Comments on: Creation Museum Update

By: Paul Davis

Paul Davis — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:56:49 +0000

Um, just what part of the Bible says “This is a scientific manual with a complete description of all processes used in the creation of this universe, unabriged and totally accurate”.

I’m pretty familiar with the Bible, and I’ve yet to find that part.

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:49:21 +0000

richard, LOL!

By: richard

richard — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:59:23 +0000

We know how good the creation museum is with numbers. I don’t accept this figure of 100,000 attendees at all, because it’s not referenced in the Bible. See, I BELIEVE that the number of real attendees, as sent by God to this most holy of Museums is closer to 6000.

If they can throw random numbers at things based on belief, surely we can as well…

By: Michael Bolton

Michael Bolton — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:17:55 +0000

I’d go purely for shock and awe, but I’d have to sneak in the back door without paying because I couldn’t imagine supporting their misinformed venture.

By: Jen

Jen — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:04:30 +0000

I am guessing the majority are posing as handicapped. What other reason could there be?

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:00:39 +0000

I do agree that coming to an atheist website to try and convince someone that Christianity is right is probably not the best approach.

That sure doesn’t stop ‘em though …

Sigh.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:42:58 +0000

Maria, I think that the word is “prosletyzing.” I do agree that coming to an atheist website to try and convince someone that Christianity is right is probably not the best approach.

There’s probably some chat room or message board where that can be done though.

By: olvlzl, no ism, no ist

olvlzl, no ism, no ist — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:37:29 +0000

Maybe the problem is that the people running real science museums are reluctant to do the kind of tacky pop-culture kitsch that seems to be the heart and soul of these fundyramas. It’s like the argument I got involved in over explaining evolution to people without enough math and science to give a technical explanation. A number of scientists seem to think its below their exalted status to talk to the plebs in a language they’ll understand. As you can see the creationists don’t have any such snobbery and they are making headway in the struggle for the beliefs of an effective majority of the population. It’s a choice between your pride and the truth. What’s more important to scientists?

I also don’t think that science is able to take on the struggle against belief that many want it to. It’s having enough trouble battling creationism and its cousins, if it makes enemies of many who can be won over to the side of evolution by telling them they are superstitious idiots (always a winning sales pitch, isn’t it?) it may as well had over the keys to the creationists now.

By: Maria

Maria — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:20:33 +0000

how about not prosthelythzing on this board???????????

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:39:35 +0000

Mamie L Willis

Have you ever studied greek mythology as litterature? The gods that you deny loves you and wait for you to recognize them as your only gods. Zeus does not force anyone to love him or to worship him. Zeus does not cause bad things to happen. So how does bad things happen? Well this guy Hades… continue ad nauseam.

The reason why you don’t believe in Zeus and all other gods, is the reason why we don’t believe in Yahweh. Not believing is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of having standards of knowing to avoid a state of chaos. So stop preaching, and start looking critically at your own god on the same basis as the way you look at other gods.

Using the (manwritten) Bible to persuade others to believe what it says, is circular logic, and corresponds to me finding a piece of paper that says ” believe in Zeus because I say so”. Would you believe in Zeus if I referred to that piece of paper? I severely doubt it.