# "Dinosaurs on ark, Kentucky museum claims"



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

That's freedom for ya. In the words of Steve Martin "Wanna have some fun teach yours kids going to school that if they want to leave the room to raise their hand and to say to the teacher
May I mumbo dog face to the banana patch."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

HowEver, you need to be more accurate in your posting. There were, in fact, two dinosaurs on the Ark.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Neither Christian or non-Christian can prove or disprove both evolution and creationism, therefore neither can say either one is wrong. (speaking from how the earth came to be.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sadly, one does not have to go to Kentucky to find such nonsense:

Welcome to the Big Valley Creation Science Museum


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: You're a liar--that museum isn't opening for a week yet!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> SINC: You're a liar--that museum isn't opening for a week yet!


Sorry MF, for a minute there I thought I was talking about GHGs. That kind of gets one used to lying.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Isn't it sad...*

... that being so ignorant isn't even painful?


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Lars said:


> Neither Christian or non-Christian can prove or disprove both evolution and creationism, therefore neither can say either one is wrong. (speaking from how the earth came to be.)



I have to agree, they are theories. Somone asked Einstien what he would do if the disproved E=mc2. He answered "It is only a theory!!" We need to remember that and not think in absolutes. That does not mean I agree with creationism. It just means in the end WE HAVE TO DECIDE FOR OURSELVES!!!

When did having an opion different than other people brand us as stupid, ignorant, ect. You may not like religion, but that fact does not make your views right and thiers wrong.

If a teacher is asked about these museums I think that there is a reasonable answer. Both evolution and creationism are theories. Maybe teaching kids why different theories exist might help them co-exist with other students.beejacon


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Both evolution and creationism are theories." However, one theory is based on faith, which cannot really be questioned, challenged or studied objectively in light of new information. The other is a scientific theory, which grows and adapts to new information.


----------



## Nina Danne Marshall (Oct 11, 2004)

I'm not normally one to disapprove of anyone's particular religion.... but i originally thought this was a joke... adn when i learned it was not... i was the most mortified person on earth. Read and be horrified!

http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/

This site is possibly one of the most offensive religious website i've ever seen. and i've seen some offensive stuff, hahaha


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Nina, as someone who is a "Kanga-Jew", I have seen much more offensive websites aimed at my Jewish faith. This site is somewhat covert in its message. My fear are the overt website that promote hatred and violence against various religions, races, nationalities, genders, persons with a specific sexual preference, etc.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

I stand corrected they are very scary people. This is pure and simple brainwashing. The last post, by Nina, helped me to see that. Kool aid anyone?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lambuel is a hoax, folks...more subtle than most and far more elaborate.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Lars said:


> Neither Christian or non-Christian can prove or disprove both evolution and creationism, therefore neither can say either one is wrong. (speaking from how the earth came to be.)


One is based on objective science, while creationism (or the repackaged ID) utter nonsense (or religious dogma if you prefer).

Call it the dummying down of America, but I don’t see how trying to put a respectable veneer on such claptrap helps anyone. Now some climate deniers may take relief that is such stupidity is supported, well they may support such kooky ideas also…

This reminds me of debate between fact and fiction. I’m sure some will applaud such specious arguments.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Take your climate whining to the appropriate topic OK? 

We don't need GHGs from you 24/7.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lars said:


> Neither Christian or non-Christian can prove or disprove both evolution and creationism, therefore neither can say either one is wrong. (speaking from how the earth came to be.)


Sure they can. There is scientific fact that life was created more than 7000 years ago on Earth, so the whole creationist theory that Earth is a few thousand years old is bunk.



DR Hannon said:


> I have to agree, they are theories. Both evolution and creationism are theories.


Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. Creationism is a fairy tale. The argument "It's just a theory" holds no water (hello great flood!) because often people are ignorant of what "theory" actually means.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Sure they can. There is scientific fact that life was created more than 7000 years ago on Earth, so the whole creationist theory that Earth is a few thousand years old is bunk.
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. Creationism is a fairy tale. The argument "It's just a theory" holds no water (hello great flood!) because often people are ignorant of what "theory" actually means.


Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Seems pretty broad to me!


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

Its only broad outside the scientific world. Science wants to test and retest its theories to better fit the models to the data collected where as organized western religion tries its damnedest to do the opposite. There's ample concrete evidence that the world is older then 7000 years not to mention we've seen the concepts of evolution play out in recent history in things like horses, dog and other animals and plants. 

I roomed with a guy that came from a strong religious background during my university days while we both majored in Biology. It was very interesting to see how his own beliefs changed (dare I saw evolved) as he learned new idea's and in the end he managed to find a way to blend the two together mostly by loosening the grip on a literal translation of the bible. I personally believe the answers lie not in the words but the spaces between them and science's advances only prove just how amazing this universe(s) is.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Lambuel is a hoax, folks...more subtle than most and far more elaborate.


