It used to be that Kentucky was known primarily for bourbon and horse racing. But now they seem determined to add creationism to that list:
Gov. Steve Beshear said Wednesday that a creationism theme park, expected to open in Northern Kentucky in 2014, would have a $250 million annual impact on the state's economy.
Ark Encounter, which will feature a 500-foot-long wooden replica of Noah's Ark containing live animals such as juvenile giraffes, is projected to cost $150 million and create 900 jobs, Beshear announced at a Capitol press conference.
“Make no mistake about it, this is a huge deal,” he said.
The park, to be located on 800 acres in Grant County off Interstate 75, also will include a Walled City, live animal shows, a replica of the Tower of Babel, a 500-seat special-effects theater, an aviary and a first-century Middle Eastern village.
Governor Beshear, by the way, is a Democrat.
One hundred fifty million dollars. The Creation Museum only cost twenty-seven million. Anyone think they will have trouble raising the money?
Of course, the millions in tax incentives coming their way are likely to ease the blow:
Operators of the popular Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky are seeking state tax incentives to build a creationism theme park at a nearby site -- a project that Gov. Steve Beshear officially will announce Wednesday.
Mike Zovath, senior vice president of the non-profit group Answers in Genesis, one of the partners in developing the park, said Kentucky officials have told him the proposal for state tourism-development incentives "looks good."
He said the park -- to be called Ark Encounter -- would include a massive wooden ark that would offer educational attractions. Additional details weren't released Tuesday.
Zovath said preliminary indications are that it could draw as many as 1.6 million guests a year.
Anyone think Zovath is wrong?
Happily, there are at least some signs of intelligence in Kentucky. The Louisville Courier-Journal editorialized about the theme park as follows:
Moreover, in a state that already suffers from low educational attainment in science, one of the last things Kentucky officials should encourage, even if only implicitly, is for students and young people to regard creationism as scientifically valid. Creationism is a nonsensical notion that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old. No serious scientist upholds that view, and sophisticated analysis of the Earth's minerals and meteorite deposits generally lead to an estimate that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Furthermore, creationism teaches that the Earth (including humans) was created in six days, thus rejecting the well-established science of evolution.
But if the Beshear administration is determined that Kentucky should cash in on its stereotypes -- and wants to fight Indiana to snare the theme park -- why stop with creationism? How about a Flat-Earth Museum? Or one devoted to the notion that the sun revolves around the Earth? Why not a museum to celebrate the history and pageantry of methamphetamines and Oxycontin? Surely a spot can be found for an Obesity Museum (with a snack bar).
And while we're at it, let's redo the state's slogan. Let's try: Kentucky -- Unbridled Laughingstock.
One suspects that Kansas is now laughing at Kentucky.
- Log in to post comments
As someone who proudly calls Kentucky home, this is indeed a sad state of affairs. How embarassing for this beautiful state, to be placed on par with Kansas and have to share their claim to be the nation's poster child for ignorance. Governor Beshear may be looking only at the possible state income of $250M per year, but at what cost to the current and future students of the bluegrass state? I can guarantee that no high tech industry or science-savvy firms will want to relocate to the land of total darkness. And why would anyone want to send a student to college in either of these states now?
And how unsurprising that AiG thinks spending 150 million on this project is so much more Christian than, oh, I don't know, feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless? Is this really the mandate? Seriously, do any of you think that this is what Christ would want you doing with an extra $150,000,000? When you look at the amount of abject poverty in the US, and especially in eastern Kentucky, not to mention other parts of the world....Yeah, let's spend 150 million building an idol to a metaphor instead.
One possible benefit: Once the thing is finally built, everyone can closely examine the time, tools, and manpower that it took to accomplish the task, and realize, perhaps, that the Biblical account was never meant to be taken literally. That, and trying to squeeze two of every living species in (or at least doing the math), might make it more obvious even to the unschooled.
Oh Kentucky, you deserve so much better than this.
Once they build the Ark, I want to see them get all those animals in it and keep them alive for more than a few weeks.
Some things are so obviously self contradictory, you have to have studied theology to believe them.
Can't wait to plan my next trip to Kentucky!
M-Creek, couldn't the same be said about non-christians? Why spend millions and millions of dollars on secular schools and museums indoctrinating people into a secular belief system when the poor are starving?
Of course Christians do give a lot of money to the poor and other charities, but our main mission is to reach unbelievers, proclaim the gospel message of Christ and the salvation he offers through faith. Of course I hope the ark will help bring that message home!
Hey, I for one am eager to accept the salvation this person you refer to as "Christ" offers through faith! All I have to do, apparently, is give up all of my contact with reality and accept some sort of fairy tale about a pair of each species of animal being loaded onto a boat and ferried around for forty days and nights. What a deal! I never needed my cerebral cortex anyway. All it ever did for me was put me in touch with the real world. Who needs that, now that the new GOP Congress is ready to fly us off to Never-Never-Land on a one-way, all-expenses-paid trip (generously donated by all the billionaires who won't have to pay all those taxes, I suppose). Clap your hands and you can fly!
If the Biblical message is supposed to be so powerful and compelling, why do Christians need to spend $250M to sell it? And if most of the attendees end up being believers and their families, why do Christians need to invest so heavily in self-indoctrination?
@Jon S
What would that message be?
The Noah's ark myth implies that disobeying God in sufficient numbers causes him to commit genocide. This will lead non believers to salvation and acceptance of Christ?
