is this openness to interpretation that makes it relevant to those who believe it today. Unfortunately, it also leaves the door open for creationists to argue without facts against scientific theories. People like that do more harm to the Christian religions then they will ever do good.

 

[arunma]

In the New Testament, the bible declares itself not be be taken literally. Read Matthew Chapter 13, verses 10 through 17.

Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the same thing. This passage seems to be referring to God's act of blinding those who harden their hearts against him...as would be consistent with this thread.

Alas, this thread seems to be turning into a religious debate. Rather than arguing against the claim that the Bible is responsible for all evil on earth, I'll simply leave you all with the request that my fellow scientists not say/do something stupid to get all our funding taken away one day.

 

[moe darklight]

Rather than arguing against the claim that the Bible is responsible for all evil on earth, I'll simply leave you all with the request that my fellow scientists not say/do something stupid to get all our funding taken away one day.

I haven't read anyone say that on this thread. My argument is simply that science and religion are incompatible, and that this new notion that they can both somehow meet half-way is not only illogical but possibly dangerous.

I also think that the worst thing that scientists could say or do is nothing, which is where I disagree with your assumption that if we let them be they won't try and interfere.

 

[Artman]

...My argument is simply that science and religion are incompatible, and that this new notion that they can both somehow meet half-way is not only illogical but possibly dangerous...

I agree with this.

 

[Surrealist]

OK, a creation museum is a retarded concept, but what I don't understand is why people felt the need to protest it.

I mean this non-profit organization raised $27 million dollars, but it's not like the money came from the government. Why would people protest how a non-profit organization decides to spend its own money?

If I raised $27 million, from like-minded supporters, to open a muesuem of "piss and ****"... who the hell are you to tell me how to spend the money I raised for that specific cause?

Last time I checked, this is America... land of the FREE!

 

[moe darklight]

OK, a creation museum is a retarded concept, but what I don't understand is why people felt the need to protest it.

I mean this non-profit organization raised $27 million dollars, but it's not like the money came from the government. Why would people protest how a non-profit organization decides to spend its own money?

If I raised $27 million, from like-minded supporters, to open a muesuem of "piss and ****"... who the hell are you to tell me how to spend the money I raised for that specific cause?

Last time I checked, this is America... land of the FREE!

I have no problem with a museum on creationism or the bible. I do have a problem with it claiming to be something it is not, and for kids being brainwashed with this nonsense. There is a difference between freedom of speech and misinformation.

freedom of speech: I write a book about flying pigs.

not freedom of speech: I write a book about how pigs can fly; it is filled with misleading statements that are presented as facts and makes the reader believe that this flying-pig theory is backed by "a growing number of the scientific community" (as they always claim).

To me, the second part is where freedom of speech should end. The same as the press should not be allowed to report news that never happened, a museum or textbook should not be allowed to present a theory that has not been even remotely proven possible as indisputable.

I also have no problem with considering and investigating theories such as intelligent design, god, or the "paranormal". But this should be done responsibly, not through propaganda and lies— this could also end up hurting serious scientist who legitimately ask these questions — And if the research leads to a conclusion that is not what you wanted, then you should admit it, not just ignore the evidence against your theory.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't even know why you people care so much and waste so much time jabbering about how stupid us Christians are. If life has no meaning then it does not f***ing matter how stupid our belief is, and what consequences it has. It is our choice how we want to spend this time, and you are truly stupid, if you think that life is meaningless, that there is a right way and a wrong way to spend it. If it is all so bad, evolution will rid our world of people with defective brains like mine.

We care so much because religious people in this country are trying to put religion into science, and government. That is oil and water. You don't mix the two. Why does President Bush have 150 people working in his office from the pat robertson law school? Religious people are spreading their filth and polluting this great country.

PS, life is not meaningless. A meaningless life is living by a stupid book written by men that's full of myths and fairytales and closing your mind. A meaninful life is helping others, contributing to society, and science etc. Live and let live. Religious people go on and on about tolerance, yet they are the most intolerant people I have ever met.

Religion is an opiate of the masses

I don't agree with communism, but a broken watch is still correct twice a day.

http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...andal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/

 

[Cyrus]

I'll simply leave you all with the request that my fellow scientists not say/do something stupid to get all our funding taken away one day.

Taken away by who? The federal government can't do that because of religion. I think this is a load of pro-creationist crap - at least it sounds like it to me.

In fact, I don't think you have ever worked in a lab based on what you said.

If *any* employer asks you about your religious views you can sue their ass off.

 

[Surrealist]

a museum or textbook should not be allowed to present a theory that has not been even remotely proven possible as indisputable

You would be correct if you said a "federally funded museum or textbook paid for with tax payer dollars"... but we are clearly talking about a specific case of museums and textbooks paid for by private parties.

It is not your place nor the government's place to decide how individuals or private organizations spend their own money.

At this point, I would like to reiterate the fact that I am neither a Christian nor a supporter of the creationist movement. However, I would like to make a point of saying that I believe in freedom, and this country was founded on this principle of individual freedom. It scares the **** out of me that people like you--people who want to take away individual freedoms--are flourishing in this country.

 

[Cyrus]

But those books are going into public schools.

You can say whatever religious BS you want to, but you cant call it science. You have freedom of religion. Not freedom to make up science. Try making up science when you build a bridge and see what happens when you get to court because the bridge failed. You will get the living crap sued out of you because science means real honest to goodness science must have been done to build that bridge.