They even incorporate game theory into the fun, "If Game Theory is a valid science, then its findings must agree with the Word of the Lord." :lmao: 

That site is possibly funnier than the FSM site.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

DR Hannon said:


> Theory:
> A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly *tested*


Creationists don't like their fairy tale tested.



DR Hannon said:


> or is widely accepted and can be used to make
> predictions about natural phenomena.


Creationism can't be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Since the bases for their belief is "some higher power made it happen", it can't be measured scientifically, or used in a scientific model.



DR Hannon said:


> The branch of a science or art consisting of its *explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis*, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.


There is no method of analysis for creationism that don't ignore scientific fact. There are no accepted principles of creationism outside fundamentalist Christianity that don't ignore scientific fact. There are no explanatory statements of creationism that don't ignore scientific fact.



DR Hannon said:


> A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.


This one doesn't apply to either.



DR Hannon said:


> Abstract reasoning; speculation


This is about as close as a Creationism is going to come to being a theory, but it doesn't quite cut it. The key word here is *reasoning*. There is no reasoning behind Creationism that doesn't ignore scientific fact.



DR Hannon said:


> a decision based on experience rather than theory


Creationism is based on ignorance, not experience.



DR Hannon said:


> A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.


Those beliefs and principles MUST be based on some evidence. When the extent of that evidence is The Bible, while ignoring all other scientific fact, Creationism can't be considered a theory.



DR Hannon said:


> An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


There is no limited information about evolution and the age of our planet. It's all right there, based in scientific fact. The fact the Creationists CHOOSE to ignore and be ignorant of the facts does not make their "theory" valid.

You see, the "theory" of evolution, and the age of our planet is based on mounds and mounds of scientific *facts*. Carbon dating, artifact excavation, and more. Creationism is based on "I don't understand scientific facts, I believe The Bible more.", not any facts.

We will always have religious nutbars waving around a 1500yo book, written by sexually repressed men, screaming "Science is a lie. The Devil is tricking you. The Earth is 7000 years old. Man walked with dinosaurs."

The idea is to never let these people influence our children. The Bible is not a textbook.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If creationism is taught, then I want all the creationist "theories" taught, including FSM, Elvis as God, all powerful pencil at Alpha Centauri, fairly powerful pencil at Alpha Centauri etc. There's an infinite number of these theories because anybody can make them up. 

Also, why not teach similar theories in other disciplines, such as engineering? One line of thinking is the conventional theories, the other line of thinking with infinite variations teaches that you can just build something and it will stand if the Creator, not some mortal engineer, wills it. Engineers would learn the finer points of worship and the intricacies of covering off as many of the possibly existent Creators as they can without making any of them angry. Quite the elaborate ceremonial procedures before unveiling their 100 storey sod skyscrapers.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

I am not defending creationism, I do not agree with creationism, but here is some reading. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold
Has why science comes to it conclusions and why creationists try to debunk it. The link only shows where each is coming from.

So if science found different evidence, then your facts change? Evidence is not fact. Even though I agree with evolution and the science behind how the earth was created. I just feel more comfortable explaining the theory than attacking people.

Anyway GT where are any links to the mounds of facts, did you forget how to google? You said it yourself when your friend was at university, he started to see things in a different light. Sometimes using a hammer to make your point only does more damage than good. 

Alot of these bible thumpers are scarey, but by constant attacking them only hardens their position. No need to push anyone else into their ranks. Plus the links would useful reading to alot of people here.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Beej said:


> If creationism is taught, then I want all the creationist "theories" taught, including ... Elvis as God


Ummm...that's fact.



DR Hannon said:


> I am not defending creationism, I do not agree with creationism, but here is some reading. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold
> Has why science comes to it conclusions and why creationists try to debunk it. The link only shows where each is coming from.


Great read. Very articulate.



DR Hannon said:


> So if science found different evidence, then your facts change? Evidence is not fact. Even though I agree with evolution and the science behind how the earth was created. I just feel more comfortable explaining the theory than attacking people.


Sure, absolutely. Unfortunately, the fundamentalist Christianity movement that pushes its Creationism agenda don't want to listen to alternative theories.



DR Hannon said:


> Anyway GT where are any links to the mounds of facts, did you forget how to google?


Not at all. I'm not trying to convince anyone about the age of the Earth or about evolution. I'm making a stand against those who want to teach Creationism.



DR Hannon said:


> You said it yourself when your friend was at university, he started to see things in a different light.


I think you have me confused with someone else.



DR Hannon said:


> Sometimes using a hammer to make your point only does more damage than good.