I hope it doesn't begin raining before it's ready.
What is this two by two nonsense?
Genesis 7, King James version:
And this 40 days foolishness? Genesis 8:
Whoever was in charge of continuity in this effort ought to have been fired.
Never mind that "clean" and "unclean" hadn't been defined at this point, there was a reason for the oversupply of "clean" beasties:
Here is the explanation for the excess cargo: they were destined for the festive thanksgiving feast.
All it ever did for me was put me in touch with the real world. Who needs that, now that the new GOP Congress is ready to fly us off to Never-Never-Land on a one-way, all-expenses-paid trip.
There are places that do the Ark story right, like the Jewish Skirball Center in Los Angeles â it is worth a visit. They claim up front that this is a place exploring the mythological resonances of the Ark and Flood story, not depicting a ârealâ event.
http://www.skirball.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=199
In the Kentucky Ark I hope that they have a âmanure liftâ where you get to pick up a shovelful of dung and carry it upstairs to the top and throw it off.
One possible benefit: Once the thing is finally built, everyone can closely examine the time, tools, and manpower that it took to accomplish the task, and realize, perhaps, that the Biblical account was never meant to be taken literally.
This is a large construction project. Those always seem to go over budget. So I think the icing on the cake will be when they take months or years to build it, then have to go to the state legislature or someone to request more time and funding to finish it. :)
I'd rather it not get built at all, but if they try it, I think this has got 'debacle' written all over it.
Hello,
Oddly, I tend to feel sorry for the radicals who adhere so strictly to a worldview that offers no positive vision of the future. Sure, they will look you in the eye and say they are looking forward to the Rapture, but that is no different from the stoner sitting in his mother's basement playing video games while waiting for his big break.
The thing that jumps out at me is how important fiction has been to scientific progress; Jules Verne, HG Wells, and Gene Roddenberry. Their fiction not only gave something for people to pursue, but it also gave people a framework, a structure, that enabled them to work together towards the similar goals. This is why I don't think religion will ever disappear - the most successful people will always have a story, a belief, that they are pursuing... and, moreover, better still if they have a story that creates a community to work together towards a large goal.
Imagine the fictional story that would be required to create a community of people to work together, over many generations, towards a shared goal of infinite possibilities. It is my opinion that past and current religions were either inspired by non-human intelligence or accidentally created by people in their effort to survive, but our future religions must be developed by us to take control and responsibility of our own evolution.
Have a nice day.
Craig
I have a traveling school show where I display fossils and discuss them. I've also just published the "Handbook to Life on Earth" which is a printed version of my school presentation.
Recently I have run into a couple students who say "But how can it be that old when Earth is only 5000 years old?"
It is a sad state that people still believe this.
For some reason the idea has not gotten across that religion and evolution CAN co-exist.
However religion is belief. The Bible is not history. It is for worship.
Evolution is science. The age of the Earth is science. The development of the animals is science. The horse is a well-documented history for evolution.
Do the creationists think God would lie to us? If they sre saying it is all done by God, why would He give us the means to date things and discover things only to, in the end, say "Gotcha!"
I'm sorry so much money must be wasted on such ideas.
Iâd maintain that if you believe in the fairy tale of evolution that youâve already given up all of your contact with reality ;-) Seriously, I hope you do come to know Christ as your savior.
The same question can be asked of evolution- if evolution is so powerful and compelling, why do evolutionists need to spend millions and billions of dollars to sell it (and still be unsuccessful)? Well, we donât really need $250M to sell the Biblical message. There are many ways the Biblical message is being delivered, including missionaries in foreign countries that are willing to be tortured, persecuted and killed to get that message out. The Ark project is just one method that can be used to help answer skeptics and believers alike. Most people who visit the Ark probably donât understand its significance in light of evolutionary indoctrination, and hopefully it will help answer simple questions about the age of the earth.
Of course the evolution myth implies that thereâs no meaning to life and that anyone is allowed to do as he pleases because heâs ultimately answerable to no one but himself. The strongest survive, so itâs okay to impose your will on others so that you get what you want. Thereâs no truth except what is true to you. Etc.
Actually, Noahâs Ark was written for a number of reasons. It does demonstrate Godâs wrath concerning sin and wickedness, but it also demonstrates his mercy. God hates sin and punishes it with death. However he saved Noah and his family, and then provided his own son, Jesus Christ, as a perfect sacrifice for sin so that man could have salvation and eternal life (John 3:16). He also promised not to destroy the earth again with another flood, so even if you want to label the flood as genocide, God certainly has a right to set the rules that we must live by. I donât like seeing people becoming saved out of pure fear, although Iâd rather that happen than them not be saved. Ideally Iâd like to see people become saved out of their love for God and His promises.
They said that about the museum too.
