Creation Museums.

Saw an article on the BBC website about the Creation Museum in Kenticky, US. Only to find out there is one i can visit here in the UK in Portsmouth. Unbelievable, i shall be popping there sometime soon for a good chuckle. On their website it states, topics covered include -

- A study of genetics shows that all humanity came from one man and one woman.

- Geological sediments are laid down rapidly.

- The present day forms remain unchanged from their fossil counterparts.

If anyone wants a look. http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/links.html

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Saw an article on the BBC website about the Creation Museum in Kenticky, US. Only to find out there is one i can visit here in the UK in Portsmouth. Unbelievable, i shall be popping there sometime soon for a good chuckle. On their website it states, topics covered include -

- A study of genetics shows that all humanity came from one man and one woma ...[text shortened]... their fossil counterparts.

If anyone wants a look. http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/links.html

…- A study of genetics shows that all humanity came from one man and one woman.
…

Lol. It is amazing what nonsense some people still believe in this modern day of reason -haven’t these people heard of inbreeding depression? Wouldn’t their offspring [of the supposed “first” man and woman] have to have repeatedly committed incest to allow the continuation of the human species?

…http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/links.html
..…

“…The Creation Science Movement is the …”

-a self-contradiction in name.

“…founded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement by leading members of the Victoria Institute who were concerned at the scientific, ethical and theological consequences that belief in Evolution brings to society.
…”

Apparently one thing they were not concerned about (made evident by the absence of mention from the above extract) was whether or not the theory is actually true.

And I like the way they call themselves the “Evolution Protest Movement” (it does seem to comically imply to me that they were ‘protesting’ against, what was even in those days, practically a known proven fact); I wonder if there was ever a “Round-Earth Protest Movement”? or a “Newtonian physics Protest Movement”?

-quite amusing.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Saw an article on the BBC website about the Creation Museum in Kenticky, US. Only to find out there is one i can visit here in the UK in Portsmouth. Unbelievable, i shall be popping there sometime soon for a good chuckle. On their website it states, topics covered include -

- A study of genetics shows that all humanity came from one man and one woma ...[text shortened]... their fossil counterparts.

If anyone wants a look. http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/links.html

Hell, dude, try living in a country where most people are so uneducated that they actually believe that crap! This kind of rampant stupidity is what will ensure that the next big rock will end our species on this planet. Morons think that investing in space flight is a waste of money while they don't mind throwing billions down the rat-hole of war because they are literally incapable of looking up. If we only did love our children.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Hell, dude, try living in a country where most people are so uneducated that they actually believe that crap! This kind of rampant stupidity is what will ensure that the next big rock will end our species on this planet. Morons think that investing in space flight is a waste of money while they don't mind throwing billions down the rat-hole of war because they are literally incapable of looking up. If we only did love our children.

Teocracies are never good...

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…- A study of genetics shows that all humanity came from one man and one woman.
…

Lol. It is amazing what nonsense some people still believe in this modern day of reason -haven’t these people heard of inbreeding depression? Wouldn’t their offspring [of the supposed “first” man and woman] have to have repeatedly committed incest to allow ...[text shortened]... a “Round-Earth Protest Movement”? or a “Newtonian physics Protest Movement”?

-quite amusing.[/b]

was the whole idea, not researched and presented, not by a team of creationists, but by a team of scientists, namely Rebecca Cann and Co? my goodness you people have got a lot to answer for😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
was the whole idea, not researched and presented, not by a team of creationists, but by a team of scientists, namely Rebecca Cann and Co? my goodness you people have got a lot to answer for😛

A bunch of scientists showing creationism is not much of scientists, are they?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
A bunch of scientists showing creationism is not much of scientists, are they?

No, Fabian, they were not creationists, let us be quite clear, they were scientists, and at the time 1987? the theory gained wide acceptance, however, from what i understand, there was some doubt cast on its premise, for it was based on the supposition that Mitochondrial DNA, was exclusively inherited from ones mother, which seems not to have been entirely the case. Now if scientists are to research and publish such theories, you cannot blame others for taking the same data and applying it to their own theory can you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No, Fabian, they were not creationists, let us be quite clear, they were scientists, and at the time 1987? the theory gained wide acceptance, however, from what i understand, there was some doubt cast on its premise, for it was based on the supposition that Mitochondrial DNA, was exclusively inherited from ones mother, which seems not to have been e ...[text shortened]... s, you cannot blame others for taking the same data and applying it to their own theory can you?

But the data is now known to be incorrect, and to still put forward this hypothesis as truth when it isn't is what's wrong. The same with Michael Behe, he put forward a theory that has since been shown to be incorrect, let it go, move on. People shouldn't keep spouting it as truth just because it suits their world view.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But the data is now known to be incorrect, and to still put forward this hypothesis as truth when it isn't is what's wrong. The same with Michael Behe, he put forward a theory that has since been shown to be incorrect, let it go, move on. People shouldn't keep spouting it as truth just because it suits their world view.

i ccannot bbbbelieve that iiii am agreeing with noobster, a strange sensation, i will now section myself under section 28 the mental health act, and remain on suicide watch for the rest of the day! and dont try to stop me, even though i know you want to! 🙂

Behe lives, peace be upon him, for there are both arguments and counter arguments and counter arguments to the counter arguments which seek to counter the counter counter arguments!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No, Fabian, they were not creationists, let us be quite clear, they were scientists, and at the time 1987? the theory gained wide acceptance, however, from what i understand, there was some doubt cast on its premise, for it was based on the supposition that Mitochondrial DNA, was exclusively inherited from ones mother, which seems not to have been e ...[text shortened]... s, you cannot blame others for taking the same data and applying it to their own theory can you?

Ah, scientists, were they? Then they didn't believe in such unscientific stuff as creationism? Ah, okay. Evolution stands firm.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Ah, scientists, were they? Then they didn't believe in such unscientific stuff as creationism? Ah, okay. Evolution stands firm.

yes apparently so, but hey, "science" is a very broad trem, and evolution has never stood firm, ever since ol Darwin got freaked out by the fossil record 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes apparently so, but hey, "science" is a very broad trem, and evolution has never stood firm, ever since ol Darwin got freaked out by the fossil record 🙂

Evolution is far more stable science than any creationism ever can be. Only creationists think otherwise.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Evolution is far more stable science than any creationism ever can be. Only creationists think otherwise.

yes and only the Sith deal in absolutes 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes apparently so, but hey, "science" is a very broad trem, and evolution has never stood firm, ever since ol Darwin got freaked out by the fossil record 🙂

This is nonsense.

Originally posted by Diodorus Siculus
This is nonsense.

He doesn't know what science is. He's a fundamentalist...