Sometimes, but they have hammered their Creationism agenda for a while now, so someone has to hammer back. We got rid of the Bible in classrooms, brought in Darwin, and now schools want to reverse it again. Somebody needs to do some hammering.



DR Hannon said:


> A lot of these bible thumpers are scarey, but by constant attacking them only hardens their position. No need to push anyone else into their ranks. Plus the links would useful reading to alot of people here.


I doubt my arguments will ever push anybody towards Creationism. If it does, those individuals are too weak-minded to make a conscious, sensible decision to begin with.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Ummm...that's fact.


I just chose to ignore BEEJ.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> t. Engineers would learn the finer points of worship and the intricacies of covering off as many of the possibly existent Creators as they can without making any of them angry. Quite the elaborate ceremonial procedures before unveiling their 100 storey sod skyscrapers.


The noble "Science" of Feng Shui as taught in far too many Canadian Universities.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The noble "Science" of Feng Shui as taught in far too many Canadian Universities.


There very well could be a science behind Feng Shui. The placebo effect is well-documented, and if people BELIEVE that their furniture placement is creating harmonious balance in their life, it actually just might for a few.

I'm more interesting in the facts of building engineering, where even though we have strict requirements for stress levels, building materials, and more, I choose to ignore them because "God" will holding my building up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy: Feng Shui asks practitioners to do far more than arrange furniture. While they can't override engineering requirements, they choose materials, building elevations, building orientations, etc. entirely on the principles of their belief.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

With Feng Shui, most of us realize it's a placebo thing, so if someone's house is made of new age, or old age materials, facing 227 degrees, at an elevation of 3.14 feet, we let them have their placebo effect. 

At least we have building standards to stop them from doing stupid things (straw hut, on a swamp embankment).

Unfortunately, we don't have scientific "standards" that stop people from believing Creationist propaganda. The best we can hope for is education standards that keep it out of our schools.

I wonder how the world would react if I opened up a "Holocaust Never Happened" Museum. It's about as truthful as an "Evolution Never Happened" Museum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> I wonder how the world would react if I opened up a "Holocaust Never Happened" Museum...


I'm guessing any business plan you had for making a profit would be unrealistic.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Ernst Z. tried something like the never-happened museum. He's still in a German jail, third year of five.


Third year already? Time files when you're having fun!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

DR Hannon said:


> I just chose to ignore BEEJ.


Me too. It's easier than realising my own logical flaws. :lmao: 

But, be careful. beejacon could be the Creator. Recommended worship involves seeking knowledge, understanding and the application of logic, including knowing when it is useful to use a standard of Absolute Truth and when it just paints a bullseye on one's arguments.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

Could someone actually point out a fact in the bible? I'm just curious if there are any.


G


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

There are many events that correlate well with historical evidence from other sources. All ethical "facts", like any presumed objective ethical notions secular and religious, are made up. Many have proven to be quite practical through the centuries; others, not so much. 

The Bible, including differences resulting from translations and the whole committee process that put it together, are to be taken with a pillar of salt.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: Translations from the oldest sources aren't spectacularly difficult feats. It's not as though the Bible is composed of translations of translations.

Garyola, here's a fact: Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Bible has been through various editorial and "lost in history" processes.

Translation is not a precise practice and is open to interpretation, particularly when pursuing literary quality. When people choose to carefully examine arguments based on specific wording, the translation can tilt things. The "originals" are also in question, as per the long process by which the Bible was developed in the first place. 

The good book did not suddenly appear from the ink of one pen. And that's just the new testament part.  Dig deeper into the history of the old for added subjective fun.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: What I'm saying is that there isn't a huge deal of difference between various records of the "Old Testament." Yes translation can be used to one's advantage, but there aren''t vast numbers of sources with strikingly different content--it's all fairly cohesive. Often, the arguments about wording involve picking a word from an interim translation--Greek, for example--when the oldest version precedes the Greek. Those are non-arguments.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

I'm more interested in what didn't make it into the Bible then what did. The Gnositc's were closer to the truth IMO but that's a whole other discussion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Andrew: You'd have to decide at what point "The Bible" existed, as opposed to the parts that make it up.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

True enough...I'd say as it was voted upon at the Council of Nicaea.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: What I'm saying is that there isn't a huge deal of difference between various records of the "Old Testament." Yes translation can be used to one's advantage, but there aren''t vast numbers of sources with strikingly different content--it's all fairly cohesive. Often, the arguments about wording involve picking a word from an interim translation--Greek, for example--when the oldest version precedes the Greek. Those are non-arguments.


Fair enough, given the known set of writings, the oldest of which is quite a bit younger than the history (particularly for the old books). As already mentioned, what's in and out can be of more interest but, with the time period covered, decisions (including translations and relying upon oral tradition) were already made. 