Craig, I wish you would have explained to the students that it doesnât take millions of years to form a fossil; the right conditions over a short period of time are all it takes. It is a sad state that people donât understand this. Sure, religion and evolution can co-exist, but only if the terms are properly defined without a bait-and-switch. And sure, religion is a belief, but so is evolution. In fact Creation is just as scientific as the theory of evolution, for each has the same facts to examine. You canât define evolution as science and religion as belief without redefining your terms in a self-serving manner. In fact you did the bait-and-switch in your response. You imply that Creation is a belief and not science, but the age of the earth is science. The implication is that evolution is science because itâs examining the age of the earth. But Creation is also about examining the age of the earth, which would mean that religion and Creation are in fact science. We can also maintain that evolution is worship- self worship or ancestor worship, so it too can be defined as a religion. Of course evolutionists again wish to define worship and religion in a self-serving way that doesnât include them, but if we analyze it, we can see that it fits the bill. In addition, horse evolution is not well-documented, but instead is well-criticized. And to answer your question, scripture tells us that God would not lie to us (Numbers 23:19), and he did give us ways to date things, which is largely ignored by evolutionists, and that dating method is the Bible. God tells us that He created the heavens and the earth in six days (Exodus 20:11), and he gave us the descendants of Adam, so we have a basic framework to help us discover the age of the earth, and Creationists use this. The Bible actually does contain historical events that we can rely upon. But again evolutionists reject this outright (as you have done), so they have no choice but to interpret the age of the universe to be billions of years in order to make it fit their belief system. Lastly, the age of the earth really isnât science, because no one can observe the past (except God). The best we can do is make educated guesses about what happened in the past and why, but thatâs not science. No one can make observations into the past or perform repeatable tests in order to verify the results of the hypothesis or theory. That would require supernatural ability, and this is why forensics is not infallible and why detectives will never solve every crime. If observing the past were really science and verifiable, then we should have no unsolved crimes. How can you say we can be certain about events that happened millions and billions of years ago (such as horse evolution), but we donât know how to solve a crime that happened a few years ago?
@14 Jon S.
You have so many errors in your comment that it seems as though you have been studying the debating methods of Duane Gish. Sincerely, I am curious as to whether you cut and pasted a large portion of your comment from somewhere else.
The main error that you make is in equating creationism with science because it is a process of satisfying curiosity. Creationism, in essence, relies on authoritative teaching and authoritative teaching alone. There is no method for testing the claims of creationism, other than to resort to interpretation of an inscripturated mythology. Science is a process of systematically testing data and observations using established rules of probability to test the relationships between phenomena.
Where science succeeds and creationism fails is that if one investigator disagrees with the conclusions of a previous authority, the investigator can conduct new testing to determine if the relationships between phenomena he or she disagreed with accurately disagrees with reality. Creationism provides no such means to test save argumentation.
I have heard that Greek philosophers loved to argue about the number of teeth in a horse's mouth without counting the teeth. Whether that is true, I don't know. I do know that the process of science which reveals evolution is based on a process of "counting teeth."
It takes practice and study to learn how science determines the facts of evolution, how the theory is developed and modified to show how horses have evolved, how whales evolved from land mammals, how humans have evolved from a common ancestor with shrews and mice.
The important thing to remember, is that you can learn this process and attempt to disprove any of the facts of evolution. Yes, even you, Jon S, if you were so inclined. Creationism, as defined by your reading of your mythology has no tests.
The understanding of evolutionary processes came not from a bunch of atheists trying to deny the Creation, but from a sincere desire to prove the Creation story of the bible. The story of evolution is written in stone, and while it may seem a foreign language to you, it is a language that can be learned and is not closed off by any cabal of evolutionists.
For a good review of how your post miscasts the difference between evolution and Christian creationism, I point you to the archives of Talk.origins generally and in specific the Index to Creationist Claims.
To those who ridicule and criticizes this project, especially the dumbo who said Christians should be helping the poor, Christians do help the poor. I suggest that you demand all sales from Harry Potter and Vampires feed the poor and get your political party to stop creating POOR people. Dems create poverty to ensure they control the people. Why can't Christians have a Christ based theme park? you surely must be more than insecure and evil because even atheist do not begrudge Christians of their beliefs.
Why can't Christians have a Christ based theme park?
Why must people of other religions and no religion pay for this Christian theme park?
Mike Haubrich, thanks for your sincere reply. I appreciate your concerns and curiosity. I did not cut and paste anything, so Iâll take that as a compliment. Let me address the errors you suggest Iâve made, and then address the errors I believe you made. To begin with, I donât follow your main criticism. You suggest that I equate Creationism with science to satisfy my curiosity??? If so, wouldnât that also mean that your main error would be equating evolutionism with science to satisfy your curiosity? Perhaps Iâm not following your argument, but I assure you I didnât become a Creationist to satisfy my curiosity. My motive is established in the belief in God and his son, Jesus Christ, whom I believe died on the cross for the sins of man. I believe that God revealed His word to us in scripture, and it clearly tells us who we are and where we came from. Evolution rejects the creation of the heavens and earth as described in Genesis, and instead relies on fallible human beings attempting to figure out what happened in the past based on their own reasoning, intellect, and political maneuvering. Youâre close when you claim that Creationism relies on authoritative teaching alone, however I would add that that is just the beginning of Creationism. Evolutionists reject Creationism partly because they donât accept our starting based on authoritative teaching. Our conclusions regarding the age of the earth are far more credible than those who outright reject the Biblical starting point because, simply put, God is smarter than man. In other words, since we know the universe was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago, we can make certain claims that are just as testable and verifiable as any evolutionist claims. Claims concerning the age of the earth, dating mechanisms, relationships between living organisms, astronomy, geology, archaeology, etc. The only difference between evolutionism and Creationism is our starting foundations. You claim there is no method for testing the claims of Creationism, but if that were true, then that would also mean there are no methods for testing the claims of evolution. Let me explain; if we have a dinosaur bone to examine, both the evolutionist and the Creationist can hold the same evidence in their hand. One claims the bone is 65 million years old, while the other claims itâs probably closer to 4,000 years old. Do you suggest that thereâs a method for testing the evolutionist claims, but there isnât a method of testing the Creationist claims? That seems irrational to me. If you can test the claims for one, then you should be able to test the claims for the other. I think youâre real criticism is that we canât test whether or not God exists or if what He said should be taken literally, but whether or not thatâs true is another story we can debate. I suggest the claims of Creationists are just as testable and verifiable as any evolutionist claims. The evolutionist claims man descended from other living organisms, and that the first living organism came from a non-living organism. However the Creationist denies these claims, and instead claims that God created many different kinds of animals on days five and six of creation, and that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve, and Noah and his children.
