![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
On a creationist museum.
It was good to see the Creation Museum on the front page May 22.
Yes, because God knows there isn't anything more pressing to put on the front page than the decline of book-larnin' and intelligence in the Western world. Like, say, the myriad things that are going to kill us at any minute? The war? Various kidnappings and murders?
Whatever your opinion on how it all started, it is good to have honest discourse - which is why I was particularly offended by professor William Anyonge saying that Ken Ham is trying to "brainwash people." One doesn't rise to the position of professor, at a fine university, by being silly - at least not usually.
An ill-judged comment, no doubt (I actually agree with the statement later about private museums not being brainwashing in and of themselves), but hardly "silly". Let's choose our own words more carefully, shall we?
How is having a private museum akin to brainwashing? Maybe you don't believe in creation, but you cannot deny the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
Of course I believe in creation. I do not, however, believe in Creation, or in the theory of creationism. Let's get our terms straight. Oh, and list a few gaping holes, please...?
That is why it is still a theory. Intelligent discourse is constructive when one seeks answers.
Greg Davis, Milford
Unfortunately for you, any pretense of your discourse being intelligent disappeared when you made that idiotic comment about theories. You idiot. Get thee to a dictionary and hit yourself with it several times until the stupid goes away.
How ironic can this get? Two professors at the private Catholic Xavier University who were quoted in "Ministry uses dinosaurs to dispute evolution" (May 22) don't believe that God created the world. They also called Ken Ham's teachings ridiculous because he believes in creationism. Meanwhile, down the road at the public University of Cincinnati, a former professor says all evidence seems to give credence to creationism.
Yeah, who would've thunk that the Catholic college would have more professors who understand basic theories such as Occam's razor than the public school?
I would like to thank UC for employing such open-minded professors.
There's a difference, my good sir, between being open-minded and being simple-minded. You don't want your mind so open that your brains fall out.
As for Xavier, how embarrassing it must be to have employees who regard religious doctrines with such disdain at a Catholic institution.
Sean Hayes, Landen
Hey, I disdain religious doctrines that go contrary to what my finely honed sense of reason tells me. I believe that the earth goes 'round the sun, as do the other planets. I do not believe that the other planets and stars go 'round the earth. I do not believe that pi is equal to three, I do not believe that the earth is flat (nor do I believe that this was ever a widely spread belief among the educated classes, but that's a different issue), I do not believe that the earth was: sneezed into existence, created by drops of god-semen, created by a single deity, created from the void of the universe and licked by a giant mammal, created in seven days... the list goes on, really. That doesn't make me a bad person. That might make me slightly closed-minded... but when it's a choice between that and logic, logic wins out.
Thank you for the article "Creation Museum" (May 22). It is truly fascinating to read how these well-meaning, but ignorant people, are wasting $25 million to demean God.
They really believe that God is such a pathetic Creator that he had to spend 24 hours a day, for six days in a row, to create the universe. This is such foolishness.
God created the laws that govern the universe. Then he said, "Let there be light," and the Big Bang occurred. Since then, the universe has blossomed out on its own, with no further assistance from God. There was no need for him to intervene, correct and change it because he gets it right the first time.
Marty Due, Newport
*snickers*
Had me going there for a minute. Cheers!
In the article "Creation Museum," William Anyonge, biology professor at Xavier, refers to evolution as a fact and says Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis is out to brainwash people. But the brainwashing is being done by secular humanists. Just look at the evidence.
Oh boy. This should be fun.
Scientists who refer to evolution as a fact and not a theory are being dishonest to their profession by not adhering to the basics of science.
Possibly - but sometimes that sort of dishonesty is necessary to counteract the other sort of dishonesty which seeks to falsely align "theory" with "wild crazy idea".
No one was present at the beginning to observe the formation of a single cell.
What, not even God?
Also, no one has ever observed a transition of life forms.
BS. No, really, BS. In the past 50 years, we've seen diseases become more and more resistant to antibiotics. We've seen the same thing happen with various insects. This is evolution in action, people!
We are told this change is imperceptible.
I don't believe children "grow". After all, am I expected to believe that children actually go from two feet to two feet, three inches overnight? Of course not! But in order to do that, they have to grow half of three inches, and in order to do that they have to first grow half of that, and half of that... stop me if you've heard this one. I also do not believe that paint dries, and that time is really marching on. I mean, seconds don't just pass by!
Perhaps that's because it's a myth. Just where are the "missing links?"