Believing specific non-factual Truths (as divine) that depend upon the twist of wording, is not a good idea. It does seem to get a lot of basic history correct, though. That's the easier part, but the verification helps.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Feng Shui asks practitioners to do far more than arrange furniture. While they can't override engineering requirements, they choose materials, building elevations, building orientations, etc. entirely on the principles of their belief.


If their beliefs had any principles, you'd expect the same, or at least similar results from the calculations made by different practitioners. I enjoyed the Penn & Teller BS episode where they had 3 Feng Shui practitioners arrange the same house. They, of course, came up with 3 radically different designs for every different room in the house. The only truthful thing any of them said was one of them, when he thought he was not being recorded, muttered "still looks like sh*t."

Feng Shui is nothing but an excuse for interior decorators to cover their BS with a veneer of science and a cloak of mysticism.

On a tangential topic, has anyone else ever wondered why so many BS artists try to co-opt the term 'science'? Advertisements (I remember a shampoo advertised as 'the science of ensilkinging your hair' or something like that), interior decorators, completely subjective academic disciplines like 'Political Science', 'Textile Science', etc.

'Science' has a very strong brand, and everyone and their dog is trying to use it to sell their BS. Unfortunately, the only way I can think of to stop them is to do a better job of teaching students in grade school what science is, and, just as importantly, what it isn't.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: Perhaps you can win them over through the persuasive powers of poetry, the "gay science".


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

bryanc said:


> If their beliefs had any principles, you'd expect the same, or at least similar results from the calculations made by different practitioners. I enjoyed the Penn & Teller BS episode where they had 3 Feng Shui practitioners arrange the same house. They, of course, came up with 3 radically different designs for every different room in the house.


I'm not a feng shui believer, but just to play devil's advocate for a second: does this kind of test really invalidate those beliefs? 

Ask three architects to design a house for the same location, all adhering to fundamental, testable structural principles and the same set of basic requirements, and you will surely get three different designs -- possibly radically different. Three pastry chefs can come up with three radically different chocolate cake recipes that all respect the applicable chemistry and are recognizable as "chocolate cake." 

Should the high probability -- or rather virtual certainty -- of different outcomes lead a reasonable person to conclude that architecture and baking are just meaningless hocus pocus? I don't think so. In both cases, there is artistry involved but there is also underlying science that must be respected or you may have pretty houses that fall down and beautiful cakes that make you sick. Even civil engineering, relatively inflexible on the whole, shows that there's more than one way to build a bridge.

If accepted, testable sets of principles can arrive at many different results, surely asking three practitioners for their approach is not the appropriate test for questionable principles/beliefs. The test would only seem valid if believers deny there's any element of creativity or interpretation involved, which seems unlikely. 

Seems to me the more complete test would be to have the three practitioners design the spaces, then to have other feng shui experts evaluate the results (without being told that the spaces were designed using the principles). The extent to which they are declared "bad feng shui" and in need of expensive reworking would give an indication of the degree to which it's a scam.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

*Yabba-dabba-doo!*

From the LA Times
*Yabba-dabba science*

Note to would-be Creation Museum visitors: the Earth is round.
May 24, 2007


THE CREATION MUSEUM, a $27-million tourist attractionpromoting earth science theories that were popular when Columbus set sail, opens near Cincinnati on Memorial Day. So before the first visitor risks succumbing tothe museum's animatronic balderdash — dinosaurs and humans actually coexisted! the Grand Canyon was carved by the great flood described in Genesis! — we'd like to clear up a few things: "The Flintstones" is a cartoon, not a documentary. Fred and Wilma? Those woolly mammoth vacuum cleaners? All make-believe. 

Science is under assault, and that calls for bold truths. Here's another: The Earth is round.

The museum, a 60,000-square-foot menace to 21st century scientific advancement, is the handiwork of Answers in Genesis, a leader in the "young Earth" movement. Young Earthers believe the world is about 6,000 years old, as opposed to the 4.5 billion yearsestimated by the world's credible scientific community. This would be risible if anti-evolution forces were confined to a lunatic fringe, but they are not. Witness the recent revelation that three of the Republican candidates for president do not believe in evolution. Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together.

Religion and science can coexist. That the Earth is billions of years old is a fact. How the universe came into being and whether it operates by design are matters of faith. The problem is that people who deny science in one realm are unlikely to embrace it in another. Those who cannot accept that climate change may have caused the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago probably don't put much stock in the fact that today it poses grave peril to the Earth as we know it. 

Last year, the White House attempted to muzzle NASA's top climatologist after he called for urgent action on global warming, and a presidential appointee in the agency's press office chastised a contractor for mentioning the Big Bang without including the word "theory." The press liaison reportedly wrote in an e-mail:"This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA."