You claim Creationisms is mythology, but those believe God created the heavens and the earth in six days believe evolution is modern day mythology, so resorting to insults doesnât really help your cause and does nothing for sincere debate. Where your argument fails is that you canât ultimately prove that your conclusions are correct. Itâs impossible to prove that any non-human organism evolved into man. Itâs simply one personâs interpretation of the evidence that cannot be confirmed. No one can go back in time and watch the organisms evolve to see if your conclusions are correct. It must be believed purely on faith alone, not science. Science cannot prove that whales evolved from non-whales. If science is a process of systematically testing data and observations using established rules of probability, then what observations are you relying upon to make your claims and believe them to be accurate? Arenât you ultimately relying on faith concerning an apparent relationship between fragmented fossilized organisms rather than observing any actual relationship? You claim that only science can conduct new tests to determine if the relationship between phenomena that is disagreed upon by certain investigators accurately disagrees with reality, however youâve failed to acknowledge those Creationist scientists whoâve done just that and have reached opposite conclusions. What youâre not acknowledging is that if scientists have different starting assumptions, they will come to different conclusions that are equally valid based on their interpretation of the data. For example, if you believe in evolution, then of course dinosaur bones must be millions of years old, because âthe dating techniques that we believe in told us soâ. Of course itâs impossible to prove the dating techniques are accurate because we donât know the beginning conditions⦠we can only make assumptions about the starting conditions based on our starting assumptions and underlying belief system.
Another mistake youâre making is the assumption that evolution is established fact. I could very well make the same claims youâre making, but from a Creationist perspective: It takes practice and study to learn how science determines the facts of Creationism, how the theory is developed and modified to show how different kinds of animals, such as horses, have given rise to different kinds of horses, and how the descendants of whales adapted to different environments and became different kinds of whales, and how humans have spread across the earth in their various cultures. You see, Creationism and evolution are quite comparable. You canât say one is science and the other is not⦠at least not if youâre honest. Both tend to make opposite claims, so if one can be tested, then so can the other, but itâs important to realize that one will come to vastly different conclusions based on the starting assumptions, and that alone is the difference between the two.
You make an odd statement when you claim that one can attempt to disprove the facts of evolution. However, if one can disprove the facts of evolution, then wouldnât that mean that evolution is in fact not a fact? I would argue that many Creationist scientists have in fact proven that the facts of evolution have failed and that evolution is in fact a myth and not a fact at all. The problem is getting those who believe that evolution is a fact to see that evolution is in fact not a fact. But how can one do that if those that believe evolution is a fact and wonât acknowledge that evolution is not a fact because they believe it is an unquestionable fact and refuse to really examine the evidence from another starting point to see if theyâre in fact wrong? Actually Mike, I would argue that you too could learn the facts of Creationism and discover that the world isnât really that old if you learn the fallibility of the dating techniques you rely upon.
You claim that the understanding of evolution came from a sincere desire to prove the Creation story of the Bible, but I donât know anyone besides you who believes this. Darwin and those that supported him certainly werenât Creationists trying to prove the Bible. But whatever stone evolution is written on has crumbled, and Iâd suggest you should jump off the crumbling stone before you get hurt! Evolution isnât a foreign language to me as youâve suggested. Iâve been studying evolution for some time and understand it better than most people who have phdâs and fancy titles beside their names. This website in fact has been one of my favorite sites to visit for years, and Iâve yet to hear a solid argument in favor of evolution that canât be soundly criticized.
Lastly, talk.origins is an evolutionist apologetics site and is unreliable on scientific data and shouldnât be trusted concerning the debate between Creation and evolution. I donât put much credibility into what they say, and neither should you if youâre sincere about investigating the truth. In fact I would suggest reading an article about talk.origins on AIGâs website. Thereâs a former atheist and evolutionist apologist who became a Christian and debates many atheists who rely on talkorigins. It might be worth your while to read that article about Jeff Jasper.
Creationism, in essence, relies on authoritative teaching and authoritative teaching alone. There is no method for testing the claims of creationism, other than to resort to interpretation of an inscripturated mythology.
Oh, Jon S, it is very difficult to follow your posting style, since you are not considerate enough to your readers to insert paragraph breaks.
It is not a matter of "trading insults" to point out the faults of creation science. The fact is, that it is not a matter of opinion but instead a matter of gathering and analyzing useful data to ascertain facts. Creation Science has no means to do this.
Please to continue witnessing for Jesus, because as you do it, you are protecting many brains from Christianity.
kosmodisk "Who needs that, now that the new GOP Congress is ready to fly us off to Never-Never-Land on a one-way, all-expenses-paid trip."