Dead, you idiot! Dead and eaten, or buried, or whatever. Who the hell cares? They didn't know they were missing links when they were alive, just like most people nowadays do not realize that they are missing links, midway on the endless march to change through time.
Evolutionists cannot explain the aspects of reason, morality, meaning and beauty in human beings.
Yes they can.
Belief in evolution is a "faith" that is contrary to laws of nature - laws that would need to be suspended for evolution to occur, such as order emerging out of chaos.
Kevin Moore, Hebron
Isn't it rather rich to say that belief in evolution is contrary to the laws of nature when you postulate a theory that involves superpowerful beings who live forever and don't have to be born.
It was good to see the Creation Museum on the front page May 22.
Yes, because God knows there isn't anything more pressing to put on the front page than the decline of book-larnin' and intelligence in the Western world. Like, say, the myriad things that are going to kill us at any minute? The war? Various kidnappings and murders?
Whatever your opinion on how it all started, it is good to have honest discourse - which is why I was particularly offended by professor William Anyonge saying that Ken Ham is trying to "brainwash people." One doesn't rise to the position of professor, at a fine university, by being silly - at least not usually.
An ill-judged comment, no doubt (I actually agree with the statement later about private museums not being brainwashing in and of themselves), but hardly "silly". Let's choose our own words more carefully, shall we?
How is having a private museum akin to brainwashing? Maybe you don't believe in creation, but you cannot deny the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
Of course I believe in creation. I do not, however, believe in Creation, or in the theory of creationism. Let's get our terms straight. Oh, and list a few gaping holes, please...?
That is why it is still a theory. Intelligent discourse is constructive when one seeks answers.
Greg Davis, Milford
Unfortunately for you, any pretense of your discourse being intelligent disappeared when you made that idiotic comment about theories. You idiot. Get thee to a dictionary and hit yourself with it several times until the stupid goes away.
How ironic can this get? Two professors at the private Catholic Xavier University who were quoted in "Ministry uses dinosaurs to dispute evolution" (May 22) don't believe that God created the world. They also called Ken Ham's teachings ridiculous because he believes in creationism. Meanwhile, down the road at the public University of Cincinnati, a former professor says all evidence seems to give credence to creationism.
Yeah, who would've thunk that the Catholic college would have more professors who understand basic theories such as Occam's razor than the public school?
I would like to thank UC for employing such open-minded professors.
There's a difference, my good sir, between being open-minded and being simple-minded. You don't want your mind so open that your brains fall out.
As for Xavier, how embarrassing it must be to have employees who regard religious doctrines with such disdain at a Catholic institution.
Sean Hayes, Landen
Hey, I disdain religious doctrines that go contrary to what my finely honed sense of reason tells me. I believe that the earth goes 'round the sun, as do the other planets. I do not believe that the other planets and stars go 'round the earth. I do not believe that pi is equal to three, I do not believe that the earth is flat (nor do I believe that this was ever a widely spread belief among the educated classes, but that's a different issue), I do not believe that the earth was: sneezed into existence, created by drops of god-semen, created by a single deity, created from the void of the universe and licked by a giant mammal, created in seven days... the list goes on, really. That doesn't make me a bad person. That might make me slightly closed-minded... but when it's a choice between that and logic, logic wins out.
Thank you for the article "Creation Museum" (May 22). It is truly fascinating to read how these well-meaning, but ignorant people, are wasting $25 million to demean God.
They really believe that God is such a pathetic Creator that he had to spend 24 hours a day, for six days in a row, to create the universe. This is such foolishness.
God created the laws that govern the universe. Then he said, "Let there be light," and the Big Bang occurred. Since then, the universe has blossomed out on its own, with no further assistance from God. There was no need for him to intervene, correct and change it because he gets it right the first time.
Marty Due, Newport
*snickers*
Had me going there for a minute. Cheers!
In the article "Creation Museum," William Anyonge, biology professor at Xavier, refers to evolution as a fact and says Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis is out to brainwash people. But the brainwashing is being done by secular humanists. Just look at the evidence.
Oh boy. This should be fun.
Scientists who refer to evolution as a fact and not a theory are being dishonest to their profession by not adhering to the basics of science.
Possibly - but sometimes that sort of dishonesty is necessary to counteract the other sort of dishonesty which seeks to falsely align "theory" with "wild crazy idea".
No one was present at the beginning to observe the formation of a single cell.