With the opening of the Creation Museum, young people will be getting another side of the story. Too bad it starts with "Yabba-dabba-doo!"


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I would never vote for someone who doesn't believe in old-earth/evolution. If they aren't sensible enough to understand basic science, how can we trust them to make sensible decisions about economics and policies?


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

I came across this letter while looking up a date yesterday and thought mirrors my own thoughts rather well



> On May 12, 1797 while living in Paris, France Tom Paine wrote the following letter to a Christian friend who was trying to convert Paine to Christianity. Paine's response fits perfectly with this page regarding the origins of the Bible.
> 
> "In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMatt said:


> Seems to me the more complete test would be to have the three practitioners design the spaces, then to have other feng shui experts evaluate the results (without being told that the spaces were designed using the principles). The extent to which they are declared "bad feng shui" and in need of expensive reworking would give an indication of the degree to which it's a scam.


Bingo! But rival schools of feng shui are at loggerheads about what constitutes good feng shui beyond a few basic principles, The "Black Hat" sect of feng shui disagrees with almost everybody.

The problem here is that there's only the satisfaction of the client to determine whether the practitioner has done his/her work properly. If you like the design, you may agree with the feng shui types, but not because dragon energy has been properly channeled.

A client may also be satisfied that a reader of auras has performed a reading task admirably. In one famous test, a reader of auras was asked to read auras of people standing inside closed cabinets. The reader wasn't even asked to do something as complex as to consistently identify a person by their aura, but merely to say which cubicles were occupied. Reader: 20 out of 20. Actual: 14 out of 20.

A feng shui test would not be as easy to devise because there's so much disagreement about what constitutes the proper flow of chi in the first place.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

HowEver said:


> How do we know that Tom Paine wrote that, or that there even was a Tom Paine?


We don't really, but it seems likely given the historical evidence. However, what is more relevant is that we can judge the merit of the argument using our own critical thinking, and find that much of it is valid. So wether it is correctly attributed to Tomas Paine is not philosophically important.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

iMatt said:


> I'm not a feng shui believer, but just to play devil's advocate for a second: does this kind of test really invalidate those beliefs?


I agree that it is does not completely invalidate the belief, however it does show that the practice does not give rise to reproducible results, and is therefore not a science.



> Ask three architects to design a house for the same location, all adhering to fundamental, testable structural principles and the same set of basic requirements, and you will surely get three different designs


Does anyone think architecture is a science? Architects design within engineering constraints, and must therefore be knowledgeable about that branch of engineering, which, in turn, is based on physics. But that's a long way from science, and I don't think any architects would claim to be scientists.



> Three pastry chefs can come up with three radically different chocolate cake recipes that all respect the applicable chemistry and are recognizable as "chocolate cake."


Again, I despite the application of some chemistry (and again, this is engineering, not science), the culinary _arts_ are not sciences.



> Should the high probability -- or rather virtual certainty -- of different outcomes lead a reasonable person to conclude that architecture and baking are just meaningless hocus pocus? I don't think so.


I don't think so either. Interior design isn't all meaningless hocus pocus either. But it's certainly not science, and neither is Feng Shui.



> Seems to me the more complete test would be to have the three practitioners design the spaces, then to have other feng shui experts evaluate the results (without being told that the spaces were designed using the principles). The extent to which they are declared "bad feng shui" and in need of expensive reworking would give an indication of the degree to which it's a scam.


Actually, if I remember correctly, they did leave one of the rooms in it's 'optimal feng shui' design for one of the practitioners, who declared it utterly wrong, and in need of complete redesign. One of the practitioners made a big fuss about how the red couches were "perfect" for aligning some sort of energy, another said nothing about the color, but insisted they needed to be on the west wall, and the third said that they had to be recovered in 'any color but red' because red conflicts with the energy in the room.

I'm sure there aren't many here who thought otherwise, but feng shui is pretty obviously completely BS, which is what the Penn & Teller show is about. Great show... I highly recommend it.

cheers


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Macfury said:


> But rival schools of feng shui are at loggerheads about what constitutes good feng shui beyond a few basic principles...


I would control for this by running the test with only practitioners from one school. 

Of course, even if the evaluators correctly recognized the work of someone else from the same school and thus didn't recommend work that should be unnecessary according to the belief system, that wouldn't conclusively show that there's something to feng shui. It would simply demonstrate that there are consistent principles being followed.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

bryanc said:


> I agree that it is does not completely invalidate the belief, however it does show that the practice does not give rise to reproducible results, and is therefore not a science.
> 
> Does anyone think architecture is a science? Architects design within engineering constraints, and must therefore be knowledgeable about that branch of engineering, which, in turn, is based on physics. But that's a long way from science, and I don't think any architects would claim to be scientists.
> 
> Again, I despite the application of some chemistry (and again, this is engineering, not science), the culinary _arts_ are not sciences.