Now you're just being ridiculous. It's unfunded.
Jon S "There are many ways the Biblical message is being delivered, including missionaries in foreign countries that are willing to be tortured, persecuted and killed to get that message out."
Are any of these the same missionaries advocating the murder or imprisonment of homosexuals and witches?
"The Ark project is just one method that can be used to help answer skeptics and believers alike."
"Answer"? What, that a non-historical (or, at least, non-literally/inerrantly true) tale looks even whackier in person?
"Most people who visit the Ark probably donât understand its significance in light of evolutionary indoctrination, and hopefully it will help answer simple questions about the age of the earth."
Yeah! Screw everything we've learned since the Enlightenment! What this world needs is a return to crass literalism!
"Of course the evolution myth implies that thereâs no meaning to life and that anyone is allowed to do as he pleases because heâs ultimately answerable to no one but himself. The strongest survive, so itâs okay to impose your will on others so that you get what you want."
Uh. What? Even if evolution is true (and it is), no man is an island. One man, no matter how superior his genes, faces a severe competitive disadvantage versus a group of men, when surprised by a lion.
"Thereâs no truth except what is true to you."
Who says that? I've heard it said that that view is endemic in university professor circles (it's a persistent talkingpoint among the anti-intellectuals), but have yet to meet an example of one.
"Actually, Noahâs Ark was written for a number of reasons."
A flood myth tale to explain why a particularly bad one happened? A narrative which assumes natural events all have agency? The Problem of Evil, but moist?
"Ideally Iâd like to see people become saved out of their love for God and His promises."
Okay. I promise not to try to murder the world. I didn't even do it once. That makes me better than this "God" fellow you're so enamored with.
"In fact Creation is just as scientific as the theory of evolution, for each has the same facts to examine."
No. Creation Science starts with the conclusions, then goes hunting for the evidence that can be mangled, misunderstood or compressed, all to fit a far-too-short timeline.
"My motive is established in the belief in God and his son, Jesus Christ, whom I believe died on the cross for the sins of man."
So, let me get this straight, He sent part of Him (which was also all of Him) down to die (before going back to sit beside Himself at His own right hand) for the sins of something that He, being omnipotent and omniscient (not to mention omnipresent), created?
"One claims the bone is 65 million years old, while the other claims itâs probably closer to 4,000 years old. Do you suggest that thereâs a method for testing the evolutionist claims, but there isnât a method of testing the Creationist claims? That seems irrational to me."
Keep in mind that the Young Earth Creationists are essentially claiming that during the posited literal worldwide Flood that flowering plants both "outran" non-flowering plants to higher layers as they were being deposited and managed to do so (indeed, thrived) while simultaneously growing underwater.
"If you can test the claims for one, then you should be able to test the claims for the other."
Sure. One has "error bars" of doubt, while the other has supreme, even zealous, confidence. And yet, with each new piece of data the universe's age fluctuates but hasn't got any closer to the YEC position than it was after Lyell noticed that things were probably older than he was told.
Dolly Decker "...and get your political party to stop creating POOR people. Dems create poverty to ensure they control the people."
Yeah! They're totally different than the GOP, which governs far more efficiently. Using Market-Based Solutions, Trickle-Down Economics, Supply Side Economics and Offshoring Jobs they create poor people way faster than those lazy Dems, then, being Compassionate Conservatives, they cut them off from the government trough, allowing The Invisible Hand of the Market to ignore them because have customers with no money is unprofitable! U S A! U S A!
What this country needs is tax cuts and deregulation! It has to work eventually!
during the posited literal worldwide Flood that flowering plants both "outran" non-flowering plants to higher layers as they were being deposited and managed to do so (indeed, thrived) while simultaneously growing underwater.
That is a great one. Goes right up there with Shubin's observation that animal tracks in sedimentary rocks requires dry baking...which is kind of hard to do when you claim the land-animal that made them was casually strolling across the ocean floor at the time.
Mike Haubrich "Oh, Jon S, it is very difficult to follow your posting style, since you are not considerate enough to your readers to insert paragraph breaks."
Interesting analysis. Why do you assume I wasn't considerate enough to insert paragraph breaks? Is it simply that you can't see them? Isn't it possible that I was considerate enough to insert paragraph breaks, but when I copied and pasted from Microsoft Word the paragraph breaks didn't transfer over to the comments block and I didn't notice it until after I submitted the post? Then again, how would you know that I used a word document when you weren't there to observe me using it? Only the one using it would have really known that he was using it, thus the one not doing the observing would make inaccurate assumptions about the past, thinking he indeed had all the information to form a scientific conclusion. But if I told someone else that I had used the word program, they could defend my integrity, but would be mocked by those who were in the majority so that they would win the argument without any critical thought.
Seriously Mark, I'm sorry that the paragraph breaks didn't come through as I had expected. But this is a great example of how evolutionary assumptions work. You simply make unprovable assumptions about the past that seem logical based on a limited understanding and without any regard for the actual truth.
"The fact is, that it is not a matter of opinion but instead a matter of gathering and analyzing useful data to ascertain facts. Creation Science has no means to do this."