What, not even God?
Also, no one has ever observed a transition of life forms.
BS. No, really, BS. In the past 50 years, we've seen diseases become more and more resistant to antibiotics. We've seen the same thing happen with various insects. This is evolution in action, people!
We are told this change is imperceptible.
I don't believe children "grow". After all, am I expected to believe that children actually go from two feet to two feet, three inches overnight? Of course not! But in order to do that, they have to grow half of three inches, and in order to do that they have to first grow half of that, and half of that... stop me if you've heard this one. I also do not believe that paint dries, and that time is really marching on. I mean, seconds don't just pass by!
Perhaps that's because it's a myth. Just where are the "missing links?"
Dead, you idiot! Dead and eaten, or buried, or whatever. Who the hell cares? They didn't know they were missing links when they were alive, just like most people nowadays do not realize that they are missing links, midway on the endless march to change through time.
Evolutionists cannot explain the aspects of reason, morality, meaning and beauty in human beings.
Yes they can.
Belief in evolution is a "faith" that is contrary to laws of nature - laws that would need to be suspended for evolution to occur, such as order emerging out of chaos.
Kevin Moore, Hebron
Isn't it rather rich to say that belief in evolution is contrary to the laws of nature when you postulate a theory that involves superpowerful beings who live forever and don't have to be born.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 08:16 am (UTC)This deal? It's more like, 'how'd these people end up in Ohio?' I'd think Tennessee or Kansas or something, first.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 08:51 am (UTC)Of course, none of these forms that are currently alive were actually the transitional forms in between any extant lineages, because that's just not how things work, but they are offshoots from the same point in the tree.
And if you do want the actual direct descendants of the things alive today, well, you're in luck then as well. There are masses of differnt fossil transitional forms known, which have some characteristics of the parents phylum, and some of the daughter phylum. And there are some transititons which are very well studied, with lots of different intermediate species found, and family trees constructed, and so on. The evolution of the horse, for instance, is very well understood.
Two of the transitions most often attacked by creationists are the evolution of birds and of whales. And once again, both of these have a decnet number of transitional forms which have been found, so you can see the gradual change into the specialised froms we know today. What the creationists seem to do is to demand an ever finer gradation of "missing links" based upon that which has already been ofund, and regardless of one's beliefs, that is gross academic dishonesty and propoganda.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 09:20 am (UTC)Or maybe they want to argue with chemistry too.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 09:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 09:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 11:56 am (UTC)This is why you do not teach impressionable young children high level physics. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 09:35 pm (UTC)Snicker snerk laughter. Hail eris and pass the amunition, if i had the email addy of this one i wouldnt fucking hesitate.
It is in the nature of the univers for chaotic systems to become ordered, and ordered systems to devolve into pure chaos. Fundimental laws of nature *snicker snerk* Someone sounds like newton with a mercury fume hangover.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-30 04:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 08:16 am (UTC)This deal? It's more like, 'how'd these people end up in Ohio?' I'd think Tennessee or Kansas or something, first.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 08:51 am (UTC)Of course, none of these forms that are currently alive were actually the transitional forms in between any extant lineages, because that's just not how things work, but they are offshoots from the same point in the tree.
And if you do want the actual direct descendants of the things alive today, well, you're in luck then as well. There are masses of differnt fossil transitional forms known, which have some characteristics of the parents phylum, and some of the daughter phylum. And there are some transititons which are very well studied, with lots of different intermediate species found, and family trees constructed, and so on. The evolution of the horse, for instance, is very well understood.
Two of the transitions most often attacked by creationists are the evolution of birds and of whales. And once again, both of these have a decnet number of transitional forms which have been found, so you can see the gradual change into the specialised froms we know today. What the creationists seem to do is to demand an ever finer gradation of "missing links" based upon that which has already been ofund, and regardless of one's beliefs, that is gross academic dishonesty and propoganda.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 09:20 am (UTC)Or maybe they want to argue with chemistry too.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 09:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 09:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 11:56 am (UTC)This is why you do not teach impressionable young children high level physics. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 09:35 pm (UTC)Snicker snerk laughter. Hail eris and pass the amunition, if i had the email addy of this one i wouldnt fucking hesitate.
It is in the nature of the univers for chaotic systems to become ordered, and ordered systems to devolve into pure chaos. Fundimental laws of nature *snicker snerk* Someone sounds like newton with a mercury fume hangover.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-30 04:55 am (UTC)