Architecture and baking are indeed arts that rely on substantial scientific foundations (or applied science/engineering, if you prefer). In my admittedly very limited understanding, the claims for feng shui are similar -- in addition to more concrete claims, aesthetics play a role. If my understanding is right, the analogies to architecture and baking are very good. 

The big difference is of course that with architecture and baking, an independent party can come along after the fact and observe and measure very specific, quantifiable things to tell you something objective and useful about the house and the cake, respectively, independently of whether the house is ugly or the cake tastes crappy. 

Like I said, I'm no feng shui believer. I just thought the debunking as described sounded inconclusive because it appeared to assume there's no room for aesthetic differences within a coherent practice (for want of a better word). Your additional info seems to answer most of that.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> HowEver, you need to be more accurate in your posting. There were, in fact, two dinosaurs on the Ark.



That's quite true... I was there with Shirley Maclean. One dinosaur was named Zack the other wasn't.

:heybaby:


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Sure they can. There is scientific fact that life was created more than 7000 years ago on Earth, so the whole creationist theory that Earth is a few thousand years old is bunk.
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. Creationism is a fairy tale. The argument "It's just a theory" holds no water (hello great flood!) because often people are ignorant of what "theory" actually means.


I agree with GuyToronto - hang on, is that some kind of miracle?!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

iMatt said:


> The big difference is of course that with architecture and baking, an independent party can come along after the fact and observe and measure very specific, quantifiable things to tell you something objective and useful about the house and the cake, respectively, independently of whether the house is ugly or the cake tastes crappy.


And that neither architecture nor baking claim to be sciences, which is the point I was trying to make.



> Like I said, I'm no feng shui believer.


I think we're in violent agreement  I was just trying to emphasize the fact that not only is it apparently completely bogus, feng shui goes the extra mile and claims to be a science.

Cheers


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Sure they can. There is scientific fact that life was created more than 7000 years ago on Earth, so the whole creationist theory that Earth is a few thousand years old is bunk.
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. Creationism is a fairy tale. The argument "It's just a theory" holds no water (hello great flood!) because often people are ignorant of what "theory" actually means.


 Where is the scientific fact that animals diversify as proposed by Darwin.Truth is there is no fact to confirm Darwin is absolutely correct hence the the Theory of Evolution.

To me Lars makes a point about theories and faith.

Tell me ever see or feel a neutrino? Can you do the math to say if they exist or not? If you believe in their existence is that not a matter of faith that you trust the people who says neutrinos exist? beejacon


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

BigDL said:


> Where is the scientific fact that animals diversify as proposed by Darwin.Truth is there is no fact to confirm Darwin is absolutely correct hence the the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> To me Lars makes a point about theories and faith.


The important distinction here is that the data that supports evolutionary theory are available for anyone to observe (such evidence is both abundant and diverse). Furthermore, evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, makes testable predictions, and such tests can be reproduced by anyone with appropriate training and/or equipment. No faith is necessary.



> Tell me ever see or feel a neutrino? Can you do the math to say if they exist or not? If you believe in their existence is that not a matter of faith that you trust the people who says neutrinos exist? beejacon


I'm not a physicist, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with the evidence for the existence of such subatomic particles to be able to demonstrate it myself. However, I would argue that my belief in their existence is not faith for two reasons. Firstly, I understand the scientific method and know the scientific culture well enough to know that well-established theories like the atomic theory of matter are so well tested and supported by so much corroborating evidence that for them to be fundamentally incorrect is almost inconceivable. So, while I don't know the people who discovered neutrinos, and therefore can't 'trust' them, I do trust the scientific method. Secondly, and more importantly, I accept the existence of neutrinos as a falsifiable hypothesis: if I am provided with adequate evidence that conflicts with this theory, I will accept that the theory is incorrect. Unlike religious beliefs, all scientific theories are open to falsification on the basis of conflicting evidence.

Faith, in contrast, is unable to accommodate contrary evidence. If you believe on the basis of faith, no evidence or argument can change your belief.

Cheers


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The whole idea that Noah would have tried to save the dinosaurs by bringing adult specimens aboard the Ark is just silly anyway. Obviously he'd have brought fertilized dino eggs to save precious space. Failure to take proper care of the eggs would have led to the dinos' extinction. Right?

Seriously... I understand that some people here have sincere religious beliefs and I respect that. But there is a difference between pondering the unknowable and concluding there's a higher power, and believing the literal veracity of parables that very seriously stretch credulity. (I know some fellow atheists/agnostics may not see a difference there, but I do.) Do any of you truly believe in the literal truth of the story of Noah's Ark as recorded in Genesis? 