No matter how many times I hear this argument from an evolutionist, I fail to follow any form of coherent logic. How is it that Creation science has no means of gathering and analyzing useful data to ascertain facts when both the evolutionist and the Creationist have the same data? This seems like a self-serving definition, which is a typical evolutionist tactic. We both have the same rock formations, fossils, molecules, organisms, etc. So explain to me how an evolutionary scientist can gather and analyze this data but a Creationist scientist cannot? You're making a basic mistake based on your biases and not allowing room for alternative explanations of the data simply because they go against your philosophy and view of the natural world.
"Please to continue witnessing for Jesus"
Thanks, I will ;-)
Jon S@23
Its not that they can't more that that they don't. Creationist ignore more data than they explain.
Take for example the abundance of various elements in the universe shows that Iron is the most abundant of the heavy elements in the universe, and the fact that older stars are of lower metallicity than younger ones. These observations are explained by thr fact that the heavier elements were generated by the fusion of lighter nuclei in stars. This explains the abundance of iron as it has the lowest binding energy per neucleon of the heavier elements( i.e. all neuclear fusion reactions from hydrogen upto iron are exothermic).The proportion of heavier to lighter elements increases with the age of the universe due to fusion. This explains the observed variation in the metalicity of stars.
Creationist assert that the earth was created by magic, heavy elements and all, before any stars and by complete coincidence the universe had the exact proportion of elements we expect to see if they were formed by nuclear fusion.
Do you see the diffrence? Nuclear fusion is a physical process that is constrainted by the measurable properties of atomic nuclei such as binding energies and half lives of intermediate products. Therfore we can meaningfully work out the implications of these constraints and check reality to see if it matches predictions implied by the process. Magic on the other hand has no constraints and implications can not be derived from it. If we can posit any miracle we want, what reason is there to prefer your set of miracles to any other?
Science is a process that helps us choose between propositions that have defined expectatons of the world. "Creation science" has no means of generating testable predictions hence there is no point in "analyzing useful data" as magic explains any possible data
Re Kaushik
Mr. Kaushiks' comment might be restated as follows. Creationism is not science because it is unconstrained. Since god is supposed to be all powerful, she can do anything; therefore, any outcome of an experiment or observation can be explained as that's the way god intended. Thus, creationism violates the principal that a scientific theory must, in principal, be falsifiable. How does one go about falsifying the notion that god did it?
SLC: We could also make the claim that evolution is not science based on this definition. Evolution is all-powerful too, so to speak, and can explain anything; therefore, any outcome of an experiment or observation can be explained as "that's what evolution is". Thus evolution violates the principle that a scientific theory must, in principle, be falsifiable. How does one go about falsifying the notion that evolution did it?
Evolution is so elastic that it can explain anything and everything. If it doesn't fit, well, that's the beauty of evolution! It explains why some animals mimic human behavior, but others don't, why humans have religion, but animals don't, why some species survive,while others go extinct, why we have cures for diseases, altruistic behavior, etc. So, if we were to discover a living dinosaur today, would that falsify evolution? If we never see a cat evolve into something that's not a cat, will that falsify evolution? If we discover human fossils next to a dinosaur fossil, will that falsify evolution? If we fail to find alien life on other planets will that falsify evolution?
Lastly, if an all-powerful God did create man and the universe as described in the Bible, then it would be true, whether or not it's falsifiable. So then, if it really is true, then this definition isn't helpful and is in fact harmful and self-serving.
So how does one go about falsifying the notion that God did it? Well, that's really the wrong question to ask. It's no different than asking "How does one go about falsifying the notion that God didn't do it"? Again, that's the wrong question to ask. Whether you're observing fossils, rocks, or stars, you can either start with a belief in God, or not, and let your worldview shape your conclusions.
Stunningly false. The theory of evolution is eminently falsifiable. For instance, common origin predicts that organisms should be built up according to more or less the same principles with relatively minor variations (for instance, they are all DNA-based). If that were not the case, evolution would be falsified. The fact that all organisms are built up according to the same principles is, on the other hand, strong evidence for common origin. Find an animal that turns out not to have DNA but otherwise looks like ordinary animals (i.e. which is built up by different means). That would be a huge problem for the theory of evolution.
Creationism does not predict this. It is of course compatible with it (it is unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable theories are per definition compatible with all observable evidence), but there is no reason why an all-powerful being should have chosen to do it this way rather than another. Thus, I have given you a test that would falsify evolution. Give me one for creationism, and I will consider your claim that it has any scientific merit whatsoever.
Similarly for the basic mechanism proposed for evolution, natural selection. Pit creatures together competing for the same resources. The one that is better adapted will win. If that didn't usually happen, the mechanism would be in trouble. Creationism does not predict this, however. Creationism would be completely compatible with the opposite result. Again, an eminently testable prediction that natural selection has passed with flying colors. Creationism has nothing.
Is it a question about worldviews? Perhaps. Evolution is based on science, fact, evidence and reason. Creationism on dogma and wishful thinking. Maybe that counts as a difference in worldviews? In that sense it is also true that you will "let your worldview shape your conclusions". In science, conclusions are shaped by facts and evidence, since this matters on such a worldview - this, and a willingness to reject hypotheses that don't work. In short, it is a worldview where engaging with reality is important in theory formation. On Creationism, on the other hand, conclusions are shaped by one's worldview in the sense that everything that doesn't quite fit the dogma is just rejected or denied - everything to save the hypothesis, regardless of what evidence, facts and reality tells you.
It's always giraffes. How did giraffes become The Noachian Animal? I suppose it's because their necks look cute sticking out of kid-size arks, as they watch their ungulate brethren drown.
A theme park is certainly more honest than a creation museum. I'm suddenly reminded of the attractions of Orlando that they cer â Disney World, Universal Studios Resorts â most of which is based on movies that are in turn based on works of fantasy (Peter Pan, Harry Potter, etc). Quite appropriate, really.
Re G. D. @ #27
1. To quote the eminent biochemist J. B. S. Haldane when challenged by an over zealous Popperian as to how the theory of common descent could be falsified, he responded that finding a fossil cat in the pre-Cambrian would constitute a falsification. Needless to say that no such cat has yet been found.
2. I have previously posted on this blog a Youtube video which consists of part of a presentation by biologist Ken Miller as to the identification of human chromosome 2 as the fusion of two chromosomes that correspond to chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13. Failure to to find a human chromosome with 4 telomeres and 2 centromeres would constitute a falsification of common descent.
It is my opinion that past and current religions were either inspired by non-human intelligence or accidentally created by people in their effort to survive, but our future religions must be developed by us to take control and responsibility of our own evolution.
Jon S @26
Evolution is falsifiable because it posits an observable physical process, biological replication, as its mechanism. The idea that the gene pool of two different populations, say chimps and humans, were produced by the repeated replication and divergence of a common gene pool leads to many testable predictions. Ken Miller can explain it better (from the Dover trial transcripts):
Your statement is a trivial tautology, 'If X is true then X is true'. It tells you nothing about how you ascertain if proposition X is actually true. If you are going to check any proposition through science then it has to be falsifiable.
'Staring with a belief in God' leads to no definite conclusions. I will ask again, if we can posit any miracle we want, what reason is there to prefer your set of miracles to any other?
We can, for example, posit that the entire universe was created last Thursday and that proposition would be compatible with any fossils, rocks, or stars we can observe. Any proposition needs to constrain our expectations to be useful and miracles don't have constraints.
Jon S @ 26:
I hadn't noticed this comment before, but I simply have to answer this. The problem here is that this question assumes species essentialism â that there is some property of cat-ness possess by all cats and only by cats.
In reality, it is we humans who group animals into "species" and see species as "intrinsic" categories. But all life exists on a continuum, not as distinct groups.
Are Chihuahuas dogs or not? This isn't a question you can answer by measuring some aspect of a Chihuahua â it's actually a question about the English language. Clearly, Chihuahuas are very different from gray wolves, from which dogs are descended â so are they an example of wolves evolving into something "that's not a wolf"? Depends on where you choose to draw the line, like whether or not someone who makes $250,000 is "rich". (If they are, then what about $249,500? At which penny does a person go from middle-class to wealthy? See the parallel?)
Another "giveaway" in that question is the phrase "a cat", as opposed to the plural "cats". This is a Hollywood conception of evolution, as something that individuals experience in superheroic bounds, perhaps because real evolution is harder to grasp (or less narratively useful). In reality, evolution cannot be observed like a butterfly emerging from a chrysalis; it is the result of numerous generations each of which differed in only the slightest ways from its parents.
Given all that, the situation is in fact the opposite of what the question seemed to have in mind. If we observed certain kinds of super-rapid evolution â say, a cat born with fully-functioning gills â then that would force us to dramatically revise the models, in a way that may be as good as falsification by some standards.
Whoops on myself @ 28! I meant to write "attractions of Orlando that they certainly had in mind", or something like it, but somehow cut myself short.
This would not be a problem for the theory of evolution at all. I just did a search for ânon-DNA based organisms, and one of the first things that popped up was the article âEpic Discovery: NASA Finds New Non-DNA Based Life Formâ¦â There are serious flaws to the announcement and what was actually found, but this headline demonstrates how false it is to claim that evolution is falsifiable. Nobody was claiming that they were prepared to reject evolution as a result of this âdiscoveryâ. It seems that all you have to do is âbelieveâ. Of course if a non-DNA based organism were found, perhaps that would be enough for you to reject evolution, but for those who are true believers, such a discovery would be âpredictedâ by evolution. For example, see Stephen Hawking talking about the possibility of non-carbon based extraterrestrial life, and others who contemplate silicon-based life forms. Iâm sure many science fiction novels have safely tackled this topic.
Not all Creationists would agree with me on this, but I would claim that life was created only on earth (the Bible doesnât mention God creating life anywhere other than earth); therefore, if one could provide conclusive evidence that life originated and evolved on another planet (or anywhere other than earth), that would be sufficient to disprove Creationism. Thereâs constant hype about extraterrestrial life, but it all turns out to be bogus.
Your argument has many flaws. First you claim that the creature that is better adapted will win, but then in the very next sentence you claim this âusuallyâ happens. Well, if it usually happens, then it stands to reason that sometimes it doesnât happen. So how does this support your argument that evolution is falsifiable? The statement that âthe one that is better adapted will winâ is merely subjective anyway. Just because you believe one organism is better adapted to survive doesnât mean that it will outcompete the organism you believe is not better adapted. For example, beetles with wings seem to be better adapted, however on a windy island, wingless beetles, even though theyâre not better adapted, will survive, while the winged beetles would be blown off the island and possibly go extinct. It would be more accurate to say that the organism that survives is better adapted (gasp!), which really shows how elastic evolution really is. Lastly, just because natural selection is true doesnât mean that evolution is true. Cats and dogs will continue to adapt to their environments, but they will always be cats and dogs and wonât evolve into something else. This is simply an evolutionary assumption that has never been observed.