If so, do you have any evidence at all that it's possible even today to build a ship large enough to do the job, including carrying enough food and water for 150 days, and that could be run with a crew of just eight people? (And those are just the most obvious of the many objections to a literal reading of this story.)

IMO the historical grain of truth behind the Noah story is probably that it's an old oral tradition recording a natural disaster and a feat of heroism, amplified in the retelling over many generations.

2400 BC: Noah saves his cattle, sheep, goats and chickens by herding a few of each onto a barge for a few days during a devastating spring flood in lower Mesopotamia. 

900 BC, roughly 80 generations later: Noah saved all the creatures of the Earth from the wrath of God...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Tell me ever see or feel a neutrino? Can you do the math to say if they exist or not? If you believe in their existence is that not a matter of faith that you trust the people who says neutrinos exist? beejacon


Faith? Sure. Trust? Absolutely.

There is substantial scientific evidence of the existence of neutrinos, just like there is scientific evidence that the centre of the earth is a molten core of iron. 

Nobody on this planet has seen the centre of the earth, but all the evidence we have collects agrees that it is a big spinning hot ball of metal down there (sorry, no brimstone or pitchforks).

There is no scientific evidence of the existence of God. The supposed "scientific" evidence supporting a young-Earth theory is easily disproven by the over-whelming old-Earth evidence.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

The trouble with embracing creationism is it dumbs down our intellectual discourse, and lowers the quality of our children's education. While we're busy teaching kids that the earth may be 6,000 years old, children in China and Korea and bounding ahead of them in the sciences. Teach the kids all the scripture you want because evolution isn't 100% proven, it's in the bible, and keeping an open mind just feels right. Meanwhile, you are possibly dooming them to flipping burgers or managing a discount store as a career, while the smart Asian kids are getting a doctorate. 

It's not wise or judicious to keep your mind so open that your brain falls out, is it?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I have no idea how many scientists agree with the current wisdom on the existence of neutrinos and how many disagree.

My belief in neutrinos is a matter of faith. I have faith that tax dollars are being wisely thrown down a hole in Sudbury. Truth is, I like many others, have no real information about neutrinos or evolution. I also believe many Canadians are happy that Canada is involved in neutrino research. I have no proof, just a matter of faith.

It's funny to me that the Christians that seem to boast most loudly about being Christian and interpret the Bible literally focus on the meaning of the Old Testament. These folks rarely or ever refer to New Testament. The New Testament deals with Christ's teachings.

Also funny to me is the unwavering belief of agnostics that science is correct and religion is false. Way to keep an open mind.

OBTW Just notice your location MissGulch I love it way to go. :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Science is ever changing. What we accept as science today, can change tomorrow, and we would accept it. We are always pushing to evolve our knowledge and understanding of science. We seek to disprove as much as we prove, just to test our science.

Religion doesn't seek to disprove itself. It can't.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

BigDL said:


> OBTW Just notice your location MissGulch I love it way to go. :clap::clap::clap:


Canehdian (There's another one for you.)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> Canehdian (There's another one for you.)


:clap::clap::clap: To quote Monty Burns "EXCELLENT"


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Nina Danne Marshall said:


> I'm not normally one to disapprove of anyone's particular religion.... but i originally thought this was a joke... adn when i learned it was not... i was the most mortified person on earth. Read and be horrified!
> 
> http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/
> 
> This site is possibly one of the most offensive religious website i've ever seen. and i've seen some offensive stuff, hahaha


Here's a quote from the above site:



> Our Purpose:
> 
> The Internet was created by the United States of America - a Christian nation [ref. 1, 2, 3] - and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech. This is our Internet, and we should exercise our position as its owners and as the guardians of civilization to stop its misuse.


Yikes.

Margaret


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

> _
> ...guardians of civilization...
> _


Now that's scary.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I just started reading this thread and as usual there is a lot of good information and discussion - I got as far as page 3.

Personally, I don't give a rat's patootie if so called "christians" believe babies come from the ethers that surround Uranus, What I do care about is that they have taken to preaching hate!

And they've started pulling their kids out of schools where they would be exposed to alternate information and "home schooling them" - brainwashing them is more accurate.

I've never been scared to live in Canada, but I'm starting to fear our neighbours to the south. 

Margaret


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

winwintoo said:


> I just started reading this thread and as usual there is a lot of good information and discussion - I got as far as page 3.
> 
> Personally, I don't give a rat's patootie if so called "christians" believe babies come from the ethers that surround Uranus, What I do care about is that they have taken to preaching hate!
> 
> ...


I have worked with PTLing Christian literalists one of who hides behind the Bible to profess his hate of gays.