I disagree with your claims. Evolution is not based on âscience, fact, evidence and reasonâ. Itâs based on faith, politics, philosophy and ridicule of opposition. Itâs evolution thatâs based on dogma and wishful thinking. Creation is based on Godâs Word, which is absolutely more authoritative than human reasoning, which is at the heart of evolution. You claim that in science, conclusions are shaped by facts and evidence, but itâs important to understand that facts and evidence must be interpreted in order to reach certain conclusions and theories. Those interpretations are based on the worldview you maintain (evolution assumes that time and chance are responsible for everything, while Creation assumes that God created everything as claimed in the Bible), which is why evolution and Creationism are on the same level. Itâs incorrect to conclude that one is science and one isnât- this is simply political posturing.
Jon S @ 34:
We understand this Jon. We also understand and have demonstrated the bizarre contortions of logic you take to reach this disagreement. We understand that you choose to reject reality in favor of your preferred interpretation of your preferred translation of your preferred set of religious writings.
But here the thing: Reality does not care about your preferences. Or ours, for that matter. It simply is. Science is premised on progressively more accurate descriptions of that reality.
You don't like that.
You don't like that the story of the Noachian flood can be shown to be derived from a culture that predates the writing of the Bible.
You don't like that there is clear evidence of cultures that do not have any record of that flood.
You don't like that it has been shown with simple math that there was no place for a huge amount of water to come from or go to.
You don't like that that there isn't a geologic record of a global flood.
You don't like that the distribution of species on the planet is incompatible with a post-Ark migration.
You don't like that the distribution of fossils is inconsistent with flooding.
So what do you do with this huge problem? You try to make it go away by saying "it's based on faith, politics, philosophy and ridicule", "it derives from a different worldview" or any number of similar things. These statements make you feel better psychologically, just as a smoker saying " I don't have cancer" rejects the fear.
We understand you. We wonder about the issues you have to make you go through these contortions, but we understand.
We know we cannot change your mind. But we know there are people out there who think you might be an honest broker of ideas. So we patiently shred your writings, show where you are wrong and confused, show how all of your work derives from your personal choice to reject reality.
You cannot be saved. Others can. And so we respond.
Are you suggesting that if we were to find a cat in the pre-Cambrian, you would reject evolution? Iâd wager that if we were to find a cat in the pre-Cambrian, evolutionists would yawn and come up with an explanation as to why this happened (such as sedimentary reworking), and nothing would change. This is no different than why evolutionists have no problems with polystrate fossils.
Ken Millerâs argument does not demonstrate that humans evolved from apes. A fusion event may have occurred in humans, but there are other explanations as to why the fusion occurred without resorting to evolution. I donât think anyone would stop believing in evolution if they couldnât find a human chromosome with 4 telomeres and 2 centromeres. Evolutionists would simply invent a clever explanation. Would you have stopped believing in evolution?
It can also be said that you choose to reject reality in favor of your preferred interpretation and preferred set of religious writings. Your reality is based on the belief that time and chance are responsible for what we observe, and so you make up just-so stories to explain how our observations fit your belief system by resorting to billions of years. So no actual proof is required, because thereâs no way to observe billions of years of activity. Instead of requiring observational evidence, you then resort to ridicule, the evolutionists favorite form of evidence.
This is true, which is why evolution is not real science. You donât like that.
Which culture are you referring to? Actually, almost every culture has a flood story (aborigines, American Indians, China, etc.)
Let me see your math. Three quarters of the earthâs surface is covered with water, so thereâs actually plenty of water on earth to substantiate a worldwide flood. Whatâs interesting is that scientists have speculated about a global flood on Mars, but deny any such event happened on earth!
Such as marine fossils being everywhere on earth, including the tops of mountains?
Creationists do have models that are compatible with post-Ark migration. Where are you getting your information? Some pro-evolution or anti-creation website? I doubt itâs from any credible scientific organization.
Actually it is. Youâre falling for an evolutionist myth.
So you resort to insults and ridicule to what⦠help me make my point?
Jon S, delugionist, wrote:
Well, if he were making your point - and he wasn't - that'd make one of you.
Perhaps you should try reading this - Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective - and see what you think.
Jon S @ 37:
Ah, a tu quoque! Never heard that before.
And they are all different - few similarities except for the water. So, as primitive civilizations develop on floodplains, they have stories about...floods! Do try and keep up.
Summarized here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood
See references for details if you want to form a quantitative rebuttal.
Plate tectonics is our friend.
Cites to peer-reviewed literature? I'd love to see how that kangaroo and wombat raft worked out...
Or three decades of actual experience perhaps? So explain the restriction of trilobites to Paleozoic strata. Or horn corals. Or eohippus to Cenozoic. Thinking about that 'running away from the floodwaters' trope? Then explain the mangrove trees running uphill to get away from the water.
The consistency of the fossil record is part of what convinced originally creationist geologists that evolution was a better explanation. Again, do try to keep up.
As for the insults, well, that's just gravy. Demonstrating to the casual reader that your ideas derive not from data but solely from your narrow religious is the key point.
And keep in mind, I don't really care what you choose to believe, as long as it is kept out of the schools (and taxpayers pockets). Leave the science to us and you are free to do as you wish.