In Canada, for now anyway, we seem to have a lower tolerance for fascism and social control. We seem to prefer diversity. For how long I wonder? 

We seem to be willing to give up freedom for security just like our southern neighbour.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

BigDL said:


> We seem to prefer diversity. For how long I wonder?


The day that religion tries to force its way back into schools is the day I start camping on the lawn of whoever is responsible, and force them to back down.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> The day that religion tries to force its way back into schools is the day I start camping on the lawn of whoever is responsible, and force them to back down.


 Good for you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> We seem to be willing to give up freedom for security just like our southern neighbour.


We're really quick to give our income to the government--freedom is not far behind.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> We're really quick to give our income to the government--freedom is not far behind.


I didn't give up my income. They just kinda took it. At least I get decent security and health care out of it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Once the government has its hand this firmly in your pocket, they can essentially fund anything they want to.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> It's free to write your MP. Make a suggestion.


My letters have caused some taxes to be cut--namely the GST. I'm working on universal health care right now and will tell you when it's over.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> My letters have caused some taxes to be cut--namely the GST.


Only to be replaced by higher personal income tax...



Macfury said:


> I'm working on universal health care right now and will tell you when it's over.


You can start by using only private health care if you want....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Only to be replaced by higher personal income tax...


We've established that this occurred only in your Liberal-fevered mind...



ArtistSeries said:


> You can start by using only private health care if you want....


I will start by using the system I've been forced to fund, and finish by using the system I choose.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> We've established that this [increased federal income tax] occurred only in your Liberal-fevered mind...





> The Conservatives say a Stephen Harper government would raise the rate on the lowest tax bracket back from 15 per cent back to 16 per cent in their first budget, probably in April. As well, the basic exemption, income on which no tax is charged, would be dropped by $400 in the same budget.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/01/06/taxes-tory060122.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yawn, Spec: The math we already did on this discredits you.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I will start by using the system I've been forced to fund, and finish by using the system I choose.


Why not fight back by moving south, and buying your own health care for $12,000 a year? Try it, and let us know how you like it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch: I have expressed my interest in moving to the U.S. many times. Personal circumstances prevent it at the moment, but I would be happy to do so.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> MissGulch: I have expressed my interest in moving to the U.S. many times. Personal circumstances prevent it at the moment, but I would be happy to do so.


Too busy sucking on the government tit?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> MissGulch: I have expressed my interest in moving to the U.S. many times. Personal circumstances prevent it at the moment, but I would be happy to do so.


Don't let the door hit 'ya on the ass on the way out.

</joking>

Seriously, if you do move to the U.S. I hope you'll continue to provide your viewpoint around here. As much as I completely disagree with your position, you are generally pretty good about making your points reasonably. 

Cheers


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I heard an interesting discussion on this and Alberta Museum topic this morning on CBC Radio One's The Current. It may be on this evening on CBC One's Night Time Review. Check Local listing it is on 20:00 hrs (8:00 PM) ADST

The view that funda"mental"ists are trying to prove God by piggybacking on science was interesting. Also a discussion of what constitutes a museum. 

The "Christian View" is not so monolithic as some of the posters herein might have us believe. But perhaps its their cool rational emotion that have driven the "scientific" comments?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Too busy sucking on the government tit?


I find it pretty low for you to comment like this, particularly since you asked me this question about six months ago--after which I explained that I am the only person left in the area to look after en elderly relative.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Unfortunately information regarding Creation Museum played on CBC One's The Current this morning will not be on the Night Time Review.

You can listen to the show here CBC Radio | The Current | Whole Show Blow-by-Blow



CBC The Current said:


> Whole Show Blow-by-Blow
> 
> The Current for May 29, 2007
> 
> ...


 (You will need a realPlayer to listen to the piece.)

Listen to The Current: Part 1


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The good book did not suddenly appear from the ink of one pen. And that's just the new testament part.  Dig deeper into the history of the old for added subjective fun.


Anubis was born of a virgin....
Then we have Mithras born of a virgin...
Let's not forget Heracles, lucky for a virgin birth some claim...
And lastly Jesus...
I guess copyiright laws were not strict back then....
Those pagan worshippers with their virgin-birth-saviours-son-of-God....beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Heracles a virgin birth? I thought Zeus was on the prowl, as was his style at the time. As an aside, Zeus has been keeping it in his pants for 2000+ years, so I think he deserves a round of applause.

"Too busy sucking on the government tit?"
Sometimes AS, well, does it have to go that far? Saying "sorry" does not weaken a person, particularly when it's honest. That may not apply here (I don't remember everything  ) but I think it's worth considering.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Saying "sorry" does not weaken a person.


I'm using the NeoCon playbook here...


About Herakles
Man and His Gods
Near the bottom. My mythology is a little rusty...


----------

